arametric Design, in the history of architecture, has defined many rules for current designers and for future practitioners to follow. One of the strongest aspects that are prominent from this style is ‘geometry’. Arguably, there is nothing new about geometry and aesthetics forming the most prominent aspect of any style or era. The language of any style, in the long history of architecture, is visually defined by geometry or shape, beyond the principles that define the core of the style. In the distinguishable style of parametric architecture, geometry has played and is continuing to play an integral role. And with this fairly young style, there are many strings of myths and false notions associated.
The workshop aims to provide a detailed insight to ‘parametric design’ and embedded logics behind it through a series of design explorations using Rhinoceros & Grasshopper platforms, along with understanding of data-driven fabrication strategies. An insight to Computational Design and its subsets of Parametric Design, Algorithmic Design, Generative Design and Evolutionary Design will be provided through presentations, technical sessions & studio work, with highlighting agenda of using data into Hands-on fabrication of a parametrically generated design. A strong focus will be made on ‘geometry’ and ‘matter’.
// Methodology
Workshop has been structured to teach participants the use of Grasshopper® (Generative modelling plug-in for Rhinoceros) as a generative tool, and ways to integrate it with Hands-on Fabrication process. A strong agenda on ‘geometry’ and ‘matter’ will form the focus of the studio with design experimentation through computational & parametric techniques, culminating into a manually fabricated wall panel using understanding of data-driven design during the course of workshop.
Day 1 Topics / Agenda
Rhinoceros 3D GUI and basic use
Installing Grasshopper & plug-ins
Grasshopper GUI
Basic logic, components, parameters, inputs, numbers, simple geometry, referenced geometry, locally defined geometry, baking, etc.
Lists & Data Tree: management, manipulation, visualization, etc.
Design Experimentations with Geometry & Data
Understanding Data for Manual Fabrication
Day 2 Topics / Agenda
Design Experimentations with Geometry, Form, Matter
Data for effective numbering and strategizing during Manual Fabrication
Collaborative effort for Hands-on ‘making’ process
Analysis & Evaluation of Fabricated Geometry
Documentation…
could represent at least three immaterial substances: his subconscious, the negative mass surrounding the sculpture and a parallel world where material is forbidden.
Has Architects' engagement with virtual space meant a vanishing sensitivity towards material and other immaterial realms?
The AA Rome Visiting School 10 day workshop encourages the observation of material elements and their use in the design of architecture featuring subconscious experiences, spatial voids and virtual communities. Students will investigate modern materials and their digital fabrication by direct experience. They will work with algorithms and sensors able to recognise and respond to human feelings and attitudes. Students will feed novel expressions of void spaces into the Roman tradition featuring examples like the ancient catacombs and the Nolli map. Through augmented reality design the projects will open a window into an digital virtual world.
By the end of the workshop students will unveil their interpretation of the material/immaterial form hidden in the real matter.
Applications
1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer.
2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is not required.
All participants travelling from abroad are responsible for securing any visa required, and are advised to contact their home embassy early. After payment of fees, the AA School can provide a letter confirming participation in the workshop.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee.
Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised. Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools. Please ensure this equipment is covered by your own insurance as the AA takes no responsibility for items lost or stolen at the workshop.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, phd candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: basic knowledge of Rhinoceros or other 3D modeling software.
Venue of workshop: Galleria “Come Se”, via dei Bruzi 4, 00185 Roma, Italy
…
n complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. The programme brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
Taking place at the unique atmosphere of AA’s London home, the three-week long programme is formulated as a two-stage process. During the initial stage, participants are introduced to core concepts related to material processes, computational methods, and various digital fabrication techniques. During the second stage, the fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques unifies the design goals of the programme.
Prominent Features of the programme:
• Teaching team: Participants engage in an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
• Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms.
• Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Processing, Grasshopper, and various analysis tools.
• Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
• Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
• Robotic Fabrication: According to the specific agenda of each year, scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools, followed by the fabrication of one-to-one scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots.
• Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1900 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details.
The deadline for applications is 17 July 2017. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=460
For inquiries, please contact:
elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)
alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)…
lysis, and large-scale prototyping techniques. The research generated at Summer DLAB has been published in international media and peer-reviewed conference papers.
AA Summer DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by robotic fabrication techniques.
Prominent Features of the programme:
Teaching team: Summer DLAB tutors are selected from recent graduates / current tutors at the AA and the small student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, and 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms.
Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Grasshopper and various computational analysis tools.
Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
Robotic Fabrication: Scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools each year, followed by the fabrication of 1:1 scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots.
Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1950 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details.
The deadline for applications is 16 July 2018. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=537
For inquiries, please contact:
elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)…
lysis, and large-scale prototyping techniques. The research generated at Summer DLAB has been published in international media and peer-reviewed conference papers.
AA Summer DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by robotic fabrication techniques.
Prominent Features of the programme:
Teaching team: Summer DLAB tutors are selected from recent graduates / current tutors at the AA and the small student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, and 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms.
Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Grasshopper and various computational analysis tools.
Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
Robotic Fabrication: Scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools each year, followed by the fabrication of 1:1 scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots.
Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1950 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details.
The deadline for applications is 08 July 2019. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=603
For inquiries, please contact:
elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)
…
Added by elif erdine at 10:16am on February 19, 2019
quired)
// Agenda
Parametric Design, in the history of architecture, has defined many rules for current designers and for future practitioners to follow. One of the strongest aspects that are prominent from this style is ‘geometry’. Arguably, there is nothing new about geometry and aesthetics forming the most prominent aspect of any style or era. The language of any style, in the long history of architecture, is visually defined by geometry or shape, beyond the principles that define the core of the style. In the distinguishable style of parametric architecture, geometry has played and is continuing to play an integral role. And with this fairly young style, there are many strings of myths and false notions associated.
The workshop aims to provide a detailed insight to ‘parametric design’ and embedded logics behind it through a series of design explorations using Rhinoceros & Grasshopper platforms, along with understanding of data-driven fabrication strategies. An insight to Computational Design and its subsets of Parametric Design, Algorithmic Design, Generative Design and Evolutionary Design will be provided through presentations, technical sessions & studio work, with highlighting agenda of using data into Hands-on fabrication of a parametrically generated design. A strong focus will be made on ‘geometry’ and ‘matter’.
Day 1 Topics / Agenda
Rhinoceros 3D GUI and basic use
Installing Grasshopper & plug-ins
Grasshopper GUI
Basic logic, components, parameters, inputs, numbers, simple geometry, referenced geometry, locally defined geometry, baking, etc.
Lists & Data Tree: management, manipulation, visualization, etc.
Design Experimentations with Geometry & Data
Understanding Data for Manual Fabrication
Day 2 Topics / Agenda
Design Experimentations with Geometry, Form, Matter
Data for effective numbering and strategizing during Manual Fabrication
Collaborative effort for Hands-on ‘making’ process
Analysis & Evaluation of Fabricated Geometry
Documentation
// Tutor(s): Sushant Verma (Architect / Computational Designer / Educator)
…
r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like 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."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."[...] 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.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'.
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.
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 this time around 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.
Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity.
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
david@mcneel.com…
ve Intermediate Insight of Computational Design Strategies While Exploring Rangoli Art form in 2 Dimension and 3Dimesion in which Participants will not only be trained to Digitally Design using Parametric software's but they will also be trained to Fabricate them in reality.
This Course will be explored in manner where Participants will understand inter-dependency of Rhinoceros3D & Grasshoper3D through a unique Hybrid Teaching Method While Exploring Rangoli Geometry .
The course will also take participants through Topics such as - Computational Thinking, - Computational / Parametric Design, - Computational Rangoli Exploration, - Digital Fabrication, - 3D Visualization ( Rhino3D 6), - Making Info-graphics & Design Diagrams ( Rhino3d 6 ).
Participants will also be doing a Project at the last Leg of Workshop in which they will implement the skill they gained in first Few Weeks.
{ Tutor } Nitant Pixelkar (Computational Artist / Designer, Mumbai)
Nitant Hirlekar A.k.a. Pixelkar, is a Computational Artist. He graduated from Rachana Sansad school of Interior Design 2011, Mumbai. In Academics He Bagged Two Gold and One Silver Medal on National Level.
In his post academic days, he came across the Emerging Computational Techniques in Design industry in which Algorithm serves as a main Functional part. He uses Algorithms to Deconstruct the Captured images in Pixelated form using the Grid of the Desired Indian Art Forms.
He Heads Collective Group Named "Mutation Lab” which is a multidisciplinary Design & Art Cell. Where they Explore Computational Approach while Designing Various Scales Spatial Installation, Digital Fabrication, Interactive Installations and Computational Consultancy for Various Architects.
He has exhibited his first artwork in Kalaghoda Arts Festival for in 2014 And further in 2016 and 2017.In 2015 he exhibited in Dharavi Biennale” organized by Wellcome Trust,London & Sneha Organisation, Mumbai Which was internationally acclaimed. In 2016 he got Featured on a TV show - The Creative Indian's as an Absolut Creative Indian of the Week.
Academically he is been involved in Many Computational Design Workshops / Elective Studios for School of Interior Design (Rachna Sansad), LS Raheja College of Architecture & Rat-Lab (Delhi).
{ Participants } The Course is aimed at Architecture, Interior Design, Product Design,Furniture Design & Fashion Design Students and Professionals. However we would be thrilled to have any Interdisciplinary Artist / Creator/ Maker to join the Course as well.
{ Level }
Intermediate
{ Timing } Monday To Friday - 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM (15 Hours/ Week = 5 Week X 15 Hours = 75 Hours )
{ Dates } Registration Ends - 24th April 2020 **Subejct to Availablity
{ Workshop Dates } 4th May 2020 To 5th June 2020
{ Venue } Lower Parel,Mumbai ( Details To Be Announced )
{ Schedule }
{Registration Form}…
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.
…