nd and downloading definitions to learn from them, but still don't get it right.
So my problem is:
1.- I want to achieve a kagome, hexagonal gridshell that keeps the bamboo pieces like straight geodesic lines.
2.- I also would like to keep the curved bamboo as splines, so I imagine this will give the easiest method for bending the bamboo at the real scale. As Mårten Nettelbladt in his blog http://thegeometryofbending.blogspot.jp/ mentions, the best way will be to keep the geometry where all the pieces have a spline curvature ( or as B.K.P. Horn calls it “The curve of last energy”) In order to achieve splines do I need to make the grid a Dynamic relaxation “Kangaroo”? will this help?
3.- I would also like to simulate the bending of the elements from a 2D to a 3D, but maybe this can be a next step on the definition…
Some of the common problems that I notice in the definitions found is that when people do weaving, the lines don't bend flat to the geometry but rather they twist so when you look close the cross of pieces intersect, which is impossible in real life…
As you can see there are a number od issues here, I apologize to put them all together, maybe it makes this confusing but I think is better to look at the whole picture. I have been reading a lot but I have no idea how to start.
The more I read the more interesting the subject becomes but the more confused I become. Is there some kind soul that could give me a hand? Any help will be really appreciated.
Thanks a lot!
Miguel…
o fix before it becomes very usable, but I'm posting the file here in case anyone wants to try it out.
It is a few simple scripts which record point locations from a first Kangaroo simulation whenever the capture button is pressed, and then when you playback the animation it interpolates between this captured sequence of points, pulling a second Kangaroo simulation to these targets. You can control the playback with a slider or automatically with a timer.
This should work with other Kangaroo2 setups, but here demonstrated with a human figure modelled as a collection of rigid bodies. At the knees and elbows the rigid bodies share 2 points to give a hinge joint, while for shoulders, neck, hips, ankles, wrists and torso they share only single points, giving a basic ball joint.
This is also the first time I've posted this model, and I'm also including the setup without the animation script. I know there are numerous issues with this poseable figure - dragging joints sometimes moves parts of the model you don't want to, and joints have unrealistic ranges of motion. I made a start at trying to limit some of these - such as ClampLength goals to stop the torso bending too much, but more could be done. There is also an issue with the rigid bodies (which track orientations with a frame of 3 points) that if you grab the frame itself, the simulation can break. I'm currently rethinking this whole approach.
I should also say that although I have heavily modified this human model to make it work for this setup, I did start from a mesh downloaded from some free 3d model collection site, but unfortunately I do not know the name of the original artist. If someone recognises it I would like to add appropriate credits.…
(http://www.food4rhino.com/app/quelea-agent-based-design-grasshopper) take like 40 seconds when the toggle activates to go from one end of the ramp to another.
With proximity 3d i'm analyzing each instance the agents are closer than x units. In picture 3 we can see that in 212 instances the agent are closer than those x units.
Finally all the genes that controll the ramps are connected to the G of octopus component and one of the conflicting objectives connected to the O of octopus component is the number of instance quelea agents get close.
So the thing I need is to iterate the ramps controling the genes with octopus but activating the boolean toggle (quelea run) each time the ramps are modified so the agents take 40 seconds to perambulate the environment, analyze the instance they get close and let octopus iterate again searching for a optimized environment.
…
giornata inaugurale sarà dedicata alla free-lecture introduttiva finalizzata alla realizzazione di un modello d'architettura complesso attraverso l'utilizzo di comandi e tecniche avanzate di rappresentazione con Grasshopper (plug-in parametrica di Rhinoceros) e 3dsMax. Sarà illustrato inoltre il potenziale di V-ray per 3dsMax realizzando un rendering concettuale. Durante il mini-corso dell' openDAY verranno mostrate le caratteristiche e le potenzialità degli strumenti per far luce sui nuovi valori assunti dalla modellazione 3D. La modellazione 3D sta interessando un pubblico sempre più vasto inserendosi in una nuova fase di ampia disponibilità per conoscenze, software, hardware di prototipazione e modelli. Pur mantenendo tutti i suoi valori già noti la questione si è talmente ampliata fino ad interessare norme giuridiche (diritti sui modelli ,concorrenza con offerte di servizi apparentemente simili, informazioni deformate e onfusione nei media) Makers University[http://www.makersuniversity.com], in collaborazione con parametricart, vi propone un punto di vista ampio e sintetico su queste tematiche.
Al termine della free-lecture, sarà illustrata l'offerta formativa [CLICCA QUI] di parametricart riferita ai corsi che si terranno nei mesi di Gennaio e Febbraio 2013 inseriti all'interno della più ampia programmazione della Makers University. SONO PREVISTE TARIFFE PROMOZIONALI PER COLORO CHE SI ISCRIVERANNO AI CORSI durante l'OpenDAY.
La lezione e la presentazione si terranno nel nuovo spazio co-working il PEDONE.
PROGRAMMAZIONE
- I temi della Makers University [Leo Sorge];
- Modellazione della parametricTower (concept di architettura complessa) utilizzando Grasshopper, applicativo per la modellazione parametrica [VIDEO] [Michele Calvano];
- Modellazione di una copertura reticolare 3D a completamento della parametricTower con 3dsMax utilizzando tecniche di modellazione mesh complesse [Wissam Wahbeh];
- Rendering con V-ray per 3dsMax illustrando la nuova interfaccia nodale [Wissam Wahbeh].
- Question Time per chiarimenti sugli argomenti illustrati.
COME
L'openDAY sarà aperto a tutti gli interessati,completamente gratuito e sarà replicato in tre sessioni di uguali contenuti organizzate nei seguenti orari:
Sessione [1] 11,30 - 13,30
Sessione [2] 15,30 - 17,30
Sessione [3] 17,30 - 19,30
Per necessità di organizzazione è importante la prenotazione all'evento utilizzando il form in fondo alla pagina specificando nella stringa apposita, il nome dell'evento e la sessione (es. open day sessione 1) oltre agli altri dati richiesti.…
e chosen to dive into Grasshopper. I’m about 6 months in. If some of my comments are completely off, please take that to mean that a feature is too inaccessible to a newish user rather that it’s just missing, as I may have stated.
One of my primary pain points is this. Things that can be done in other programs are invariably easier in other programs. This is a big enough issue that I doubt there’s an easy solution that an armchair qb like myself can offer up.
The interface:
I’ve used a lot of 3D programs. I’ve never encountered one as difficult as grasshopper. 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. Yet PTC (Parametric Technology Corp.) has been doing parametric design software since 1985 and has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others.
In the early 2000's, when parametric design software was all the rage, McNeel stated quite strongly the Rhino would remain a direct modeler and would not become a parametric modeler. Trends come. Trends go. And the industry has been swinging back to direct modeling. So McNeel’s decision was probably ok. But I have to wonder if part of McNeel’s reluctance to incorporate some of the tried and proven ideas of other parametric packages doesn't have roots in their earlier declaration to not incorporate parametrics.
A Visual Programming Language:
I read a lot about the awesomeness and flexibility of Grasshopper being a visual programming language. Let’s be clear, this is DOS era speak. I believe GH should continue to have the ability to be extended and massaged with code, as most design programs do. But as long as this is front and center, GH will remain out of reach to the average designer.
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.
Sliders:
I hate sliders. I understand them, but I hate ‘em. I think they should be optional. Ya, I know I can r-click on the N of a component and set the integer. It’s a pain, and it gives no feedback. The “N” should turn into the number if set. AAAnd, sliders should be context sensitive. I like that the name of a slider changes when I plug it into something. But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly. I shouldn't be able to plug in a “50” and have everything after turn red.
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.
And this item I’m guessing on. I’m not yet good enough at GH to know if this may have adverse effects. Reverse, Flatten, Graft, etc.; could these be context sensitive? Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?
Tighter integration with Rhino:
I'm not entirely certain what this would look like. Currently my work flow entails baking, making a few Rhino edits, and reinserting into GH. I question the whole baking thing, btw. Why isn't it just live geometry? That’s how other parametric apps work. Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset. I have to bake, offsetserf, and reinsert the geometry. I’m currently looking at the “Geometry Cache” and “Geometry Pipeline” components to see if they help. But I haven't been able to figure it out. Which leads me to:
Update all of the documentation:
I'm guessing this is an in process thing and you're working toward rolling GH from 0.9.00075 to 1.0. GH was being updated nearly weekly earlier this year. Then it suddenly stopped. If we're talking weeks before a full release, so be it. But if we're looking at something longer, a documentation update would help a lot. Geometry Cache and Geometry Pipeline’s help still read “This is the autogenerated help topic for this object. Developers: override the HtmlHelp_Source() function in the base class to provide custom help.” This does not help. And the Grasshopper Primer 2nd Ed. was written for GH 0.60007.
Grasshopper is fundamentally a 2D program:
I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen? Pretty much every 3D program in existence has this. I’m sure I can probably figure out how to deconstruct the breps, join the curves, loft, trim, and so forth. But does writing an algorithm to do what all other 3D programs do with a dialog box seem reasonable? I'm sure if you go command by command you'll find a ton on such things.
If you look at the vast majority of things done in GH, you'll note that they're mostly either flat or a fundamentally 2D pattern on a warped surface.
I've been working on a part that is a 3D voronoi trimmed to a 3D model. I've been trying to turn the trimmed voronoi into legitimate geometry for over a month without success.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/question-voronoi-3d-continued
I’ve researched it enough to have found many others have had the exact same problem and have not solved it. It’s really not that conceptually difficult. But GH lacks the tools.
Make screen organization easier:
I have a touch of OCD, and I like my GH layout to flow neatly. Allow input/output nodes to be re-ordered. This will allow a reduction in crossed wires. Make the wire positions a bit more editable. I sometimes use a geometry component as a wire anchor to clean things up. Being able to grab a wire and pull it out of the way would be kinda nice.
I think GH has some awesome abilities. I also think accessing those abilities could be significantly easier.
~p…
eroberfläche des Grasshopper Programms
Funktionsprinzip eines grafischen Algorithmus-Editors (Datenfluss)
Unterscheidung von Parametern (Datentypen) und Komponenten (Datenverarbeitung)
Erzeugung, Bearbeitung und Analyse von Geometrie-Typen: Punkte, Vektoren, Linien, Kurven, Flächen (surfaces, brep) und Netze (meshes)
Strukturierung der Daten anhand von Listen und Bäumen
unterschiedliche Verknüpfungsmöglichkeiten von Parametern (data matching)
praxisnahe Grundlagen der Geometrie und Vektorrechnung für generatives Design
effizienter Aufbau von parametrischen Modellen anhand Übungsaufgaben
Auszug von Daten aus Modellen für die Fertigung; Daten aus Tabellen (Excel, CSV) importieren, exportieren
Einsatz von benutzerdefinierten Komponenten (custom components)
Vorkenntnisse: Rhinoceros3d Benutzeroberfläche der Software: Englisch Unterrichtssprache: Deutsch
Details und Anmeldung:
www.vhs-sha.de
click: SUCHE
Kurstitel: GRASSHOPPER
(auch: Kurstitel: RHINO)
Trainer: Peter Mehrtens
Kursdauer: 3 Tage / 8 Stunden pro Tag
Donnerstag, 19.07.2012, 08:00-17:00 Uhr Freitag, 20.07.2012, 08:00-17:00 Uhr Samstag, 21.07.2012, 08:00-17:00 Uhr Ort: Volkshochschule Schwäbisch Hall, im Haus der Bildung
Teilnahmegebühr: 299,00 € Teilnehmerzahl: 5-10 Personen
…
essarily architectural. As you can guess from the tone of my previous response, I finished with school and had a hard time finding a job that focused on the technologies I delt with all through undergrad and grad. During grad school I was working with ASGvis (the makers of V-Ray) so I got exposed to the software side of things both on the support/management side and the development side. Now I'm off on my own doing development projects like RhinoHair, a few others, and some custom plugins for clients. Not necessarily what I thought I'd be doing after grad school, but I'm certainly enjoying it more than the "standard" practice of architecture.
I definitely understand "creating" a program. I did both my undergrad and grad at Catholic U here in DC, and although there was some ground work laid in regards to fabrication, I was one of only two or three students spearheading a lot of the scripting/GH/parametric stuff and some of the topics that go along with them (algorithmic design, adaptive systems, advanced geometry). One thing that was incredibly helpful for me was to pair up with the most advanced and forward thinking professor(s) that you can and take their studios, electives, and/or help out with their research. I was lucky enough to pair with a professor who had been at MIT and really encouraged me to explore my interests and sharpen my technicial skills.
It might also be a good idea to stick your head in some other departments, probably the math and engineering ones, or even biology and economics if there are some forward thinking professors. Talk to some people and get a different perspective on things. When I went to the ACADIA conference in 2008 it really opened my eyes to some of the potential influence from those different arenas.
Fabrication wise, I'd really try to focus more on milling (3 axis is fairly standard, 5 axis if you can get access) than 3d printing. Printing is a lot of fun, but ultimately we're not printing buildings (yet), so some of the milling processes will be much more valuble. If your school doesn't have those kind of facilities on campus (either in the Arch dept or engineering or something), then contact a local fabricator and see if you can work together somehow or someway. You'd be surprised and how many fabricators are interested in talking to architects.…
Added by Damien Alomar at 3:13pm on February 8, 2010
, and it was only devised for triangular faces:
I could track all my edge labels (via the neighboring cell discussion) but from that info (the pesky tree) I needed unique face pairs to output a single crease angle.
Now (with your scripted component) I have the crease angles. All the 3D text is temporary for trouble shooting. This is 3 faces from a dodecaheadron:
So now I have the remaining hurdle as to whether the proper crease angle is the GH angle or the GH reflex angle.
The funny thing with the "pesky tree" is the meaning of the pattern doesn't become apparent until it's more complicated than the simpler excerpt from above.
I think I could make the scripted component a little cleaner if I use some nested loops instead of your search and remove method, but that may take me a while.
But it all the fun comes from this guy:
…