algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Search Results - 福彩3天齐网首页正版保真『0TBH·COM』福彩三d试机号码开机号码2023年3月19日7时42分22秒.H5c2a3.kcssaaksa.com

Topic: Is it possible to call the functions of a Grasshopper component from inside a (C#/VB.Net/Python) script?: nside a script. However, it should be noted that to do so introduces a significant amount of overhead, which may impact performance. This is because (to the best of my understanding) all the methods described below actually instantiate and execute a virtual Grasshopper document, with components and everything else. Whenever possible, it is advisable to simply call RhinoCommon functions - these are designed to be called in code and are more streamlined. Python Grasshopper's Python is unique among the scripting languages in that it has a "node-in-code" mechanism for this purpose in the form of the ghpythonlib library and its "components" class. Here is some example code: from ghpythonlib import components as ghcomp import Rhino a = ghcomp.Circle(Rhino.Geometry.Plane.WorldXY,25.0) result = ghcomp.DeconstructBrep(b) faces = result[0] edges = result[1] vertices = result[2] This code will call the "Circle" component with the world XY base plane and a radius of 25, and then call the "Deconstruct Brep" component on a brep (input to the script as "b"). The arguments passed to the function will correspond to the inputs of the component, and the function will return the output (the data itself in the case of a component with only one output, and a tuple of data in the case of multiple outputs, as in the second example above). For more info on this technique, see this post by Steve Baer. C#/VB.Net James Ramsden has described a method for doing this in these two posts on his blog: Run a Grasshopper Component from C# Code Read and edit persistent data in Grasshopper components with C# His examples are in C#, but everything he describes can also be done in VB.net with some syntax tweaks. The core of his method is to programmatically instantiate a component, populate its inputs, and then create a virtual grasshopper document in which to execute the code. He then harvests the outputs and converts them back to simple data. Here is his example code for calling the "Circle by Normal and Radius" component: var cs = new CurveComponents.Component_CircleCNR(); //add the circle centre (input 0) var pp = cs.Params.Input[0] as Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_PersistentGeometryParam<Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Point>; pp.PersistentData.ClearData(); pp.PersistentData.Append(new GH_Point(new Point3d(0, 0, 3))); //add the circle radius (input 2) var pn = cs.Params.Input[2] as Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_PersistentParam<Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Number>; pn.PersistentData.ClearData(); pn.PersistentData.Append(new GH_Number(y)); //y is another variable //run calculations cs.ExpireSolution(true); //add to a dummy document so we can read outputs var doc = new Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Document(); doc.AddObject(cs, false); //read output circle cs.Params.Output[0].CollectData(); A = cs.Params.Output[0].VolatileData.get_Branch(0)[0]; //remove that component doc.RemoveObject(cs.Attributes, false); Final notes For a great many of the simple components, there are in fact methods in RhinoCommon that accomplish exactly the same thing. Note the complexity of the above code, and then look at the equivalent code using RhinoCommon methods: Circle circle = new Circle(new Plane(origin, normal), radius); In my experience it is preferable to just call or construct the methods you need using RhinoCommon rather than relying on trying to call components from inside your code. Lastly, It is my understanding that this concept is central to David's thinking around GH2 - so that it in the next version it will be significantly more streamlined to switch between components and code representations. (I have no special knowledge of GH2 development - this is just what I have seen David say on the forums, and as usual any statements about future features are subject to change.) Hope this is helpful! …; Added by Andrew Heumann at 11:25am on December 9, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Pain Points in Grasshopper': e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative. I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW. "What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design." Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it. It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps. Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate. As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with. "[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others." Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand. I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason. But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation. I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically. This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'. Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on. 2. Visual Programming. I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want. I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points. This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH. GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front. Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out. Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use. I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved. Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize. 3. Context sensitivity. "There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them." Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again? I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned. You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place. You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before. 5. Components. "Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings." I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data. I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component. "Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?" It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful. 6. Integration. "Why isn't it just live geometry?" This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry. "Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset." That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course). On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle. You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens. 7. Documentation. Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency. Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2. It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer. patrick@girgen.com I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks. 8. 2D-ness. "I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?" I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins. I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.) I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult. As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy. -- David Rutten Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case. And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written. Cheers Patrick Girgen Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated. …; Added by PGirgen at 3:38am on August 3, 2014

Topic: NEW RELEASE OF LADYBUG AND HONEYBEE!: ion of both Ladybug and Honeybee. Notable among the new components are 51 new Honeybee components for setting up and running energy simulations and 15 new Ladybug components for running detailed comfort analyses. We are also happy to announce the start of comprehensive tutorial series on how to use the components and the first one on getting started with Ladybug can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sj_XGz3kzHUoWmpWDXNep1O A second one on how to use the new Ladybug comfort components can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sho45_D4BV1HKcIz7oVmZ8v Here is a short list highlighting some of the capabilities of this current Honeybee release: 1) Run EnergyPlus and OpenStudio Simulations - A couple of components to export your HBZones into IDF or OSM files and run energy simulations right from the grasshopper window! Also included are several components for adjusting the parameters of the simulations and requesting a wide range of possible outputs. 2) Assign EnergyPlus Constructions - A set of components that allow you to assign constructions from the OpenStudio library to your Honeybee objects. This also includes components for searching through the OpenStudio construction/material library and components to create your own constructions and materials. 3) Assign EnergyPlus Schedules and Loads - A set of components for assigning schedules and Loads from the Openstudio library to your Honeybee zones. This includes the ability to auto-assign these based on your program or to tweak individual values. You can even create your own schedules from a stream of 8760 values with the new “Create CSV Schedule” component. Lastly, there is a component for converting any E+ schedule to 8760 values, which you can then visualize with the standard Ladybug components 4) Assign HVAC Systems - A set of components for assigning some basic ASHRAE HVAC systems that can be run with the Export to OpenStudio component. You can even adjust the parameters of these systems right in Grasshopper. Note: The ASHRAE systems are only available for OpenStudio and can’t be used with Honeybee’s EnergyPlus component. Also, only ideal air, VAV and PTHP systems are currently available but more will be on their way soon! 5) Import And Visualize EnergyPlus Results - A set of components to import numerical EnergyPlus simulation results back into grasshopper such that they can be visualized with any of the standard Ladybug components (ie. the 3D chart or Psychrometric chart). Importers are made for zone-level results as well as surface results and surfaces results can be easily separated based on surface type. This also means that E+ results can be analyzed with the new Ladybug comfort calculator components and used in shade or natural ventilation studies. Lastly, there are a set of components for coloring zone/surface geometry with EnergyPlus results and for coloring the shades around zones with shade desirability. 6) Increased Radiance and Daysim Capabilities - Several updates have also been made to the existing Radiance and Daysim components including parallel Radiance Image-based analysis. 7) Visualize HBObject Attributes - A few components have been added to assist with setting up honeybee objects and ensuing the the correct properties have been assigned. These include components to separate surfaces based on boundary condition and components to label surfaces and zones with virtually any of their EnergyPlus or Radiance attributes. 8) WIP Grizzly Bear gbxml Exporter - Lastly, the release includes an WIP version of the Grizzly Bear gbXML exporter, which will continue to be developed over the next few months. And here’s a list of the new Ladybug capabilities: 1) Comfort Models - Three comfort models that have been translated to python for your use in GH: PMV, Adaptive, and Outdoor (UTCI). Each of these models has a “Comfort Calculator” component for which you can input parameters like temperature and wind speed to get out comfort metrics. These can be used in conjunction with EPW data or EnergyPlus results to calculate comfort for every hour of the year. 2) Ladybug Psychrometric Chart - A new interactive psychrometric chart that was made possible thanks to the releasing of the Berkely Center for the Built Environment Comfort Tool Code (https://github.com/CenterForTheBuiltEnvironment/comfort-tool). The new psychrometric chart allows you to move the comfort polygon around based on PMV comfort metrics, plot EPW or EnergyPlus results on the psych chart, and see how many hours are made comfortable in each case. The component also allows you to plot polygons representing passive building strategies (like internal heat gain or evaporative cooling), which will adjust dynamically with the comfort polygon and are based on the strategies included in Climate Consultant. 3) Solar Adjusted MRT and Outdoor Shade Evaluator - A component has been added to allow you to account for shortwave solar radiation in comfort studies by adjusting Mean Radiant Temperature. This adjusted MRT can then be factored into outdoor comfort studies and used with an new Ladybug Comfort Shade Benefit Evaluator to design outdoor shades and awnings. 4) Wind Speed - Two new components for visualizing wind profile curves and calculating wind speed at particular heights. These allow users to translate EPW wind speed from the meteorological station to the terrain type and height above ground for their site. They will also help inform the CFD simulations that will be coming in later releases. 5) Sky Color Visualizer - A component has been added that allows you to visualize a clear sky for any hour of the year in order to get a sense of the sky qualities and understand light conditions in periods before or after sunset. Ready to Start? Here is what you will need to do: Download Honeybee and Ladybug from the same link here. Make sure that you remove any old version of Ladybug and Honeybee if you have one, as mentioned on the Ladybug group page. You will also need to install RADIANCE, DAYSIM and ENERGYPLUS on your system. We already sent a video about how to get RADIANCE and Daysim installed (link). You can download EnergyPlus 8.1 for Windows from the DOE website (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/?utm_source=EnergyPlus&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=EnergyPlus%2Bredirect%2B1). “EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation program that engineers, architects, and researchers use to model energy and water use in buildings.” “OpenStudio is a cross-platform (Windows, Mac, and Linux) collection of software tools to support whole building energy modeling using EnergyPlus and advanced daylight analysis using Radiance.” Make sure that you install ENERGYPLUS in a folder with no spaces in the file path (e.g. “C:\Program Files” has a space between “Program” and “Files”). A good option for each is C:\EnergyPlusV8-1-0, which is usually the default locations when you run the downloaded installer. New Example Files! We have put together a large number of new updated example files and you should use these to get yourself started. You can download them from the link on the group page. New Developers: Since the last release, we have had several new members join the Ladybug + Honeybee developer team: Chien Si Harriman - Chien Si has contributed a large amount of code and new components in the OpenStudio workflow including components to add ASHRAE HVAC systems into your energy models and adjust their parameters. He is also the author of the Grizzly Bear gbxml exporter and will be continuing work on this in the following months. Trygve Wastvedt - Trygve has contributed a core set of functions that were used to make the new Ladybug Colored Sky Visualizer and have also helped sync the Ladybug Sunpath to give sun positions for the current year of 2014 Abraham Yezioro - Abraham has contributed an awesome new bioclimatic chart for comfort analyses, which, despite its presence in the WIP tab, is nearly complete! Djordje Spasic - Djordje has contributed a number of core functions that were used to make the new Ladybug Wind Speed Calculator and Wind Profile Visualizer components and will be assisting with workflows to process CFD results in the future. He also has some more outdoor comfort metrics in the works. Andrew Heumann - Andrew contributed an endlessly useful list item selector, which can adjust based on the input list, and has multiple applications throughout Ladybug and Honeybee. One of the best is for selecting zone-level programs after selecting an overall building program. Alex Jacobson - Alex also assisted with the coding of the wind speed components. And, as always, a special thanks goes to all of our awesome users who tested the new components through their several iterations. Special thanks goes to Daniel, Michal, Francisco, and Agus for their continuous support. Thanks again for all the support, great suggestions and comments. We really cannot thank you enough. Enjoy!, Ladybug + Honeybee Development Team PS: If you want to be updated about the news about Ladybug and Honeybee like Ladybug’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/LadyBugforGrasshopper) or follow ladybug’s twitter account (@ladybug_tool). …; Added by Chris Mackey to Ladybug Tools at 11:49pm on September 14, 2014

Comment on: Topic 'anyone can help me to create Dimension in grasshopper?': me of the dimensions that changed ( become Diagonal after they were Vertical or Horizontal) I sometime use Record History in rhino for saving time, but when I change some points of curves or trim curves , I have problems with dimensions (see the two pictures below). Problem 2 : After trimming , only two dimensions should be changed depending on their place in changed curves . But what happens is that all the dimensions become crazy!!!!!! I always use Aligned dimension in rhino. Now I know that dimensionsdo not exist in grasshopper. So I ask you if we have expertise in BV , C#, can we create a script for dimensions or is it impossible ?? If we can , I only need Aligned dimension. I hope that I find or create a script that can define all points: start and end of curve ribs and create dimensions from grasshopper to rhino directly with or without the ability to change automatically . Thank you …; Added by anas at 2:42pm on January 8, 2011

Comment on: Topic 'MESH TRIM / MESH SPLIT': mesh by an infinite plane Namespace: Rhino.GeometryAssembly: RhinoCommon (in RhinoCommon.dll) Version: 5.0.15006.0 (5.0.20693.0) Syntax C# public Mesh[] Split( Plane plane ) Visual Basic Public Function Split ( _ plane As Plane _ ) As Mesh() Parameters plane Type: Rhino.Geometry..::..Plane[Missing <param name="plane"/> documentation for "M:Rhino.Geometry.Mesh.Split(Rhino.Geometry.Plane)"] Return Value [Missing <returns> documentation for "M:Rhino.Geometry.Mesh.Split(Rhino.Geometry.Plane)"] See Also Mesh Class Rhino.Geometry Namespace Last updated 3 June 2011 - Robert McNeel and Associates Send comments on this topic to steve@mcneel.com Report wishes and bugs: https://github.com/mcneel/rhinocommon/issues Is this the function? I have a VB component with this: a = rhino.Geometry.Mesh.CreateBooleanSplit(x, y) but this is a boolean split, so I have only one mesh, with the intersection. I would like to have several splitted meshes. Thank you in advance again. …; Added by jose salinas at 2:19am on June 24, 2011

Comment on: Topic 'contour possible bug': y anyway ;)) Since 2014 i begun to get back into the construction biz for some dozen main reasons, one of them being the highly increased availability of this kind of software "power", and robotics. first project ended by 1stQ 2015 was focused on the development of a parametric block for construction. (almost sure the first parametric product designed in Uruguay, and probably one of the few first of this kind globally...) Far from being a complicated model. In fact the standard model is extremely simple, key thing is that is fully parametric... dimensions, materials, textures, colors... and so on second key thing is that the main common component of the blocks (an EPS core) is robotically machined... the blocks are the base of a construction system (oriented mainly - though not restricted only - to residential buildings) that - is based on digital models, tendentially to be used in parametric models of buidings - lab tested to prove to be 1.5 times as compression resistant than traditional bricks and blocks. (autoportability up to two stories buildings) - has recently proved (due to size) to be 300% more efficient than the classic and 200% more efficient than steel frame in (our country official figures) check it out here -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TRxxgF_sEnQnZrTkZGbUx3cmM/view -- - and it's aimed to be mass produced and handled by robots... this project ended on 1H 2016 and i filed 4 patents in the process. 3 of them of mechanical devices designed as extensions for a cnc machine i own and the fourth ( the patent related specifically with the blocks ) included a dozen of innovations (believe me...i have almost 15 yrs in the biz, and are coool stuff...) along the project I've been working with inventor, even knowing in advance it will lack the kind of features I wanted to program many things... (lisp, VB, etc.... all same species of -prehistoric - animals) to leverage the tool to the sky - and far beyond... - but was an alternative valid by that time because it allows the implementation of some form of parametric models, had a local representative and some supposedly skilled guys in the neibourhood.... but life is hard... and none of the latter two rendered me any significant help so I had to take the tour myself... - mind i never regret to do things that others cant - and finish what i start this one was a great project for many figures... and ended with more results than the ones commited to accomplish... ... some more history here .... then because of a customer who brought a ZHA project ! to quote..., I crossed with rhino, and then met GH again to notice to my great joy and pleasure, in what kind of animal it had developed... since money talks I'm investing hard on getting up to the expectations, and beyond as i usually do... and thats how we met.. 2017-2018 it's the time frame to build two robots. first one is a prototype to handle the k-nano blocks in the production process, delivery AND at the construction site ( a "smart crane" we nicknamed...) the other one is the first prototype of robot to assist in the fabrication (smart blocker we called it to be creative ! ;)) then by 2018-2019 i'll be making a "kinda contour crafter" machine to complete the pie :) (you'll be interested on this..) i guess you already know what all this has to do with GH... i already have all the components i can imagine to do almost all i ever wanted to do in relation to this set of projects but in almost a single tool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i can design, animate, render, optimize, simulate and even robotic simulate.. so, i have to ask... is there a chance you might be interested in helping us in some projects we are starting on march and june 2017 (8 and no more than 18 months of duration respectively) ? sent you a friend request, for the case you might be interested to continue by e-mail... in any case many thanks for your help and inspiration ! best regards ! long happy marriage, and large figures bank account ! …; Added by franco ferreiro at 1:05pm on February 22, 2017

Topic: Gismo 0.0.2 Release Notes: , Engineer and Researcher from France with broad programming experience. He is the author of the City in 3D Rhinoceros plugin for creation of buildings according to geojson file and with real elevation. Guillaume already created a new component: "Address to Location". It enables getting latitude and longitude values for the given address: 2) Support of Bathymetry data: automatic creation of underwater (sea/river/lake floor) terrain. This feature is now available through new source_ input of the "Terrain generator" component. Here is an example of terrain of the Loihi underwater volcano, of the coast of Hawaii: 3) A new terrain source has been added: ALOS World 3D 30m. ALOS is a Japanese global terrain data. Gismo "Terrain Generator" component has been using SRTM 30m terrain data, which hasn't been global and was limited to -56 to +60 latitude range. With this addition, it is possible to switch between SRTM and ALOS World 3D 30m models with the use of source_ input. 4) 9 new components have been added: "Address To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given address. "XY To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given Rhino XY coordinates. "Location To XY" - vice versa from the previous component: finds Rhino XY coordinates for the given latitude longitude coordinates. "Z To Elevation" - finds elevation for particular Rhino point. "Rhino text to number" - convert numeric text from Rhino to grasshopper number. "Rhino unit to meters" - convert Rhino units to meters. "Deconstruct location" - deconstructs .epw location. "New Component Example" - this component explains how to make a new Gismo component, in case you are interested to make one. We welcome new developers, even if you contribute a single component to Gismo! "Support Gismo" - gives some suggestions on how to make Gismo better, how to improve it and support it. 5) Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component now supports all units, not only Meters. So any Gismo example file which uses this component, can now use Rhino units other than Meters as well. Thank you Antonello Di Nunzio for making this happen!! Basically just forget about this yellow panel: This panel is not valid anymore, so just use any unit you want. 6) A number of bugs have been fixed, reported in topics for the last couple of weeks. We would like to thank members in the community who invested their time in testing, finding these bugs and reporting them: Rafat Ahmed, Peter Zatko, Mathieu Venot, Abraham Yezioro, Rafael Alonso. Thank you guys!!! Apologies if we forgot to mention someone. The version 0.0.2 can be downloaded from here: https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/zipball/master And example files from here: https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/tree/master/examples Any new suggestions, testing and bug reports are welcome!!…; Added by djordje to Gismo at 5:13pm on March 1, 2017

Topic: SnappyHexMesh crashed when meshing 9 buildings: ,with OpenfoamV1612+ in Windows 10 64bit.The blockmesh worked good.And the snappyhexmesh crashed in the process.My computer memory is not enough? Or some settings wrong?Could you help me solve this question?/---------------------------------------------------------------------------| ========= | || \ / F ield | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox || \ / O peration | Version: v1612+ || \ / A nd | Web: www.OpenFOAM.com || \/ M anipulation | |*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/Build : v1612+Exec : snappyHexMeshDate : Aug 27 2017Time : 09:39:54Host : "default"PID : 13443Case : /home/ofuser/workingDir/butterfly/outdoor_airflownProcs : 1sigFpe : Enabling floating point exception trapping (FOAM_SIGFPE).fileModificationChecking : Monitoring run-time modified files using timeStampMaster (fileModificationSkew 10)allowSystemOperations : Allowing user-supplied system call operations // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //Create time Create mesh for time = 0 Read mesh in = 2.14 s Overall mesh bounding box : (-241.5472 -241.4418 0) (496.4376 536.2438 144.8633)Relative tolerance : 1e-06Absolute matching distance : 0.001081851 Reading refinement surfaces.Read refinement surfaces in = 0.01 s Reading refinement shells.Refinement level 3 for all cells inside around_buildings_area.stlRead refinement shells in = 0 s Setting refinement level of surface to be consistent with shells.For geometry outdoor_airflow.stl detected 0 uncached triangles out of 120Checked shell refinement in = 0 s Reading features.Read features in = 0 s Determining initial surface intersections Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1684728Number of edges to retest : 1684728Number of intersected edges : 5583Calculated surface intersections in = 1.68 s Initial mesh : cells:554112 faces:1684728 points:576779Cells per refinement level:0 554112 Adding patches for surface regions Patch Type Region outdoor_airflow: 6 wall buildings Added patches in = 0.03 s Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1684728Number of edges to retest : 0Number of intersected edges : 5583Selecting decompositionMethod none Refinement phase Found point (127.4452 147.401 72.43167) in cell 402042 on processor 0 Surface refinement iteration 0 Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 8820 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 3.87 sSelected for refinement : 8820 cells (out of 554112)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1883850Number of edges to retest : 250376Number of intersected edges : 21198Refined mesh in = 1.77 sAfter refinement surface refinement iteration 0 : cells:615852 faces:1883850 points:652499Cells per refinement level:0 5452921 70560 Surface refinement iteration 1 Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 38502 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 0.04 sSelected for refinement : 40392 cells (out of 615852)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 2787132Number of edges to retest : 1118049Number of intersected edges : 85655Refined mesh in = 3.17 sAfter refinement surface refinement iteration 1 : cells:898596 faces:2787132 points:990317Cells per refinement level:0 5432351 486812 306680 Surface refinement iteration 2 Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 159213 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 0.1 sSelected for refinement : 168471 cells (out of 898596)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 6576117Number of edges to retest : 4737635Rhino Model and GH files is in t'he zip file.Please help me solve this question!~~…; Added by Minggang Yin to Ladybug Tools at 7:29pm on August 29, 2017

Topic: TetRhino - a wrapper for Tetgen: rtitions." (http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1) To continue with my wrapping career, TetRhino (or Tetrino) is a .NET wrapper for the well-known and pretty amazing TetGen mesh tetrahedralization program. It provides one new GH component for discretizing or remeshing objects using TetGen. Basic tetrahedralization functionality is exposed with a few different output types that can be controlled. At the moment, the only control for tetrahedra sizes is the minimum ratio, which is controlled by a slider. This is hardcoded to always be above 1.0-1.1, as it is very easy to generate a LOT of data (and crash)... The libs are divided again into different modules to allow flexibility and fun with or without Rhino and GH, so have fun. All 4 libs should be placed in a folder (maybe called 'tetgen') in your GH libraries folder. Remember to unblock. Once again, the libs are provided as-is, with no guarantee of support for now, as I use them internally and do not intend to develop this into a shiny, polished plug-in. If there is enough interest, I can tidy up the code-base and upload it somewhere if someone more savvy than me wants to play. TetgenGH.gha - Grasshopper assembly which adds the 'Tetrahedralize' component to Mesh -> Triangulation. TetgenRC.dll - RhinoCommon interface to the Tetgen wrapper. TetgenSharp.dll - dotNET wrapper for Tetgen. TetgenWrapper.dll - Actual wrapper for Tetgen. Obviously, credit where credit is due for this excellent and tiny piece of software: "The development of TetGen is executed at the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics in the research group of Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computing." See http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1 for more details about TetGen. To wrap up, some notes about the inputs: These are the possible integer Flags (F) values and resultant outputs for the GH component: 0 - Output M yields a closed boundary mesh. Useful for simply remeshing your input mesh. 1 - Output M yields a list of tetra meshes. 2 - Output I yields a DataTree of tetra indices, grouped in lists of 4. Output P yields a list of points to which the tetra indices correspond. 3 - Output I yields a DataTree of edge indices, grouped in lists of 2. Output P yields a list of points to which the edge indices correspond. Useful for lots of things, very easy to create lines from this to plug into K2 or something for some ropey FEA (or not so ropey!) ;) As this component can potentially create a LOT of data, especially with dense meshes, care should be taken with the MinRatio (R) input. This will try to constrain the tetra to be more or less elongated, which also means that the lower this value gets, the more tetra need to be added to satisfy this constraint. Start with very high values and lower them until satisfactory. Hopefully shouldn't be an issue, but it's possible that you need the 2015 Microsoft C++ Redistributable. Happy tetrahedralizing... UPDATE: The tetgen.zip has been updated with some fixes. UPDATE2: This is now available on Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/tetrino …; Added by Tom Svilans at 1:27am on October 24, 2017