onstrates the following:
1. The definition's functionality employing HumanUI for the custom user interface.
2. The evaluation of the definition's ability to handle different point cloud data sets.
3. Video reports with the definition's results, animating subsequent per deviation step frames.
This definition calculates best fitting plane deviations. The number of manual set parameters has been minimized to two the facade per World UCS axis selection and the search width. This defines a box, which is used to crop protruding architectural details, which do not contribute to the analysis, but also ensures that large deformations are included in the calculation.
For the automation of the vertical and horizontal sections creation, the analyzed cloud is clustered, according to user defined number of 2d grid cells. The deviations corresponding to each cell are averaged in mean and median mode.
The process is displayed mostly in real time, with some speed up in some parts. Too long calculations have been omitted during video edit. The setup is responsive and benchmarks show that changing between dense point cloud data sets and facades is pretty quick (6.5-7.5M points, 25-45 deviation steps, 44x22 clusters), updates are calculated in acceptable timings (3-6 minutes).
I would like to thank Heumann A. and Zwierzycki M. who provided direct support with HumanUI and Volvox. Also Grasshopper3d forum users Maher S. and Segeren P., who contributed with Rhino viewport manipulation scripts.
More on Volvox:
http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=ecaade2016_171&sort=DEFAULT&search=ecaade%20volvox&hits=2629
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/volvox
http://duraark.eu/
HumanUI:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human-ui?page=1&ufh=&etx=…
glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
a black hexagonal background. They are containers of parameters but parameters in themselves, like the "x" in a mathematical function. So, what I do is something like:
2) That depends exclusively on the panel, not the cluster. Then you can't. It is also not possible to assign access (item, list, tree) to the parameters.What you are trying to do, assigning components to the inputs directly, can only be done from code or using snippets. http://www.food4rhino.com/app/brick-box…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
ay to make some real-life proper nodes for that kind of T truss (we use machined balls solely for MERO KK type of normal trusses).
3. I'll post here soon a modular demo system suitable for this case (real-life for AEC purposes - NOT for decorative/artistic stuff, I don't care about that since I'm an engineer). This would include a policy for the X struts that require a variable linkage (the X angle). and in the same time a multi cable tensioner "bracket".
4. "Basic" coding next week for T trusses ? Er ... well ... are you kidding me right? I mean that ... hmm ...
5. C# things (about 2+K) around me are classified into 2 "groups": things that are weapons in the right hands and others that serve as demos/start points for mostly abstract cases. The former are internal the latter for public use. I'll remove some sensitive lines from a T truss C# maker and I'll post it here as a "guideline" ... for ...hmm... 4.
All in all:
Provided that you have system(s) on hand (see 3) that work 100% OK in an ideal world you'll need:
A. Something that does the general topology AND (especially) clash detection. Maybe Kangaroo as well as a "first pass" with regard rigidity of the structure in case that you don't adopt a classic T "configuration" (there are many > Google tensegrity).
B. Connectivity trees that relate nodes/edges and maybe faces (say for roofing panels/curtain walls etc etc). Without them is impossible to assemble the T thingy.
C: Something that places real-life "parts" as instance definitions and/or (optional) a "tracking variants history" ability.
D. A bullet proof way to EXPORT things (on an assembly/component schema, say: STEP214 - see C) into a proper BIM app (the likes of AECOSim/Revit) and/or into a MCAD app (the likes of CATIA/NX).
E. FEA/FIM in order to validate the structural ability of the components and the T truss itself.
F. Roofing/cladding/envelope components.
G. "Interactive" cost estimation(s) - T trusses are hideously expensive at least versus "classic" trusses (exactly like a planar glazing system that retails 3++ times more than a humble semi-structural one)…
dro). The quality of the driver is also critical: hard to imagine NVidia working overnight to fix "some" driver bugs due to requests from gamers. Game cards are notoriously bad in dual monitor configurations.
3. A zillion of cores (triumph of marketing VS common sense) divided by the given clock rate ... gives you just ONE poor old core (Rhino/gh are single-threaded apps) that tries to do the job.
4. Single Xeon E5 2xxx V3 (the higher the clock the LESS the cores = better) would be my recommendation. ECC fast memory is also a must.
PS: Find a friend who operates a "loaded" H/P Z840 and test your defs.
…
Get plenty of RAM. Windows 32-bit can assign 2MB of Ram per process, so if you have lots of RAM, you can run Rhino+Grasshopper in memory all the way. I'd say get at least 4GB, and preferably 8GB. If you have a 64-bit machine, then it pays off to go even higher than that.
2) Get fast RAM. Memory access is the main bottleneck in many applications, so the faster the RAM the faster most apps will work.
3) Get a fast processor, rather than lots of slow processors. Only a few apps out there can truly use Multi-Threading (Rhino and Grasshopper cannot). These days, CPU manufacturers try and dress up multi-core CPUs as the next best thing. It is not. It is a lie. Until software can truly run on multiple cores there is no benefit to this. If rendering is a big part of your job, then it does pay off to have a multi-core machine though.
4) Get a good graphics card. I've always preferred NVidia over ATI, but there are many good ATI cards as well. You can go for a gaming card (they're cheaper), but note that these are optimised for drawing triangles. If you get a professional card, it will draw lines and curves much faster.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Robert McNeel & Associates…
ents instead of code ... it could yield a nightmare of components (and a myriad of parameters). For real-life designs I would never attempt to do this without code.
2. A certain experience with Kangaroo (or some min surf other thing since using K on these ... well may be the killing a mosquito with a bazooka thing). That said I'm a great admirer of Daniel's work. But on the other hand why not?
3. A "certain" experience with trusses/space frames.
4. A "certain" experience with instance definitions (that's not doable with GH components).
5. Years of experience with parametric feature driven MCAD apps - Image35 (NX/CATIA) for designing the real-life parts (that have NOTHING to do with "abstract" concepts).
In total I would say that a similar "app" with code (excluding the min surf/mesh thing) would require 6-10 full days of work (or even more).
BTW: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/top...…
milar real-life AEC things that in fact are complex assemblies ... then your next (actually the first) step should be top-dog MCAD apps (but try Microstation + Generative components as well).
But given the opportunity there's 2 kind of "parametric" things out there:
1. The Topology (an abstract collection mostly of coordinate systems) that can been handled via graphical editors like GH. If there's some logic behind ... then ... maybe ... we can talk about algorithmic stuff (but who cares about names? not me anyway).
2. The real-life 3d things that are designed via dimension driven design, history based modeling, feature modelling etc etc (using exclusively high end solid modeling apps NOT surface modellers like Rhino). Basically you design these "by hand" (by mouse in fact) and then you "export" their "events" that "matter" to the app that does the 1 > then either you change them (clash/cost/structural/aesthetic reasons etc) or you change the topology. If these are ready parts from the market (kinda like the Norsman cable tensioners used) then ... you just keep them in RDBMS controlled repositories and use them accordingly. But if the project is really bespoke you can design them too as well (blame client's vanity).
So you have 2 kinds of "parametric": the theory and the reality ... whilst the "ideal" solution is some kind of equilibrium between "I want" and "I can".
On the other hand doing FEA on real-life bespoke complex parts ... well .... as I said months ago > what about some other Project? he, he.
But ... hope dies last ... there's a "middle" solution as well: wait for the 4 horsemen (the 4 C# that in fact are 5).
You'll be surprised…