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).…
, HVAC, blah blah).
BIM is NOT a parametric process at least having in mind graphical editors the likes of GH (or stuff the likes of Generative Components): it's a holistic data management approach. Some concepts used in BIM apps (for instance in AECOSim etc) the likes of "walls"/"openings" etc are "parametric" in the sense that allow auto perforation of this with that. On the other hand AECOSim is feature driven (since Microstation works in that "mode" as well) ... a thing that complex things even more with regard what is actually "parametric" and what not.
BIM is as good as the meta data structure is (especially the spec related aspect - Goggle MasterFormat and the likes). BIM AEC apps are notoriously incapable to work (without a lot of lines of code) with proper RDBMS. On the other hand Bentley Systems ProjectWise ... well ... but that's another animal (by no means a topic for the inexperienced).
In descending order or importance a contemporary AEC practice should use:
1. A general information "controller" like ProjectWise (who said/did what/when/why).
2. A Specs (say CSI - not the TV soap opera) management app.
3. Several Meta data RDBMS.
4. A BIM suite of apps.
5. Optionally some parametric thingy.
PS: For AEC ... when inviting the parametric thingy to the party you have only 2 options:
ProjectWise + AECOSim + Generative Ciomponents (my choice).
?? + Revit + Dynamo.
…
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
…
Or if this doesn't work the the lines who's end points Y value doesn't match
5) join all remaining curves. this gives you polylines for each row.
6) From these you can extract control points that will be on differrent branches
i would demonstrate this but i'm stuck watching the wedding at a friend's and until mcneel makes a rhinoid with gh app you'll have to wait 'til later…
omponents and Revit means Dynamo.
Both are masterminded by the very same fella (Robert Aish: an ex Bentley R&D head, then Autodesk paid more [life sucks]).
AECOSim eats Revit for breakfast but has a far steeper learning curve ... meaning that the masses would opt for Revit.…
sites the likes of Code Project etc etc) that may fit to your workflow/goals. Also the available literature/printed manuals/e-manuals/books etc etc.
3. Take into account the quality of the available editors (like VS etc etc). That said the "build-in" GH editor is a bit of a crap (but it's OK for smallish/not complex coding).
4. Most importantly: // computing is the holly grail these days (and it would become the standard in the years to come: either via trad CPU cores or via CUDA/Tesla type of stuff)... thus take into account ... well ... the obvious.
BTW: If 1 is true and there's some workflow around that involves many apps ... try to write code that is as "GH neutral" as possible.…
r visual programming tools in the games world. MS's Kodu, looks interesting. Kismet and Visual3d look even more interesting..... mainly because they are more 'interactive' or 'reactive', rather than DAG-based.
Seems like the evolution path for GH-similar apps is:
1. base 3d or CAD app based on C/C++ code.
2. Add scripting language interface
3. Add some kind of visual interface
4. Add graph sorting / propagation engine
5. Re-jig base 3d or CADD app to make managed/interpreted scripts run faster, multi-threaded.
6. Add dynamic typed language, DLR stuff
6. ....
6. Add constraints solver...?
7. Rebuild CAD display engine to be procedural at the GPU level?
Seems like there are available tools for converting scripts into some kind of flowchart. There are even visual debuggers. MS even has something called the 'Debugger Canvas'. Spreadsheet constraints.
Seems like the time is ripe for lots of new apps like GH.
…
some weird engine, you know, he he) IS NOT like designing plain vanilla AEC things.
Therefore features/calculation methods/capabilities as found in MCAD apps (considered off topic by many in our trade) are mandatory for certain types of designs.
Anyway and if we forget FEA stuff, currently I have 3 C# goals:
(1) master the art of controlling the placement of existed blocks in GH defined topology(done),
(2) master the art of baking blocks(done) and
(3) master the art of baking heavily nested blocks that NX/Catia can understand (progress is slow).
…
nite a zillion of "solids" (closed polysurfaces in Rhino speech) you need a decent solid CAD app. Rhino is a surface modeller ... meaning that you should narrow your search towards the right girl.
3. Personally I work with Microstation (same 3d core engine as Siemens/NX [ParaSolids]) and CATIA/NX. The difference in speed for doing things like these ... well ... find a friend who works with any of these and experience it first hand. …
well!
Also works reliably in another app I have (Hydrostatics) to adjust 'Z-Offset' and re-establish buoyancy equilibrium.
I wasn't able to get it working inside a cluster due to the GH restriction against recursion, unfortunately, because that would be AWESOME!!! Instead, the code is sprawling and exposed...
Note the 'Feedback' input and 'Value' output in the white group (Inner Circle).
Cheers and Happy New Year!
P.S. Geometry internalized, no Rhino file needed.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 4:53pm on January 1, 2016