the contours they show are all generated from 3 arc second SRTM files, even if in the United States where higher resolution data is available from 1 arc second. Also the contours are likely 2D in their map since. Granted, their contours may look nicer, but I think it's just because they're processing the HGT file with the GDAL Contour app to generate a Shapefile.
That being said, starting last year the USGS started releasing 1 arc second SRTM data for the rest of the world outside of the US. It's not the friendliest website, but I've been accessing it from here (be warned it will probably take a few minutes to load). You could download the appropriate tile and use the SRTM Topo component and get better looking resolution than you've seen with the 3 arc second data.
There's also the possibility you could do the same thing OSM is doing, but with the higher resolution data. Download the GDAL library and run the gdal_contour.exe file on the 1 arc second HGT file and you'll get a shapefile with all the contours. Elk doesn't directly work with shape files, but you could use Meerkat GIS to import the shapefile. I've only done a few quick tests, but I've had trouble with the scaling with this method, both using Meerkat and using Autodesk's Map3d to read the shapefile, so perhaps it's my inexperience with gdal_contour. It also looks like it's making the 1°x1° tile's square instead of scaling the X values as it goes farther from the equator. Nothing that's insurmountable, but still you should watch out for it.
Regards,
-Tim
…
(http://www.food4rhino.com/app/quelea-agent-based-design-grasshopper) take like 40 seconds when the toggle activates to go from one end of the ramp to another.
With proximity 3d i'm analyzing each instance the agents are closer than x units. In picture 3 we can see that in 212 instances the agent are closer than those x units.
Finally all the genes that controll the ramps are connected to the G of octopus component and one of the conflicting objectives connected to the O of octopus component is the number of instance quelea agents get close.
So the thing I need is to iterate the ramps controling the genes with octopus but activating the boolean toggle (quelea run) each time the ramps are modified so the agents take 40 seconds to perambulate the environment, analyze the instance they get close and let octopus iterate again searching for a optimized environment.
…
mations we use a STANDARD thingy (Plane.WorldXY) VS any other plane (that's what the Orient does). This applies for blocks/cats/dogs/anything: meaning that if anyone in the present or the future uses such a "component" he knows the origin (especially if other CAD apps are used in parallel).
2. NEVER EVER make a thing (i.e. the profile) to be oriented "off center" (in the occasion domain start/end values for x/y). If you want to do that treat the destination plane accordingly. That way you build up a mentality were the "source" is standard - so to speak.
3. RHS (but HEB/HEA/IPN/IPE blah, blah) fillets are related with thickness (in real-life) ... therefore when you offset (always inwards: meaning neg values for counter clock wise closed curves) ... take into consideration that simple fact.
…
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…
on
This combined with a nice tutorial from one of my favorite websites:
https://visualizingarchitecture.com/
The guy above uses very basic renderings from his digital models and uses Photoshop to create extraordinary results.
If you do not like the "finished" look - maybe take a layered approach - layer some grasshopper over rhino over some hand rendering etc... Think of your rendering as an information center for the project - good example - http://ltlarchitects.com/non-profit-foundation-headquarters
Diagrams:
The diagram is the key drawing you will use to get your point across. Good examples can be found by BIG Architects and Morphosis. These diagrams are processional - building the process to the culmination of the project. You could also take the approach of a diagram that explains the project at a more finished level - like such:
http://www.archdaily.com/87669/marina-beach-towers-oppenheim-architecture-design
Or something more exploded and conceptual like this:
http://www.67a2.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/exploded-ped.jpg
Site stuff:
You can use a plug-in like Elk to bring in an OSM file - this is a bit let invasive then using GIS (Heron would be a plug-in to bring in GIS).
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/elk?ufh= (look at instructions on bringing in OSM)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new (need to sign in - it's free!)
Another good tool is from LMN Architects.
https://lmnarchitects.com/tech-studio/fabrication/contour-tool/
An interesting program in beta testing:
http://www.earthgenome.org/
…
if you can't resolve the details ... well ... they do that as well. For Europe contact my good friend Peter Stevens. (BirdAir).
In general: PRIOR designing ANYTHING (at all) you must formulate some kind of collaboration with a specialized manufacturer. Problem is that ... er ... if they don't know you they don't give much attention (this is a rather "closed" AEC sector).
On the other hand if your membrane is bespoke designing the components (anchor plates, masts, tensioners etc etc) and/or using bespoke ones available in the market (not many around. mind)... well ... this IS the core of the matter. Rhino is NOT suitable for that kind of stuff by any means.
Kangaroo 1/2 is the way to go when inside GH. Other apps especially the "pro" ones are very expensive. BirdAir has the best software for that matter but is mostly an internal product available as well only for few "strategic" partners as they call Architects who can design that kind of stuff.
Other than that have some fun:
Tensile Membranes test3 - Grasshopper
And this ... well ...is about NOT doing it:
Need help about using Kangaroo for form finding
…
igned by this software may be terrible, this is how the future is being shaped, so an understanding of the technology is important.
http://bimandintegrateddesign.com/2014/10/24/googles-bim-busting-app-for-design-and-construction/
https://vimeo.com/107291814
-Projects are due May 8th at the WAAC Final Gallery (I think at 5:30 PM). You will have your board(s) pinned up and your physical model complete underneath. The location is still being worked out, so I will let you know when I know. After the physical submission, a digital submission is required as well. There should be at minimum -
A board with the discussed drawings and images below, named LastName_FirstName_FinalProject.pdf
A photo of your physical model (if not included on the board), named
LastName_FirstName_FinalModel.pdf.
These should be posted on the dropbox sometime before the last day of the semester. Your project will not be graded if you do not physically submit on May 8th and digitally submit sometime before the semester is over.
-Project brief is below
Project Brief: Up until now, you have been using grasshopper to develop, analyze, and fabricate architectural ideas in a very controlled format. The final project is a chance to combine this knowledge with your own design intent and aspirations. The project will use specific deliverables to spur growth, but also allow for you, the designer, to do what you please within the following boundaries.
Requirements:
# open project# must be a design project # story of what you are designing and why you are using grasshopper - specific design intent# must have physical scale model # must have 24” x 36” board - made in Adobe InDesign or Photoshop # grasshopper definition image # 1 artistic rendering - any format - with scale figures # 5 iterations of your project must be presented # 1 diagram to visually describe your project # text describing project # process drawings - photos/sketches/models/other iterations# this is the bare minimum - to have an excellent project, one must go above and beyond these requirements# talk to me if you have out of the box ideas of presenting/ teams / etc...
That is all, there are no assignments due this week, just keep working on those projects. I am available for help during the week, just email or post in the forum. USE THE GRASSHOPPER FORUM IF YOU ARE STUCK. There are many people on here that are way smarter than I that can help you.
See you all next week!…
chitecture for quite a while. I've been through all versions of 3DS Max and I've used Maya and Softimage as well. In the last 3 years though, I started using the 3D apps as an architectural design tool, but you must already know that this it not the main purpose of them.
That's when a friend of mine introduced me to GH and I was blown away by it. This is like THE perfect thing for design. I'm currently designing a high-rise for a city here in China where I live and it has a very intricate twisting, thus I took the leap and started learning GH, but I think they time it'll take me to learn it will far exceed the time of this deadline so I did the whole model in 3Ds Max, but it was a real pain in the ass moving every individual row of vertices manually, and leading myself but nothing but rudimentary techniques to make it look right, and still, it doesn't look as I want and when having to modify it, it's just another full exhausting day at work.
Anyway, that's briefly the reason. I'm hoping to learn a lot from here. If you have any essential sources (preferably updated) from where I can push my knowledge do let me know please!
Thanks!!…
priety software). Think Kangaroo with RON 100 fuel (add some nitrous oxide).
Back to domes.
1. Obviously you know the free WinDome Bono thing...but anyway get it (code included).
2. As I said on another thread (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/the-necessity-for-a-data-tree-manager) ... the big thing in AEC (because, for instance, nobody does domes for decoration/artistic stuff etc etc) is how to implement already designed things (see images above) within a smart stuff definition (or many).
3. Goes several steps beyond: these "breps" (to speak GH/Rhino language) are in most cases nested and some parts are "locked" for transformations some other not. That's the big thing when trying to outline real-life AEC solutions in the so called Smart applications. I think that this is not doable in Rhino since there's no way to edit (in place) a nested block.
4. Goes even further: for each custom made thing (truss nodes and the likes) ... there's a bill waiting. Meaning that the less customized a solution is (with regard industrial sourced existed parts) the more is possible for the client to sign the dotted line.
Best, Peter…