ow..
It's basically using a 3d framework to define points on the framework and then interpolate curves through them.
Right now Im assuming that I merely translated something incorrectly early in the script that lead to most of the definition issues later on...?? It also seems I am not using the append function correctly... :(
If anybody well versed could take a look it would be awesome... :)
The code I've used is below and the erros I get are attached here:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal ptSetA As List(Of Point3d), ByVal ptSetB As List(Of Point3d), ByVal divU As Integer, ByVal divV As Integer, ByRef A As Object, ByRef B As Object) Dim n As Integer = 0 Dim ptListA As New List(Of list(Of Point3d)) Dim ptListB As New List(Of list(Of Point3d)) For i As Integer = 0 To divU Dim ptRowA As New List(Of Point3d) Dim ptRowB As New list(Of point3d) For j As Integer = 0 To divV Dim ptA As New Point3d(ptSetA(n)) Dim ptB As New point3d(ptSetB(n)) ptRowA.Add(ptA) ptRowB.Add(ptB) n = n + 1 Next ptListA.Add(ptRowA) ptListB.Add(ptRowB) Next Dim intcvListA As New List(Of NurbsCurve) For i As Integer = 0 To divU - 1 Step 2 For j As Integer = 0 To divV - 1 Step 1 Dim pt01A As New point3d((ptListA(i)(j) + ptListA(i)(j + 1)) / 2) Dim pt01A As New point3d((ptListA(i + 1)(j) + ptListB(i + 1)(j)) / 2) Dim pt01A As New point3d((ptListA(i + 2)(j) + ptListA(i + 2)(j + 1)) / 2) Dim pt01A As New point3d((ptListA(i + 1)(j) + ptListA(i + 1)(j + 1)) / 2) Dim dis01A As Double = pt01A.DistanceTo(pt04A) Dim dis02A As Double = pt03A.DistanceTo(pt04A) Dim vt01A As New Vector3d((pt04A - pt01A) / dis01A) Dim vt02A As New Vector3d((pt03A - pt04A) / dis02A) Dim pt01B As New point3d((ptListB(i)(j) + ptListB(i)(j + 1)) / 2) Dim pt01B As New point3d((ptListA(i + 1)(j) + ptListB(i + 1)(j)) / 2) Dim pt01B As New point3d((ptListB(i + 2)(j) + ptListB(i + 2)(j + 1)) / 2) Dim pt01B As New point3d((ptListB(i + 1)(j) + ptListB(i + 1)(j + 1)) / 2) Dim dis01B As Double = pt01B.DistanceTo(pt04B) Dim dis02B As Double = pt03B.DistanceTo(pt04B) Dim vt01B As New Vector3d((pt04B - pt01B) / dis01B) Dim vt02B As New Vector3d((pt03B - pt04B) / dis02B) Dim ptArrA As New List(Of Point3d) ptArrA.Append(pt01A) ptArrA.Append(pt02A) ptArrA.Append(pt03A) Dim intcvA As New NurbsCurve() intcvA = CreateInterpolatedCurve(ptArrA, 3) intcvListA.Add(intcvA) Dim ptArrB As New List(Of Point3d) ptArrB.Append(pt01B) ptArrB.Append(pt02B) ptArrB.Append(pt03B) Dim intcvB As New NurbsCurve() intcvB = CreateInterpolatedCurve(ptArrB, 3) intcvListB.Add(intcvB) Next Next A = intcvListA…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
hope this number will grow in future. Currently available features are:
1) Creation of 2d or 3d context for any kind of building related analysis: automatically generate the 2d/3d surrounding buildings for the location where you would like to perform visibility, solar radiation, cfd or any other type of analysis. You need some other plugin for the last three, like Ladybug. It only creates the context=surroundings! The "automatic generation" process also includes creation of the local topography (terrain) along with buildings.
2) Identification of certain 2d or 3d elements in the created context. For example: selection of all hotels, parks, hospitals, restaurants, residential buildings etc.
3) Performing direct terrain analysis (hillshading, slope, ruggedness, roughness, water flow...)
4) Creation of terrain shading masks and horizon files for further solar and photovoltaics analysis.
Gismo will be very grateful if he could get any suggestions, improvements, bug reports and testing in the following period. In case you are willing to provide any of these, the requirements, installation steps and .gh example files can be found here, here and here.
Thank you in advance !!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 9:10am on January 29, 2017
de modelación en 3D y aprovechen las ventajas que plantean, como mejorar su proceso de diseño y explorar múltiples alternativas para un proyecto en lapsos de tiempo muy reducidos en comparación de los métodos tradicionales.
En consecuencia, los alumnos tendrán la posibilidad de disminuir sus tiempos de trabajo, con resultados iguales o incluso mejores a los que obtenían con anterioridad; mejorar la calidad de sus presentaciones y, lo que es más importante, ampliar la fundamentación de sus proyectos en el aspecto funcional y formal, dependiendo de las características del proyecto.
Para lograr estos objetivos, se contemplan dos temarios y un ejercicio práctico.
Al finalizar el curso, los asistentes serán capaces de manejar Rhinoceros y Grasshopper en un nivel medio, con el objetivo que el alumno pueda continuar aprendiendo con alguno de nuestros siguientes workshops o de manera autodidacta.
Además del contenido teórico se incluye un ejercicio práctico, la magnitud del ejercicio y el material que se le destine se definirán con base en el número de asistentes.
El workshop tiene una duración de cinco sesiones:
Sesión 1 – Temario de Rhinoceros
Sesión 2 y 3 – Temario de Grasshopper
Sesión 4 y 5 – Ejercicio práctico
El horario es de 9 am a 4 pm, con una hora de receso para tomar un refrigerio.
No es necesario traer el equipo necesario para trabajar, se cuenta con un equipo para cada persona asi como el material de trabajo para el ejercicio práctico, por lo cual se les recomienda que no traigan portátiles u otro material, únicamente dispositivos de almacenamiento si desean guardar sus trabajos.
El costo del evento es de $3,500 estudiantes y $4,000 profesionales.
(Para poder tener el descuento de estudiante es necesaria una constancia de la universidad de la que proviene, acreditando que el interesado está cursando algún semestre de la carrera. Personas graduadas que estén cursando una maestría o algún grado superior no reciben el descuento).
Para apartar su lugar pueden realizar un depósito de $1,500 y terminar de efectuar el pago antes del 15 de abril si es mediante un depósito bancario o el primer día del evento en efectivo.
El evento se realizará en las oficinas de Vegasot, ubicadas en Circuito Cirujanos No. 23-A
Cd. Satélite, Naucalpan, Edo. de México 53100
http://www.vegasoft.com.mx
Para cualquier duda por favor escriban un correo a luzytextura@gmail.com, por teléfono al 044 55 4381 3302, o en facebook.com/archbernardorivera…
Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper.
.
I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali.
.
Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni.
. Argomenti trattati:
- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler
- Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC
.
Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale.
.
Ulteriori info e programma completo su: www.arturotedeschi.com e su www.edizionilepenseur.it…
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.
…
h tubes are redundant so surfaces overlap instead of interpenetrate, so it is not a good system.
Cocoon is the best answer these days unless you can get Exowire/Exoskelton to work. If you want more control over shape, feed your uncapped tubes into Cocoon as meta-surfaces and delete any and all of the inner meshes to just keep the outer single closed one, but this is just duplicate-culled lines used as meta-lines:
Turn down the CS input to 0.005 for this result, from 0.02 used for faster preview. In fact bake the lines and only test Cocoon on a few of them in order to get the result you want before doing the whole thing.
Whole thing at 0.005 cell size takes 5 minutes for Cocoon and 2 minutes for refinement to a smooth and even mesh.
Actually, seems like 0.005 is way too fine, giving a 600MB STL file.
So, 0.01 cell size at less than a minute total:
159MB STL which is still a bit too big for places like Shapeways. Wow. OK then 0.02 cell size, but I have to increase diameter or my two smoothing steps in refine collapse things too much, an in fact I set it to no smoothing, getting more volume and a reasonable 46MB STL file:
Alas, now it's more frail and overly organic rather than mechanical. Increasing diameter just merges it into perforated plates too much. File size is simply an issue with this complexity level, so different 3D printing services will have different file size limits.
Exowire/Exoskeleton would work but your original mesh hasn't been MeshMachine remeshed to be regular, so short segments ruin it. Here is just a corner:
I think that's why more wires fails, at least. Pretty temperamental component.
Switching to MeshMachine is needed, I guess, instead of Cocoon refine, to remesh away so many small triangles along the boring tubes. Crucial for good remeshing was to set Flip to 0 or I failed to get a rough enough mesh.
It's an adaptive mesh so I can retain good detail while roughing out the tubes.
MeshMachine is terribly slow for this whole thing, like 6 minutes, and blows up for this overly rough setting, 20 steps, so less rough, ugh, I'm out of time. I think free Autocad Meshmixer is the way to make a better smaller mesh, after a refined output from Cocoon. MeshMachine is just too slow to tweak and when it blows up, creating massive triangles jutting out, it hangs too when you change settings.
Starting with a Cocoon refined mesh certainly helped Meshmixer. Using triangle budget lets me have full control. Here is 150K triangles instead of 200K:
STL file size down to 40MB. I think Shapeways is 70 or 100MB limit? So it can be even finer. Here is the Cocoon output versus the Meshmixer reduction:
To use Meshmixer, turn on View > Show Wireframe, Command-S to select all and use Edit > Reduce from the palette that appears.
Cocoon can end up making a few inner meshes where things get weird in your uneven original mesh with small holes so fish out the main mesh by adding a List Item node.
The best strategy for Cocoon is indeed to make an overly fine STL so you avoid any need to tweak forever in Grasshopper, but then you can achieve a smaller mesh file size while preserving shape instead of things turning all smearly organic in Grasshopper.…
e técnicas avanzadas de modelación 3d y su fabricación digital (corte láser e impresión 3d). Se utilizara Rhinoceros y Grasshopper, no es necesario tener conocimiento previo de los programas, únicamente manipular algún programa CAD.
Fechas:
Miercoles 13: 18:30 a 22:30Jueves 14: 18:30 a 22:30Viernes 15: 18:30 a 22:30Sábado 16: 11:00 a 14:30 y de 15:30 a 21:00Domingo 15: 11:00 a 14:30 y de 15:30 a 21:00
Fecha límite de Pago: lunes 11 de Junio del 2012Estudiantes: $160.000Profesionales: $220.00
Descuento para integrantes de Makerspace del 40% (5 cupos únicamente)
Importante:
Todos los niveles de experiencia son bienvenidos el único requisito es tener un entendimiento básico de los programas CAD y una actitud positiva hacia el aprendizaje de dichas herramientas. Necesitas llevar una laptop, nosotros te instalamos los programas de prueba.
Si planeas venir de fuera de la ciudad avísanos y te pondremos en contacto con otras personas que también vayan a hacerlo para en caso de desearlo puedan compartir su lugar de estancia.
Al participar en el workshop obtienes el 50 % de descuento en la licencia educacional Rhinoceros por medio de Rhino Chile.
Proceso de Inscripción:
El participante deberá pagar la matrícula haciendo un depósito bancario a la cuenta que aparece a continuación.
Banco: Estado
Nombre: Luis de la Parra Galván
No. Cuenta: 00169946655
Para obtener los datos restantes para hacer una transferencia o depósito mandar un mail a info@chidostudio.com
El depósito mínimo para reservar la matrícula es del 50% el resto deberá ser cubierto el día del evento.
Una vez que el depósito se haya llevado a cabo el participante deberá enviar a este correo info@chidostudio.com los siguientes datos:
Nombre completo
Email
Teléfono
Institución educativa u Oficina
Archivo adjunto del recibo del depósito bancario
En cuanto recibamos la información immediatamente nos pondremos en contacto para especificar los pasos a seguir.
Contacto Santiago [Sede]
Luis de la Parra
Cel: 714-660-33
info@chidostudio.com
http://www.facebook.com/Chidostudio
Todos los mails se responden en un máximo de 24 horas.
Muchas gracias por tu interés saludos…
I live on my computer and I even sleep with it, so learning all this is probably within my reach but I'm a complete beginner as of now.
I'm downloading the 32 bit version of rhino 5 since the 64 bit doesn't seem to work with your downloads Jon.
I haven't grasped everything you have made yet Jon I can't even begin to understand what your IFC stuff is actually capable of, but just to be clear I'm not interested in solely being able to tell that something is colliding as there are already software that can do that beautifully. What I want to do is bypass that step altogether by never having collision-checking back and forth go on, even collisions which aren't physical collisions, but rather just violations by code. The simplest way to do this would be to simply make the geometry of the beams 2 feet wider than they are in real life, so that way you could put a light right next to the 'over-sized' beam and it would still be within the rules. But that would be extremely primitive and I'm sure there's a way to do it mathematically.
Just to clarify, I'm the fire sprinkler designer in the architectural circus. The sprinkler designer (me) doesn't really get the luxury of telling the other trades that they're colliding with my stuff and they should move. Rather, I get their drawings, find out I'm colliding with them, and move around them. So it would be of great use to me to have this be automatic - that is, to automatically space my sprinklers the neccesary distance away from all obstructions. There are different spacing rules for different obstructions - walls, beams, open web steel, unit heaters, hvac ducts depending on how wide the ducts are, lights, fans, high rack storage, basically anything that would obstruct the water spray from a sprinkler needs to be taken into account and spaced away from.
It's therefore a very attractive idea to be able to just draw a rectangle (representing the walls of a simple room) for instance, have the sprinklers automatically spaced as far apart as possible within the rectangle according to the rulebooks (to minimize the amount of sprinklers needed which minimizes the material cost of the job).
Then add obstructions inside the rectangle, such as a beam, and have the sprinklers relocate themselves or add new sprinklers to accommodate for the new obstruction.. Keep adding obstructions until you have the realistic 3d model of the room, with the sprinklers spaced accordingly, and you have an up-to-code sprinkler system.
There is one example where sprinklers actually need to be spaced really close to, rather than away from, an object.. and that is the ceiling (sprinklers must be within 12 in of ceiling typically).
If the HVAC guy decides to reroute his ducts right through my sprinklers, then I could draw 3D HVAC ducts (I usually get 2D drawings coming in) going right through the room and the sprinklers would relocate and auto-space away from the ducts, without actually having to tell the HVAC guy he is colliding with me because all that will do is require me to do a redesign anyway.
And presto, the HVAC guy loves me because I didn't complain to him at all and seemingly did all this work by moving around him when all I really did was use the computer to do it, the job gets done much faster and I don't have to worry that I'm going to lose my job in court because I made a silly human error when I was patching my system manually because some HVAC guy made me redesign 12 times in different places.
From what I have been reading from you guys, doing this is possible although (I realize) ambitious. The end result would be vastly increased productivity, less error making, cheaper design cost, etc. Using programs like Rhino, architects are getting more and more funny-shaped buildings and making it difficult for guys like me to make sprinkler systems within the rules, and I see it as an inevitability that computers will be making almost all of the typical design decisions in the future when it comes to life safety systems, I'm just trying to see if it's possible to start implementing this extra aid today.
…
ally to describe a process of repeating objects in a self-similar way. Simply stated, the definition of a recursive function includes the function itself. Fractals are among the canonical examples of recursion in mathematics and programming. A loop can simply be a way to apply the same operation to a list of elements, but it is an iterative loop if the results from one step are used in the calculation of the next step. In design research controlling recursion becomes a new strategy to define new forms and spaces.
BRIEF
In this workshop we will be exploring iterative strategies through parametric design. Main tool for the course will be grasshopper3d and its add-on Anemone. Anemone is a simple but effective plug-in for Grasshopper that enables for loops in a simple and linear way. We will explore several strategies such iterative growth, L systems, fractals, recursive subdivisions and more. Our course will focus on how those methods can affect three-dimensional geometries, generating unexpected conformations.
TOPICS
intro to rhinointro to grasshopperadvanced grasshopperdata managementintro to loopscellular automatal-systemsagent based modelling
SCHEDULE
Day 1 / friday 16:00Tour Green Fab LabBasics of 3D modeling in RhinocerosBasics of GrasshopperOpen Lecture by Jan Pernecky, founder of rese arch
Day 2 / saturday 10 am- 18 pmRecursive iterative methodsAdvanced Topics of looping
Day 3 / sunday 10 am – 18 pmRecursive iterative methodsFinal presentation session
REQUIREMENTS
The workshop is open to all participants, no previous knowledge of Rhinoceros and Grasshopper is required (although an introductory knowledge is welcome). Participants should bring their own laptop with a pre-installed software. The software package needed has no additional cost for the participant (Rhino can be downloaded as evaluation version, Grasshopper and plugins are free). These softwares are subject to frequent updates, so a download link to the version used in the workshop will be sent to the participants a few days before the workshop.…
Added by Aldo Sollazzo at 11:10am on October 6, 2015