automatic filling process of additional information to 3D geometry (for interoperability purposes).
Searching information I found this discussion:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/surfacetrim-workflow?id=2985220:Topic:4592&page=1#comments
...where Vicente Soler suggests a simple method which calls a command from Rhino into GH. I discovered, talking with Vicente that now the language to use is RhinoCommons but I didn't still reached a solution, being a dummie for scripting.
Does anybody can help me with this problem?
Here's the code that I'm trying to implement (it is written in RhinoScript actually):
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByVal z As Object, ByVal idObject As Object, ByRef A As Object) Dim sIfcType, strObject Dim strIfcColumn, strIfcBeam sIfcType = Rhino.GetUserText(idObject, "TypeObjetIFC") If ((sIfcType = "IfcBeam") Or (sIfcType = "IfcColumn")) Then 'MsgBox "median = " & y & ", min = " & x& ", max =" & z Rhino.SetUserText(idObject, "Longueur", z) Rhino.SetUserText(idObject, "Largeur", x) Rhino.SetUserText(idObject, "Hauteur", y) End If End Sub
I just would like to add extra-information to a selected list of 3D geometries by managing the UserText data.
Thanking you in advance for your attention I'll wait for an your answer about this theme.
Sincerely,
Matteo…
automatic filling process of additional information to 3D geometry (for interoperability purposes).
Searching information I found this discussion:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/surfacetrim-workflow?id=2985220:Topic:4592&page=1#comments
...where Vicente Soler suggests a simple method which calls a command from Rhino into GH. I discovered, talking with Vicente that now the language to use is RhinoCommons but I didn't still reached a solution, being a dummie for scripting.
Does anybody can help me with this problem?
Here's the code that I'm trying to implement (it is written in RhinoScript actually):
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByVal z As Object, ByVal idObject As Object, ByRef A As Object) Dim sIfcType, strObject Dim strIfcColumn, strIfcBeam sIfcType = Rhino.GetUserText(idObject, "TypeObjetIFC") If ((sIfcType = "IfcBeam") Or (sIfcType = "IfcColumn")) Then 'MsgBox "median = " & y & ", min = " & x& ", max =" & z Rhino.SetUserText(idObject, "Longueur", z) Rhino.SetUserText(idObject, "Largeur", x) Rhino.SetUserText(idObject, "Hauteur", y) End If End Sub
I just would like to add extra-information to a selected list of 3D geometries by managing the UserText data.
Thanking you in advance for your attention I'll wait for an your answer about this theme.
Sincerely,
Matteo
…
inventive collaborative environment.
The workshop is part of a series of PARAMETRICA events, promoting computational design thinking and exploring the new possibilities of parametric design.
The workshop is aimed at: students, postgraduates, architects, interior, product and urban designers, engineers, anybody interested.
> Workshop CONCEPT (16th – 28th July 2013):
The advancement of digital technology is helping architects to understand and respond to the complexity of the environment surrounding us.
In this 14 day workshop the various energies which exist in a given environment will be identified, analysed and then digital simulated.
Experimental structures capable of reconfiguring themselves in response to the mapped forces will be generated and fabricated.
> Conference CONCEPT (29th July 2013):
During this day we will present the final workshop projects and our special guest, Patrik Schumacher will exploit the subject of computational design thinking and parametric architecture, by putting the accent on the subject “Parametric Semiology – Architecture as the interface of communication”
> OBJECTIVES:
The workshop objectives are two-fold, in the first phase the workshop focuses on the identification and analysis of resources inherent to the environmental context, thus developing a better understanding of their nature as well as optimized methods of use or response.
In the next phase, the objective is to generate structures which through either means of fabrication or material properties can respond to, or utilize the environmental energy sources.
> The project TEAM:
Key lecturer: PATRIK SCHUMACHER (DE)
Profile: Director, Zaha Hadid Architects, London
Dr Phil, Dip Ing, ARB, RIBA
Founder AA Design Reseach Lab London
Lecturer: Ina Leonte (RO)
Profile: PhDc, teaching assistant (UAIM, Bucharest, Romania)
Co-founder, Zest
Workshop main tutors:
HOOMAN TALEBI [IR]
Profile: MArch (AADRL, London), MSc (AUT, Tehran)
Lead Designer, Zaha Hadid – London
FARSHAD MEHDI’ZADEH [IR]
Profile: March (IaaC-UPC, Barcelona, Spain)
Co-founder, Tehran Architecture Studio (Iran)
Workshop assistant:
MOHSEN MARIZAD [IR]
Profile: MAA 2010 - Architect (IaaC-UPC, Barcelona, Spain)
Parametric design expert
Workshop coordinator: Diana Nitreanu (RO)
Profile: MAA 2010 - Architect/Urban Designer (IaaC-UPC, Barcelona, Spain)
Official Rhino Trainer
Co-founder, Laboratorul de Arhitectura; Co-founder & Tutor, Parametrica
> EQUIPMENT Workshop: Each participant must provide their own laptop with the following software installed: A. Rhinoceros 3D 5.0 B. Grasshopper 3D (Latest Version) C. Arduino
Machines to work on: 1. Laser Cutter - small laser for prototyping 2. Big laser cutter for final production
Materials (provided by Parametrica) - To be specified according to the subject of study for each group;
FOR MORE INFO®ISTRATION:
www.dynamicfields.ro
www.parametrica.ro
office@parametrica.ro
…
ng Grasshopper (Rhino. Plugin) by the end of the workshopStudent performance objectivesSchedule :Deadline for Registration : July 14,2016After Submitting your registration form, you will be contacted for confirmation.Workshop Starts : July 17, 2016The workshop consists of 10 lectures, Each lecture lasts for 3 hours.3 lectures per week (Sun,Tue &Thu) Fees : 900 L.EYou have to fill this registration form below if you want to attend the workshop. We only have few places available. Prerequisite:-Basic knowledge of any 3d modeling software “Sketchup, 3dsmax, Rhino, Maya, ...,etc.” is required to attend the workshop.- Student must bring their own laptops.Students output during previous workshops :https://www.facebook.com/GIZMOSTUDIO.AS/photos/?tab=album&album_id=548388031851299instructor: Hassan ragab https://www.behance.net/hassanragab…
rection: there's no visible demand. Explanation: a lot of AEC oriented people (Smart Geo daydreamers) they think - potentially - about GH but they are rejecting it for more than obvious reasons: our job is 1% about the smart thing and 99% about the structured aspect of the smart (or stupid thing).
Back to that "hangar" : The primary role of this GH definition provided herein (and hopefully some future updates) is NOT to outline some academic solution (via some abstract collection of pipes/lines/points/surfaces) ...but to place in 3d space - properly structured - all the real-life (hmm, he he) bits that can compose the actual project. Of course if the bits could be parametrically driven assemblies ...well...you get the gist of the message.
All in all: I think that Engineers who are GH skeptics could see GH with a totally new perspective if, say, a collection of similar examples/test cases could be available for demo/evaluation/whatever > Ah! at last : this appears to be a real thing > what software did it? > say it again - Grass Components you said? > what sort of name is this? ... etc etc etc.
But since a similar development is quite expensive (and requires a team of several gurus), maybe this is rather a future potential task for the GH/Rhino people if they think that the AEC market segment could be beneficial for their products. Combine a similar capability with tools like yours and/or Evolute (planar quads are "a-la-mode" these days).
PS: forget trivial stuff > what about Stefanie? (plan B : better something than nothing)…
s.
Yes, I see the issue now. Good catch!I am a bit reluctant to add a new input, as I would have to add it to the "OSM Shapes" component too. Both "OSM Search" and "OSM Shapes" components have more inputs than outputs, so I was kind of more keen to add another output (titleOriginPt), then input. This output can then be used to move the title with Grasshopper "Orient" component.
It's useful to say that: If a terrain has been added to the groundTerrain_ input of the "OSM Search" component, then the title would go below the terrain, which makes it more readable I guess.Let's see how this issue goes, maybe in the end more people will ask for adding a titleOriginPt_ input as well.
For the same thing (not sure about this) maybe a legend with colors for the filtered building types, assuming you can search for more than one at the same time.
This is a very good suggestion! At the moment it is not possible to search for more than one OSM object. I understand the importance of having such feature, but this would require from me to rewrite the "OSM Search" component. Maybe it can be a little less time consuming if a new additional component will be created. So one would have to copy an "OSM Search" component for each type of the OSM object he/she wants to search for, and then outputs from all those "OSM Search" components will drain into the upper mentioned new component which will make a colored legend for each OSM object. Just a suggestion.However there is one issue with all this OSM objects search, that I haven't mentioned: OpenStreetMap data can store amenities of the same type on different shapeType_. For example, in find_hotels.gh we are using shapeType_ = 0 (2d polygons), we make 3d shapes from them, and then we search among those 3d shapes.However, if one sets the shapeType_ to 2 (points) one will also find hotels among the points.It may take a more knowledgeable OpenStreetMap user to explain this, but in general: if a hotel occupies all floors of the building, then it would be found the way we did it in find_hotels.gh (shapeType_ = 0). But if a hotel does not occupy all floors, or a user who mapped the hotel was not certain whether it did occupy the whole building or not, then a hotel would be mapped as a single point. I assume this will be the point of hotel's entrance, but I may be wrong on this.I attached an example file below which shows this.So if there's going to be a new component created: which will map hotels, restaurants, bars... or other buildings types with a legend of some sort, then this aspect needs to be taken into consideration. It can probably be fixed with some sort of point inclusion (in a polygon). Let's see.It's definitively another very valuable suggestion!!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 5:26pm on March 2, 2017
ts in extreme aliasing effects that carry into the 3D realm as regular steps along what should be smooth surfaces.
On sleeping on it, I realized I hadn't yet tried fast Unary Force on fine quad meshes from the standard Grasshopper meshing system that includes the meshing options component.
Bingo! It's fast now. Workable. I don't need super fine meshing since I'm not running from aliasing. I can still use rather fine local meshes since Unary Force lets Kangaroo do a simple thing just in the Z direction rather than a full 3D force.
After only a minute or so of Kangaroo initialization that slows the interface, each of a dozen needed cycles takes half a second, FOR THE ENTIRE GRAPHIC.
I just set the timer to 1 second so I can move around the interface, and I double click the Windows taskbar timer shut-off to enjoy the result.
WHILE RUNNING VIA TIMER, IF I CHANGE A SPRING/FORCE SETTING IT SUFFERS NO DELAY AT ALL AND JUST ALTERS THE OUTPUT OVER TIME. I can change Unary Force from 20 to 100 and immediately see the bigger areas balloon like crazy:
It's fast enough overall to play with, yet the individual steps are slow enough that it's fun to watch the hysteresis as it overshoots back from 100 to 20 Unary Force, going concave in the middle of bulges then back to more shallow hills.
A force of 1000 is a bit disturbing, I wonder if I can tamp it down with greater spring strength or will that just give me the same result as before?
Looks like it's the same, just the ratio matters. Makes sense I guess. At one point it blew up though. Hitting the reset button...a minute later it blows up again...and just doesn't like huge numbers, so I don't see an advantage playing with bombs. The high mesh strength is pulling the mesh apart.
With low Unary Force and moderate mesh tension, you get flat tops, as if the overall force on the mesh fighting its anchored edge vertices, is enough to displace it, but the surface itself is too stiff to care about local gravity.
Then you have less flat areas as you increase Unary Force:
Weird, there *is* some sort of absolute effects, rather than just relative, between Unary Force and spring stiffness, since now I'm getting flat tops even in the extreme:
Oh, wait, strike that, I may be seeing but a single step with the timer off, subject to hysteresis. With the timer back on...it can sit there a minute...not locked up but just idling...until you see the Display > Widgets > Profiler time start cycling to near half minute numbers...makes you want to hit the reset button...and indeed that locks the interface for another initialization...and yes, it was merely hysteresis, not an equilibrium result. My former flat tops may have been due to that too, due to my use of the Windows taskbar timer disabler. The lesson is that you can obtain different results by using a long timer setting and just stopping it before it equilibrates.
This script is a keeper, fast and fun after the relatively mild Kangaroo initialization period is over.
The uniform mostly quad meshing is all done in Grasshopper too, from any flat surface with holes, especially from images of shapes that are traced with potrace to give surfaces with holes.
Could I switch to hex meshes from triangular meshes to do the same thing with fewer vertices?
Are there other forces I can add to smooth the bulging? Letting things bulge is not so bad if you then just scale down the result in Z afterwards (though perhaps the same result could be had with lesser force):
Also, can this same thing be done with possibly faster Kangaroo 2?…
Added by Nik Willmore at 10:02pm on February 21, 2016
sent a 3D shape without any ambiguity. If the shape you're trying to convey falls outside the scope of existing standards, then it can't be done, but this is a problem of standards, not an intrinsic shortcoming of pencils.
[...] with the computer theoretically acting as a decision maker.
The computer makes no decisions on it's own. It's a fully deterministic machine, meaning that any output is the result of applying a set of rules to some pre-existing data. Humans make the rules. At no point can you blame the computer for coming up with a bad answer, it's always some human who is responsible.
[...] it seems to often be split between Computerization, and Computation.
I'm willing to concede there exist cases that are unambiguously one or the other, but there's a gradient in between these two extremes, they are not separate categories. If I draw a box by specifying the 8 corner points as XYZ coordinates then computation can be said not to be involved. If I draw a box by specifying 2 opposite corners then the computer has to compute the other 6 coordinates and we're already on our way towards the other extreme. If I draw a box by specifying a width, height and a required volume, more computation is needed. If I specify a box by a width, a volume and the requirement is doesn't cast too much shadow on some other shape, more computation is needed. At what point do we say "now it qualifies as computation/solving"?
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
Added by David Rutten at 7:22am on November 28, 2013