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
a and we'll stop adding new stuff. At this point the Grasshopper version will be rolled to 1.0 Beta 1 and we'll keep on fixing serious bugs, resulting in Grasshopper 1.0 Beta 2 etc. etc. until the product is stable enough to be treated as a commercially viable product.
This does not mean Grasshopper will no longer be free. Robert McNeel & Associates (who develop and own the copyrights to Grasshopper) haven't decided yet whether or not to sell Grasshopper or whether to keep it as a free plug-in for Rhino customers.
As soon as Grasshopper 1.0 goes into beta, all development (apart from the odd bug-fix) stops and we start typing on Grasshopper 2.0. It will probably be a few months until the first 2.0 WIP version is released but basically the whole process starts over.
What are we looking to accomplish for 1.0 and which things are planned for 2.0 and beyond? The only major feature still missing in 1.0 is the Remote Control Panel. This feature was removed at some point and has been partially rewritten since then. Once it's finished, we consider the 1.0 feature set to be complete.
To be honest we've made very few concrete plans yet concerning 2.0, however it's clear that some things need to be at least seriously considered and researched. Here follows a list in no particular order:
Documentation System. This is one of the things we know we're going to do as we've already started. The Grasshopper help system will need to be rewritten and a lot of help topics need to be typed up. We have a pretty good idea what it is we want to accomplish with the new help and how we're going to go about it.
Vocabulary. Along with new documentation we'll critically analyse the current terminology and vocabulary of Grasshopper. We'll probably come up with glossaries and style sheets. We want to use words that are —at best— self documenting and —at worst— non ambiguous.
SDK and core library cleanup/improvement. Grasshopper was the first large scale product I ever developed and a lot of mistakes were made in the SDK design. A lot of functions and classes have been marked obsolete over time and many operations are not properly bottlenecked. I also want to add a lot more events so it's easier for code to keep close tabs on what's going on at any given moment.
GUI platform. At the moment Grasshopper is pure .NET winforms using GDI+ for all the interface drawing. There are certain performance issues with using large GDI+ surfaces and certain limitations on what we can and cannot draw. We will be investigating other graphics pipelines such as WPF, OpenGL, DirectX, OpenTK and whatever else seems promising.
Multi-threading. It is clear that some components are embarrassingly parallel, and since almost every single laptop and desktop has at least 4 cores these days it would be a shame not to use them. We will investigate what it takes to implement multi-threading as a standard feature.
Large file support. Grasshopper becomes awkward to use when a document contains more than a hundred or so components. We need to both improve the interface to provide methods for layering or grouping sub-algorithms and also add ways to reduce memory and computational overhead.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
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
…
RESENTERS PETER ARBOUR seele KEITH BOSWELL Skidmore Owings & Merrill MARK E. DANNETTEL Thornton Thomasetti LISA IWAMOTO IwamotoScott JASON KELLY JOHNSONFuture Cities Lab/California College of the Arts HAO KO Gensler BILL KREYSLER Kreysler & Associates ANDREW KUDLESS Matsys/California College of the Arts CHRIS LASCH Aranda\Lasch ARNOLD LEE HOK MIC PATTERSON Enclos, Corp. M. MIN RA Front GEOFF ROSSI Element DENNIS SHELDEN Gehry Technologies ANN SMITH Cambridge Architectural MARCELLO SPINAP-A-T-T-E-R-N-S SANJEEV TANKHA Buro Happold BEN TRANEL Gensler PHIL WILLIAMS Webcor Builders & Consulting Group
DIGITAL FABRICATION WORKSHOPS
8 LU/HSW or 8 LU credits (depending upon workshop choice)
Friday, July 27th 2012 9:00 AM – 6:00 PMCalifornia College of the Arts San Francisco, California
PARAMETRIC ENVELOPES WITH GRASSHOPPERANDREW KUDLESS Matsys Design/California College of the Arts
COMPOSITE FACADES IN ARCHITECTUREBILL KREYSLER & JOSHUA ZABEL Kreysler & Associates
RESPONSIVE BUILDING FACADESJASON KELLY JOHNSON Future Cities Lab/California College of the Arts
SCRIPTED FACADESCHRIS LASCH Aranda/Lasch
PARAMETRIC FACADE TECTONICSKEVIN MCCLELLAN & ANDREW VRANA Digital Fabrication Alliance
BIM MODELING WITH REVIT/INTRO TO VASARIGERMAN APARICIO California College of the Arts & Autodesk Fellow
Facade technologies are developing at a more dynamic rate than almost any other issue related to construction today with an impact on performance, sustainability, materials, fabrication, design, delivery and much more. What was once thought impossible is now an everyday reality, and the future promises accelerating change.
Presented by Enclos and The Architect’s Newspaper, COLLABORATION will bring together in a two-day event, the industry, the profession, and the academy to explore the evolution and the issues surrounding today’s high tech building envelope through case studies and lectures presented by foremost
practitioners, as well as panel discussions, and workshops conducted by leaders in the AEC profession.
Aimed at architects, building owners and developers, general contractors, engineers, fabricators, material suppliers, educators, and students, the event’s panels and sessions address the transformative opportunities created by new technologies and resources. From using BIM for communicating effectively with fabricators, to energy modeling, to retrofitting practices and the latest design tools, the COLLABORATION conference offers an unprecedented opportunity to survey the possibilities of designing in the digital age.
Who Should Attend
Architects, designers, engineers, building owners, developers, and facade consultants interested in gaining increased understanding of cutting-edge building envelope technologies.…
ve Intermediate Insight of Computational Design Strategies While Exploring Rangoli Art form in 2 Dimension and 3Dimesion in which Participants will not only be trained to Digitally Design using Parametric software's but they will also be trained to Fabricate them in reality.
This Course will be explored in manner where Participants will understand inter-dependency of Rhinoceros3D & Grasshoper3D through a unique Hybrid Teaching Method While Exploring Rangoli Geometry .
The course will also take participants through Topics such as - Computational Thinking, - Computational / Parametric Design, - Computational Rangoli Exploration, - Digital Fabrication, - 3D Visualization ( Rhino3D 6), - Making Info-graphics & Design Diagrams ( Rhino3d 6 ).
Participants will also be doing a Project at the last Leg of Workshop in which they will implement the skill they gained in first Few Weeks.
{ Tutor } Nitant Pixelkar (Computational Artist / Designer, Mumbai)
Nitant Hirlekar A.k.a. Pixelkar, is a Computational Artist. He graduated from Rachana Sansad school of Interior Design 2011, Mumbai. In Academics He Bagged Two Gold and One Silver Medal on National Level.
In his post academic days, he came across the Emerging Computational Techniques in Design industry in which Algorithm serves as a main Functional part. He uses Algorithms to Deconstruct the Captured images in Pixelated form using the Grid of the Desired Indian Art Forms.
He Heads Collective Group Named "Mutation Lab” which is a multidisciplinary Design & Art Cell. Where they Explore Computational Approach while Designing Various Scales Spatial Installation, Digital Fabrication, Interactive Installations and Computational Consultancy for Various Architects.
He has exhibited his first artwork in Kalaghoda Arts Festival for in 2014 And further in 2016 and 2017.In 2015 he exhibited in Dharavi Biennale” organized by Wellcome Trust,London & Sneha Organisation, Mumbai Which was internationally acclaimed. In 2016 he got Featured on a TV show - The Creative Indian's as an Absolut Creative Indian of the Week.
Academically he is been involved in Many Computational Design Workshops / Elective Studios for School of Interior Design (Rachna Sansad), LS Raheja College of Architecture & Rat-Lab (Delhi).
{ Participants } The Course is aimed at Architecture, Interior Design, Product Design,Furniture Design & Fashion Design Students and Professionals. However we would be thrilled to have any Interdisciplinary Artist / Creator/ Maker to join the Course as well.
{ Level }
Intermediate
{ Timing } Monday To Friday - 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM (15 Hours/ Week = 5 Week X 15 Hours = 75 Hours )
{ Dates } Registration Ends - 24th April 2020 **Subejct to Availablity
{ Workshop Dates } 4th May 2020 To 5th June 2020
{ Venue } Lower Parel,Mumbai ( Details To Be Announced )
{ Schedule }
{Registration Form}…
_b2 texfunc WoodGrain_tex
6 xgrain_dx ygrain_dx zgrain_dx woodtex.cal -s 0.01
0
1 0.075
WoodGrain_tex plastic WoodGrain_NonColor2
0
0
5 0.364 0.187 0.072 0.006 0.0
This creates the texture (on the table) below:
Is it possible for me to use a multi-modifier material like this in Honeybee ?
Thanks,
Sarith
(Update: I figured out a hack to do this in MSH2RAD but I still don't know if it is possible to add this to the Honeybee Library).…