s for some solution "as it is" no matter the cost? (that's an extra stupid approach, very old fashioned). Do you use EvoluteTools Pro and/or Kangaroo for "optimization" ?
2. What is the FEA/FIM stuff in use? Do you expect "from/back" interactions? (If this is not doable ... increase this or that etc etc).
3. Do you validate real-life components with FEA/FIM? By what means you design these components? - present and/or future (inside Rhino?). This makes things "interesting" in a variety of ways (we need to extensively talk about that - Skype). The problem is that Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modeling app and thus ... a "certain" bottleneck arrives in no time: In the CATIA world you design ("MANUALLY") a parametric history driven component that "complies" to his parent "directives" (say: the Topology) and/or "imposes" his rules to his parent. This is what we call top<>bottom design approach (would become a standard across the AEC industry pretty soon: in around 123 years give or take some). This is far and beyond from what Rhino can do - but we DO make real-life things don't we?
4. Are all these things under a BIM umbrella ? What BIM? What type of details (blue prints) you deliver? (or you just make the thing?).
5. By what means cost is restricting/encouraging the solution? By what means you get feedback from component(s) cost that is outsourced? (i.e. outside your company). Do you monitor all things via some RDBMS? (that's Data Base).
6. What are the long term plans for dealing with such solutions? Using what apps (even in theory for the moment).…
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
…
o: http://github.com/HeinzBenjamin/FlexCLI/issues
Download
You can find FlexHopper here:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/flexhopper
and here:
https://github.com/HeinzBenjamin/FlexCLI
Info
FlexHopper offers physics computation in Grasshopper. It is GPU-based and therefor very fast. Currently supported modes of simulation are: free particles, fluids, rigid bodies, soft bodies, tensile structures and cloth, custom constraints.
FlexHopper is a Grasshopper plugin built on top of FlexCLI - Flex Common Language Interface. FlexCLI is built against NVidia Flex release 1.1.0. NVidia Flex is patented property of NVidia. FlexCLI and FlexHopper are openly accessible under the GNU License through my Github account. (Link above)
For more information on NVidia Flex go here: https://developer.nvidia.com/flex and https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-flex-110-released
FlexCLI runs on x64 architectures only. It was built against .Net 4.5.2
FlexHopper was tested with Rhino5 64bit and Grasshopper 0.9.0076 WIP
Requirements
Windows 7, 8, 8.1 or 10 64bit
NVidia or AMD Graphics Card
NVIDIA: GeForce Game Ready Driver 372.90 or above
AMD: Radeon Software Version 16.9.1 or above…
as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011
r this or that etc etc).
3. I would strongly advise to use some decent feature/dimension driven CAD app in order to create families of concrete deck/beam(s) profiles "manually" (the good old way PLUS recording history and using parameters for the steps taken). Find a friend who knows, say, AECOSim and ask for a small demo on that matter (specifically ask what DDD is [Dimension Driven Design]). Then you can have these in Rhino/GH, define some topology, do the "solid" and if 1M of decks/beams are required rather use instance definitions and plane to plane transformations (that's what the Orient component does) instead of creating 1M clone objects.…
discussions during this period.
The major topics discussed for GH2 during this period will be:
Documentation/Help
GHA/Cluster/VB/C# App-Store
Localization (i.e. languages other than English)
Constraint Engine implementation
Improved VB/C#/Python development tools
Multi-threading the solver
Building a Mac version
If you feel something important was left out, please let us know here. Note that incremental improvements and bug-fixes are not worth discussion as we'll try and get around to them no matter what. Topics on this list have to fit the "Are we going to try and do X?" format.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on October 11, 2013
n splitting curves and then join them to create the region; but I'am looking for a more straightforward solutions. 3- I know some plugins like clipper could do this, but I'm looking for more flexible solutions.
4- I tried Brep[] CreatePlanarBreps(IEnumerable<Curve>) in ghpython, but it doesn't work.
…
cle
the 'Shape' is copied to all points
shapes are rotated randomly, plus or minus 'Angle' maximum
'Shape In Brep (ShapeIn)' is used to cull shapes that aren't within the circle
'Fast Loop' begins using 'MCX' (Multiple Curves Intersection)
first shape is added to 'D1' output and shapes intersecting it are culled
results minus first shape are passed to 'D0' of 'FastLoopEnd'
loop repeats until 'D0' list is empty
'D1' results are scaled down slightly (0.75) to leave more space around them
'Explode' results and return only the curved part, ignoring the base line that closes the shape
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:01pm on March 17, 2017
You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017