eventually found out about genetic algorithms on which I found extensive researches, projects,... ! I looked into it and ended up on a few papers which I believe are the jumpstart for my master thesis.
"Galapagos; on the logic and limitations of generic solvers" by David RuttenArticle in Architectural Design 83(2) March 2013
"Black-box optimisation methods for architectural design" by Thomas Wortmann and Giacomo NanniciniConference Paper: CAADRIA 2016, At Melbourne, AU, Volume: 177-186
So I started looking into alternatives to genetic algorithms in architectural design.So far, I've ended up on :
Thomas Wortmann's work with the surrogate(or model) based optimization approach!You can check out the tool he developped for GH (Opossum):http://www.food4rhino.com/app/opossum-optimization-solver-surrogate-models
Judyta Cichocka's work, specially with the Swarm approachYou can check out the tool she developped for GH (Silvereye):http://www.food4rhino.com/app/silvereye-pso-based-solver
And that's it !!! I've been researching through article references (mainly on "researchgate") but I'm now stuck in a loop of references I already visited!That probably means the litterature on the subject is not (yet) extended but I might probably be missing something.The keywords make it difficult to search : "optimisation", "algorithms", "architecture", send me most of the time to computational engineering and deep mathematics papers I unfortunately do not have the background knowledge to comprehend ! So there it is ! If you have any clue of where (or how ! ) I should be looking, please tell me :)I know Mr Rutten is pretty active on the forum so hopefully... (fingers crossed :p) !Also if you have any good tips for getting into algorithms in general (you think could help), I'd be glad to hear(read) it ! A book, tutorials maybe ?!So, autors, architects, projects books, articles, conferences I should go to,specialized architecture offices/studios (I'm also looking for an internship so ...).If you know about a more appropriate forum please let me know !If you want to get deeper into this, you can contact me at :
e1635331@student.tuwien.ac.at
tdissaux@student.ulg.ac.be
My master thesis is due for may 2018 but I have a paper to write for January 2018 in order to be elligible for a PHD program afterwards.What I mean by that is that if you read this message in 6 month, I'll still be open to discussion !
I am right now an erasmus student at TUWien (Vienna) but my main university is The university of Liège in Belgium.I can handle French, English, Italian litterature and eventually Dutch if really you think it's worth it ! I have access to most online libraries via my university's portals so access shouldn't be an issue !I'm very excited to hear from you I wish you all a great day,Cheers,Thomas
…
thing that MicroStation does (or doesn't). The eternal debate between us is that they focus to the so called BIM aspect of things (and obviously on interoperability matters - that said IFC2*4 is" implemented" in certain Bentley verticals like BA and others) whilst I'm after assembly/component puzzles (and on that matter ... MS ...hmm... to put it politely is not exactly CATIA and/or NX, he he).
On the other hand this paranoid obsession with Level/Layer driven CAD (I hate it) defines a red thick line between CAD and MCAD - because the most intelligent importer can't emulate the way that Siemens NX/CATIA classifies objects - and without control power means nothing.
On the other hand Microstation V9 (...soon) has interesting scripting capabilities (think Modo rather Generative Components) ... meaning that Grasshopper could work there in a rather nice way. I think that I must talk for that to Ray (he recently ditched the ancient legacy MS render engine in favor for the Luxology/Nexus engine). Ray still is negative to buy Act3D mind (hope that you know the mother of visual scripting - the Quest3D VR thing).
On the other hand - within the broad AEC aspect - things these days are different (especially in fast developing countries the likes of UAE, Saudi Arabia, certain ex USSR "democracies" etc etc). Studies are outsourced even at Preliminary Design stage to various sub-contractors (they undertake the Study completion per discipline as well). This means that N separate groups doing M aspects of the whole ... meaning entropy^(N*M) - that's chaos in plain English.
With this in mind I'm quite (a lot) skeptical about the practical meaning of the whole exchange thing in AEC - at least with regard the countries mentioned (not to mention that several portions of a modern AEC thing are made via MCAD apps - chaos^chaos.
I'll back with more focused issues on that matter.
But the big question is: Grasshopper of Generative Components? Well...let's talk serious SS bikes instead: think a Ducati 1198 and a BMW S1000RR (I have them both): which is "best"? The thing is that not always the best bunny is the fasted bunny and not always the fasted bunny is the best bunny.
Cheers,
Peter
…
n fact) according a vast variety of "modes" PLUS the required clash detection (ALWAYS via trigonometry). In plain English: outline any collection of Breps and "apply" a truss that is topologically sound (planarization in case of quads etc is an added constrain). PLUS outline/solve what comes "next" after that truss (like the planar glazing "add-on" brackets of yours [ the ones that need redesign, he he], or some roofing/facade skin system [secondary supports, corrugated sheet metal, insulation, final cladding, dogs and cats])
2. Imaging doing this in real life (nothing to do with "abstract" formations of "lines" or "shapes" or whatever). This means primarily adopting a BIM umbrella: in plain English AECOSim, Revit or Allplan (I'm a Bentley man so I use AECOSim + Generative Components). This also means using "in-parallel" a top MCAD app for 1:1 details, FEA/FIM and the vast paraphernalia required for real-life studies destined for real-life projects (made with real-life money by real-life people). My choice: CATIA/Siemens NX.
3. What to send to Microstation (if not using Generative Components, that is) and/or CATIA? In what "state"? To do what exactly? For instance even if you could design this feature driven tensile membrane anchor custom node in Rhino (you can't) it could be 100% useless in CATIA:
4. Imaging masterminding ways to send them nested instance definitions of ... er ... a coordinate system (all what you need). In plain English: since is utterly pointless to send them nested blocks that can't been parametrically controlled (variations/modifications/PLM management/BOM/specs etc etc)... send them simply the "instructions" to place coordinate systems of components that ARE parametrically designed within Microstation and/or CATIA (classic feature driven design approach blah blah). So GH solves topology et all (working on data imported via, say, Excel sheets related with sizes of components etc etc) and sends to Microstation simply this (a myriad of "this" actually):
I do hope that the gist of the "method" (the ONLY way to invite GH to the party) is clear.
best, Peter…
alluded to:
By the way, Riccardo, as you surely know, for this app, it really only makes sense to use odd integer values on the slider for "half-twists total counts"... When I used "2" with the chain, it froze GH/Rhino twice - perhaps because I didn't disable the offset surface code, I'm not sure - not enough time to explore that further.
So here is what I came up with for offsetting a holed surface - much less code!
Instead of offsetting the surface and using the two offsets as input for 'SrfMorph' to map the holes curves:
I accept the trimmed surface with holes (only one 'SrfSplit' operation instead of two).
'Untrim' the holed surface before doing the offsets.
'Copy Trim (Trim)' from the original holed surface to the two offset surfaces.
Get all the 'Edges' from both surfaces, 'Flip' and 'Loft' them to get all the edge surfaces (hole walls and outer edges).
'Brep Join' the offset holed surfaces and edge surfaces together.
The result is interesting... a "Open Brep" and two "Untrimmed Surface", which are the hidden, internal ends of the shape. Not quite what I wanted. Then I discovered that using 'DeBrep' to get the 'Faces (F)' and 'Brep Join' once more, I get a "Closed Brep" (a solid)!!?? Not sure why but glad it works. I ignore the two end surfaces using 'List Item'.
I suspect that the holes may be slightly different than the way I did it yesterday, but they look good to me. I have no idea how effective this will be with arbitrary, complex surfaces but I encapsulated this code into a 'Thicken' cluster, also enclosed in the attached code:
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:01am on October 10, 2015
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
bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
folder. There are several possibilities for this.
The first that comes to mind is using symbolic links (also known as symlinks). They are like a special kind of shortcut. Whereas a shortcut is a small file itself that links to another location, a symlink is a link that to the operating system and pretty much anything else is indistinguishable from the actual thing. That's why a certain care has to be taken with them, but they are used by the OS much more than might be obvious at first. I have used them on OS X a lot (and in fact all of Time Machine works almost entirely through the use of symlinks). There is a good article on how to use Symlinks easily on Windows as well, using the Link Shell Extension.
So once it's installed you can go to your Grasshopper folder in Roaming and pick it as the link source like so:
Then you change to a location in for example your Dropbox or wherever else you fancy. I have a folder inside my personal Dropbox (we use Dropbox for Business at work, thats why I have 2 Dropbox folders), there is a folder called Apps, which is used by all sorts of Apps that sync using Dropbox. So just right-click in there and create a symlink like so:
So now it will create the symlink and when you double-click it, it will contain the contents of your Grasshopper folder and start syncing:
Sure enough, after some uploading you now have your folder in Dropbox and continually updating:
I will leave this now and see how I get on, but it should be fine and shouldn't cause any issues. Now doing this the other way round, for example to sync the folder on a second computer, that might be another story as things like permissions start to come into play, although it should theoretically work. I have done similar things in the past with other software, but Dropbox is not the best in keeping permissions. Or rather in most cases you DONT want the permissions to stay the same, but for them to be changed to whoever the user is on a different computer and that does not always work as expected. But worth a try. I don't have another computer at hand to try this. On the other computer you would to the steps in opposite order and pick the folder in the Dropbox as the link source and then drop the symlink in the roaming folder (rename the Grasshopper folder that is already in there, so in case it doesnt work you can delete the symlink and rename it back to what it was).
This should theoretically also work with other cloud backups or a file server, but I have not tried those.
You can delete the symlink in the dropbox without problems and it will just delete the link. If you delete something in the Grasshopper folder inside the dropbox it will also be deleted in the roaming folder.
Disclaimer: No guarantees, do this at your own risk, backup your grasshopper folder just in case, be careful with symlinks and use them sparingly, take notes of what you are doing, especially when doing this on more than one computer.
I know on OS X there are several tools specifically for Dropbox that basically do exactly the same like MacDropAny, I am sure there is similar stuff for Windows.…
Added by Armin Seltz at 2:56am on January 25, 2016
t. So here we go!
1. Honeybee is brown and not yellow [stupid!]...
As you probably remember Honeybee logo was initially yellow because of my ignorance about Honeybees. With the help of our Honeybee expert, Michalina, now the color is corrected. I promised her to update everyone about this. Below are photos of her working on the honeybee logo and the results of her study.
If you think I'm exaggerating by calling her a honeybee expert you better watch this video:
Thank you Michalina for the great work! :). I corrected the colors. No yellow anymore. The only yellow arrows represent sun rays and not the honeybee!
2. Yellow or brown, W[here]TH Honeybee is?
I know. It has been a long time after I posted the initial video and it is not fun at all to wait for a long time. Here is the good news. If you are following the Facebook page you probably now that the Daylighting components are almost ready.
Couple of friends from Grasshopper community and RADIANCE community has been helping me with testing/debugging the components. I still think/hope to release the daylighting components at some point in January before Ladybug gets one year old.
There have been multiple changes. I finally feel that the current version of Honeybee is simple enough for non-expert users to start running initial studies and flexible enough for advanced users to run advanced studies. I will post a video soon and walk you through different components.
I think I still need more time to modify the energy simulation components so they are not going to be part of the next release. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to set up and run a wrong energy simulation and I really don’t want to add one new GIGO app to the world of simulation. We already have enough of that. Moreover I’m still not quite happy with the workflow. Please bear with me for few more months and then we can all celebrate!
I recently tested the idea of connecting Grasshopper to OpenStudio by using OpenStudio API successfully. If nothing else, I really want to release the EnergyPlus components so I can concentrate on Grasshopper > OpenStudio development which I personally think is the best approach.
3. What about wind analysis?
I have been asked multiple times that if Ladybug will have a component for wind study. The short answer is YES! I have been working with EFRI-PULSE project during the last year to develop a free and open source web-based CFD simulation platform for outdoor analysis.
We had a very good progress so far and our rockstar Stefan recently presented the results of the work at the American Physical Society’s 66th annual DFD meeting and the results looks pretty convincing in comparison to measured data. Here is an image from the presentation. All the credits go to Stefan Gracik and EFRI-PULSE project.
The project will go live at some point next year and after that I will release the Butterfly which will let you prepare the model for the CFD simulation and send it to EFRI-PULSE project. I haven’t tried to run the simulations locally yet but I’m considering that as a further development. Here is how the component and the logo looks like right now.
4. Teaching resources
It has been almost 11 months from the first public release of Ladybug. I know that I didn't do a good job in providing enough tutorials/teaching materials and I know that I won’t be able to put something comprehensive together soon.
Fortunately, ladybug has been flying in multiple schools during the last year. Several design, engineering and consultant firms are using it and it has been thought in several workshops. As I checked with multiple of you, almost everyone told me that they will be happy to share their teaching materials; hence I started the teaching resources page. Please share your materials on the page. They can be in any format and any language. Thanks in advance!
I hope you enjoyed/are enjoying/will enjoy the longest night of the year. Happy Yalda!
Cheers,
-Mostapha
…
ion, extract structural data, produce 2d drawings, and exchange data with other external software. Nemo also includes free tools to create parametric shapes, such as Naca profiles, hydrofoils, keels, rudders, blade propellers, and sail plans.
Born in 2018 as an academic research project at ENSTA Bretagne, Nemo grew up since, immersed in professional naval architecture practice with L2Onaval.
From 2021, Nemo is now available for purchase with commercial or educational licenses. Following license levels are provided to fit every needs depending of user activity :
Free (Designer)
Level 1 (Section + Hydrostatics + Visualization)
Level 1 + 2 (Section + Hydrostatics + Visualization + Resistance + Structure)
We can also help you make best use of our software, provide project guidance, establish specific workflow and create custom tools.
Requirements
Microsoft Windows 10 or Apple Mac OS 12 Monterey :
McNeel Rhinoceros 7 SR26
(Other Rhinoceros, Windows and Mac OS versions have not been tested but may work)
Additional info
Food4Rhino Download
Discourse Forum
Facebook Page
Linkedin Page
Nemo Website
Credits
Authors : Mathieu VENOT
Contributors : Paul POINET, Laurent DELRIEU
…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011