hes or surfaces on this: it's the nature/topology of your design that dictates that approach):
This C# only (as usual) collection of scripts works in 2 phases:
Phase A: Gets points in 3d space (NOT internalized in order to alter them manually) and creates a mesh. Depending of your search distance (actually: radius) the mesh is variable. If you bypass phase A (feed the 2nd C# with some other mesh of yours) then the mesh is triangulated automatically.
Phase B: Gets the mesh and creates your "tri-breps" in a DataTree where first dimension branches are indexed as the mesh faces (Note: "tri-breps" are not joined to a closed brep for speed).
PS: An auxiliary 3rd C# gives you an indication about the size of mesh edges in order to enter proper offset (where offset means offset of the tri-mesh edges) values.
PS: If you overdone with values > faces are excluded (and the equivalent tri-breps are NOT created):
PS: if you enter possible/doable offsets > all faces play ball:
best, Peter (Load Rhino file first)
…
hem and mine with some axis more in 3d space):
To tell you the truth you need a lot of other "constrains" for your nodes since they are shaped (I can easily guess the "method" used) by "fusion" and not connected via some ball type (MEANING: that the clearance between adapters should comply to a second constrain AFTER clash matters are addressed: this is one line of code more into that C#).
So ... I'll thy to translate the C# into components (but is 100 times easier to work with code than with these ... er ... mysterious/cryptic GH components, he he).
more soon…
ponents at all (C# , that is). Obviously this is a no-no > the wrong thing to do > back to the drawing board.
In the mean time get these 2 that are related with the issue (but how? I have no idea, he he).
The flatten (get the flying laundry back in a "stationary" state, he he) is challenging because ... if you change some mysterious things it turns ultra paranoid.
The other (intro to 3d grids) has a broad "repertoire" depending on your choices (and it doesn't comply with your grid inputs all the times - blame AI, he he):
…
of stuff. Then it works either with ExoW (black mesh) or IntraLattice (blue mesh).
That said ExoW is tricky: occasionally reports engulfing issues and stops playing the game. For instance in this (diagonal) anchor mode and with some U/V random values:
Whilst IntraLattice appears rather less temperamental:
The other def is more complex and works using the Proximity approach that makes more sense with regard random 3d line graphs (as an exercise: Add a gate and use IntraLattice as Plan B).
best
…
ng the "kaleidocycle" as a facade component, and i need to be able to move it through its entire "rotation" in 3d space to understand where and how it is moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owFczeqqMQ
this is what it is doing, in general. there are 2 sets of 3 hinges, rotated 180 degrees, making up a hexagonal form.
here is a rhino model of the form. i used the trigonometric properties of the isoceles triangle to make this model very accurate (63.333, 53.333, 63.333 angles), and now i need to describe the movement.
It is TOUGH. i think i have it and it just throws me for a loop (no pun intended).
I have a ghx model set up to where it can go through part of the cycle, but the inbetween states are incorrect, and therefore it's not valid, but it shows how something like this could work. The trick is it rotates on multiple axes at different times, and its just very very tricky to figure out what it is rotating around and when.
If anyone has any ideas, or insight, please please let me know. I am working on this in my masters' studies, and I'm pretty screwed if i can't figure this out in grasshopper!
Also, please find attached a research article concerning this form. I haven't been able to apply the geometric findings of theirs, yet. But it shows it can be described mathematically.
THANK YOU!!!!
benjamin
…
ke triangle faces like they are in the 2D case of mostly hexagons/pentagons being the dual of a triangular mesh. What you are seeing is in fact fragments of the original non-flat mesh surface.
Perhaps I could isolate the mostly hexagons themselves and create alternative cells with patches for faces to handle non-flat faces. See, if you look very close at the literature figures, they simply leave out the lines in their actual surface faces that themselves have multiple mesh faces, whereas I'm outputting NURBS so end up with polysurface faces when I make a formal clipped Voronoi.
In the 2D case, flattening the cell edges is equivalent to flattening the 3D faces, but that's rarely what people want to do in the 2D case so they just chop the boundary up into curved little cell edges:
It was going to be difficult to clip the 3D case at all without grabbing a small hexagonal/pentagonal piece of the original mesh but once I have done that, I can then possibly replace it with a single surface often non-flat patch, as an option instead. If I tried to make them all flat it would require altering the geometry at least in places, likely most places. See the figure on the right. The faces are not flat!
The question is whether the Rhino Patch command will reliably close the cell with a mere patch on there instead of a faceted polysurface.
I'll look into this. One option is to include the center point in the patch forming command, to not flatten the face so much.
Doing Patch in Rhino, manually, I'm *not* getting a closable solid easily:
Any ideas? I can increase the spans of the patch I guess, without a huge memory hit since it's just surface pieces. Even with 10 spans and stiffness only 1 it still won't close though. Ah, it's because it has sharp facets from the clipping itself and a patch will simply not form a sharp kink in the face of a single surface so will never close?! 30 spans is already getting up there and it won't close either:
Not even if I include a mesh version of the polysurface face in my Patch command will it close the solid, even with low stiffness, since it simply will not make a proper kink in the the edge. It can't really, since a patch is a single surface and it would require huge numbers of UV control points to get within closing tolerance.
I'm kind of stumped. I've included a file if you want to show me how to patch that surface.
Loft to a point from the border curve to the vertex just gives back a more complicated polysurface:
…
tric configuration, for example another coplanar configuration (no matter what order it takes the segments) but rotated in the space (so it takes other segments of course).
Simple stated, among all the possible combinations there are identical shapes, both coincident or not. In any case all the combinations shares the central point. I'm aiming to obtain a list of different shapes (actually a sort of pipe joints to 3d print).
When I've red my own words I've realized that the concept can be stated in a more simple way.
I've tried to move on to produce the different shapes to compare, so I've played around a little bit with the definition.
I've used Anemone with two data strams, one for the geometries so every istance can be visualized properly and not overlapped, and one for the index to cycle through the slider that sets the path_index input of the cluster adding 0.001 for each cycle.
I must admit that I'm not expert with data trees and branches so I barely understand what goes on in the cluster; intuitively I'd connect the index counter to the path_index input but it doesn't work.
Another thing I've noticed is that nothing comes out from the D1 data strem while I'd expect a series of crescent values. Maybe I could try a sort of hard coding with a grafted series from 0 to 1 with 0.001 steps.
Attached you can find the last version.Thank you in advance for the support.…
need to build another algorithm that creates a visually similar output but gives me more control. form will also need to be different with more complexity near the top.
I found a minimal surface algorithm which seems to work well, though i have only tried it using very simple geometry. I like it because it gives me ok contoll of thickness of different parts. see example below. it originates from this thread
What i now have to do is create a sort of space frame for use with this definition. simple enough job but i play around with advanced scripts though i still dont know the basics of the game.. :/
I have built a test point cloud and a jumble of lines that connect the points. Now i need to find a way to boolean intersect all the pipes i create. How do i do that?
Or is this not the best way to attack this issue to start with? Should i go about it differently?
…
ound on the internet.
http://www.liftarchitects.com/blog/2010/11/8/surface-patterns-for-grasshopper
They created a 3D file for CNC milling hence the panel descriptions that mention z-axis movement and etc. I only need a 2d output of circles.
I successfully input my own image into their file and created the halftone pattern. The problem is that the output pattern creates a circle for every point on the 1" grid and the pattern is created by varying the size of the circles. I have tried to modify the file to only draw circles of .125 radius but I could not figure it out.
Work Around:
The circles currently drawn would be fine if I could find a way to select ones of a certain size. If I could select all the circles of a radius between .05" and .125" I could then create a point at the center of each of the selected circles and redraw the circles with my desired .125 radius. I then tried modifying another file I found online to select circles of only a certain size.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/select-circles
However I was unable to get it to work as the circles output in the halftone pattern have a wide range of radii. I could not figure out how to select the circles within the output range of radii.
Any suggestions would be a huge help!
Thanks
Zak…
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…