What is it?Bumblebee is a set of user objects which connect Microsoft Excel and Grasshopper.
The current component set allows for not just the transfer of data back and forth between GH and XL but giv
rsistant data , as the inputs and outputs of the component should be build by the data stored in the object.
thanxs in advance
Michael
here is the code of the object....
public class Proxy { public List<string> _name_in; public List<string> _name_out; public List<SerializableType> _type_in; public List<SerializableType> _type_out; public List<GH_ParamAccess> _access_in; public string _path; public string _script; public bool _internalized; public bool _working; public Proxy(List<string> name_in, List<string> name_out, List<SerializableType> type_in, List<SerializableType> type_out, List<GH_ParamAccess> access_in, string path, string script, bool internalized) { _name_in = name_in; _name_out = name_out; _type_in = type_in; _type_out = type_out; _access_in = access_in; _path = path; _script = script; _internalized = internalized; _working = true; } public Proxy() { _name_in = new List<string>(); _name_out = new List<string>(); _type_in = new List<SerializableType>(); _type_out = new List<SerializableType>(); _access_in = new List<GH_ParamAccess>(); _path = get_path_of_plugin(); _script = ""; _internalized = false; _working = false; } public static string get_path_of_plugin() { string temp_cut; string string_path = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; string string_name = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Name; int temp_name_int = string_name.Length + 5; int temp_path_int = string_path.Length; temp_cut = string_path.Remove(temp_path_int - temp_name_int); return temp_cut; } public static T ObjectDeserializer<T>(string XmlInput) { System.Xml.XmlDocument XmlDoc = new System.Xml.XmlDocument(); XmlDoc.Load(new System.IO.StringReader(XmlInput)); System.Xml.Serialization.XmlSerializer ser = new System.Xml.Serialization.XmlSerializer(typeof(T)); T out_ob = (T)ser.Deserialize(new System.IO.StringReader(XmlInput)); return out_ob; } public static string ObjectSerializer<T>(T SerializedObject) { System.Xml.Serialization.XmlSerializer ser = new System.Xml.Serialization.XmlSerializer(typeof(T)); System.Text.StringBuilder builder = new System.Text.StringBuilder(); XmlWriter xmllol = XmlWriter.Create(builder); ser.Serialize(xmllol, SerializedObject); return builder.ToString(); } } public class SerializableType { private Type type; // when serializing, store as a string // [DataMember] public string TypeString { get { if (type == null) return null; return type.FullName; } set { if (value == null) type = null; else { type = Type.GetType(value); } } } public Type return_Type() { return type; } // constructors public SerializableType() { type = null; } public SerializableType(Type t) { type = t; } // allow SerializableType to implicitly be converted to and from System.Type static public implicit operator Type(SerializableType stype) { return stype.type; } static public implicit operator SerializableType(Type t) { return new SerializableType(t); } // overload the == and != operators public static bool operator ==(SerializableType a, SerializableType b) { // If both are null, or both are same instance, return true. if (System.Object.ReferenceEquals(a, b)) { return true; } // If one is null, but not both, return false. if (((object)a == null) || ((object)b == null)) { return false; } // Return true if the fields match: return a.type == b.type; } public static bool operator !=(SerializableType a, SerializableType b) { return !(a == b); } // we don't need to overload operators between SerializableType and System.Type because we already enabled them to implicitly convert public override int GetHashCode() { return type.GetHashCode(); } // overload the .Equals method public override bool Equals(System.Object obj) { // If parameter is null return false. if (obj == null) { return false; } // If parameter cannot be cast to SerializableType return false. SerializableType p = obj as SerializableType; if ((System.Object)p == null) { return false; } // Return true if the fields match: return (type == p.type); } public bool Equals(SerializableType p) { // If parameter is null return false: if ((object)p == null) { return false; } // Return true if the fields match: return (type == p.type); } } public class GH_Proxy : Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Goo<Proxy> { public override Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.IGH_Goo Duplicate() { return this; } public override bool IsValid { get { return true; } } public override string ToString() { return Proxy.ObjectSerializer<Proxy>(this.Value); } public override string TypeDescription { get { return "his is a proxy"; } } public override string TypeName { get { return "his is a proxy"; } } }…
ome work to create a ZScript macro for custom routines, but you can record those in ZBrush and then merely need to edit them into my script, inline, as bulk multiple-lines you just paste in, no problem as long as you strip the ZBrush button definition at the beginning.
ZBrush has a very high initial learning curve because of its non-standard interface. However, it has the world's most powerful quad remeshing and now mesh Booleans too. I needed a replacement for slow and especially non-robust marching cubes (Cocoon/Monolith/Dodo/Aether etc. on Grasshopper) that tended to bog down or blow up. IntraLattice was a step in a good direction but it can't merge fattened lines that merely cross each other with no breaks or that physically overlap on purpose to have many curve on in to a hub. But with $800 ZBrush 4R8, the latest version, that I can create English language ZScripts for, I suddenly have, often in the blink of an eye, or at worst a few seconds, right back into Rhino Grasshopper, a perfectly joined, airtight and smoothed mesh blending of upwards of thousands of input mesh pieces that overlap in ways Rhino will never Boolean union.
There is no complicated installation of anything since it's all done in Python.
The ZBrush program itself pops up while it works, and is then automatically backgrounded to bring you back to Grasshopper. It keeps running though, for fast iterations with no program startup time.
This is a general toolkit to expose myriad very advanced features of ZBrush into being just another Grasshopper plug-in like the rest.
It works by accepting a Grasshopper mesh and writing it to disk as an OBJ file, then incorporates ZBrush settings for a given command into a text format ZScript file, also written to disk from Python based on Grasshopper inputs, then ZBrush is told to run the script via Windows command line, and the exported OBJ output is read back from disk back into a Rhino Grasshopper mesh, in about a hundred lines of code.
Despite a change in mesh definition in Rhinocommon from version 5 to 6, I made it work on both versions.
So far this is only one command, the newly improved mesh Boolean union. It gives quad meshes, but they still look healthy when quickly triangulated in Rhino (as seen on top, above).
The ZBrush ZRemesher is utterly astounding in ability to transform any mesh into a direction following, error free quad mesh that can be converted to NURBS actually, via T-Splines smooth mode. That will be the next port to Grasshopper. I hope architects pick up on this more orderly manner of patterning surfaces than the alien slime of random point Voronoi.
Commercial software has the best code, not open source stuff, so far, so this is serious work to bring world class tools into Grasshopper where we can rapidly prototype computational strategies.
Here is a thread with several examples of ZBrush Boolean union remeshing applied to 3D trusses, compared to both IntraLattice and marching cubes:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/custom-unit-cell-bug-in-intralattice-plug-in?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A1828609
The same strategy of generating script files I used to port OpenFlipper, here, for triangle remeshing, which can now be combined with ZBrush Boolean unions of arbitrary assemblies of mesh units:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/best-uniform-remesher-for-patterning-organic-suraces
UPDATE: I revamped the workflow so now components feed raw ZScript into a sequencer. Then only a single ZScript is assembled and sent to ZBrush so Python never gets ahead of ZBrush (!):
It is easy to DIY roll your own now:
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:48am on October 12, 2017
u might already noticed.
Second great thing is that is quite fast, precise and versatile (for this kind of things); also is way OPEN (meaning you can attach and or interface it with almost anything you can imagine, meaning hardware, and other sw components, etc (like a CNC machine (additive manufacturing toys..) or any sw like C# component)) making a GREAT HUGE difference with almost any other CAD (and CAM sw i must say)
i made a simple fully functional CAM component - highly powerful ! - in a couple of days...
also tested an arduino interface (meaning control over almost any elctronic device out there)... in a matter of hours...
and saw and can easily think about lots and lots of extremely cool usages of this great tool in almost any area ...
So that's why i would suggest - and will do something about for - it (or similar tools) to be teached at first stages of education !
But power comes with responsability. and is far better exploited when your are smart ;)
I think people that uses GH will be n-times as good when they don`t forget manufacturing.
This includes teachers btw....
Interesting thing to account is that all things that GH is great at (a LOT) means reducing dramatically the time spent to model almost anything...
But usually the purpose (unless the objective is just learning or doing some kind of virtual art (both legal stuff btw...;) but guess it might not be your case now and after graduating..)) is to end up by actually building some real 3D stuff...
So what Joseph is poining is key...
If you have a good teacher.. i guess it should pay more and more attention not just at your gh skills but rather the way in which you use the power, versatility and extra time gh (and additive manufacturing tech) saves, to think about how to design the stuff focusing on the ultimately relevant stuff...
optimisation...
So..
I would say that any heat interchanger like the one involved in your thesis, has to deal with fluids.. have to account for some sort of life span (involving cheaper an ideally no maintenance needed along its life...), and of course also critical the costs of manufacturing.
so... be the best one...
use GH smartly ! ie...
account for different profile paths for oil and water.. they're different fluids meaning they have different specific heat, viscosity, blah... and so... they might not even traverse the interchanger at same flow ratio, etc.
So... maybe you want to start by reshaping the grid... (parametrically...!) so you can arbitrarily and dynamically modify and get to see interactively in your definition the areas ratio of sections so as to finaly get to set the "ideal" (meainng optimum) relative areas (sections) ratio of oil to water paths... (or whatever other fluids could be !), and the material also...
Secondly you might also consider that triangles might not be well suited for the conduit sections because are not the best shape to carry most fluids... (hoses are of circular sections...worst case are kinda rectangular with rounded corners..;) not only because the're easy to manufacture but also because they minimise (optimize) flowing energy losses AND are less prone to (ie salt or debree deposits in the interior) ). so think about rounded shapes, of if you want some regular polygons stuff but 5 or more faces...kinda circular...got it ?
I love bees by the way..
and if you happen to need more interchange area (obviously another (and probably the #1 key one) figure you should be displaying interactively in your definition ) you can always add some more extrusion length...
third... the twisting stuff is cool... (artistically ;)) but i 100% agree with Joseph is far likely to involve higer costs for manufacturing with no clear benefit on surface maximization... and most probably some other losses in added friction to the flow of fluids (meaning higher costs for pumping, etc...)...
fourth...
consider the area, (then the volume!) of the "building material"... you should optimise that too ! so this could be another one of your interactive displays...
in this case... you not only can see optimisation by reducing the amount of materials to build your interchanger...
but you can also notice that if the "building tech" involves the well and common additive manufacturing process of extrusion deposits... that surface area, and that extrusion length, meaning volume and cost of raw material, also mean TIME to manufacture... and i guess you teacher will find good for you to consider and mention that one too...
fifth...
finally (for now hehe), and globally most important in the short term :)
if the objective of yor teacher is for you just to learn GH and impress him and the rest of the world then, ok, do the twist the swirl and imagine all kind of sea star and or ondulated conduit sections (maybe some recursive forms (fractals...) like snowflakes... or any n-arms (mutant !) starfishes shapes) but make sure you first get to know and validate what it will be the objectives of your evaluator...
.. in the near end this is all about passing your thesis while learning GH while having fun.. isn't it ?
go for it and best of luck !
ps: for the mid and long term.. some day take a look at linear optimisaton if you already didn't.
i think GH is a great tool to try out some linear optimisation stuff directly linking geometry related figures (areas, volumes...) along with costs figures !...
I haven't seen anything like that yet (but since i'm only a few months old in gh, i think is likely to already be something or this stuff out there. )
If not... well you can always be the first !
(and this particular case of your thesis is a great example (few key variables) to try out "automatic optimisation")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_algorithm
that... by the way...has lots to do with spatial geometry...
…
ere I'm using a GH_ObjectWrapper type. This may not be the best way about doing this, but it does work.
localSettings of type EM_Settings is the data that gets wrapped and then added to the Parameter.
Whilst everything works fine first time around, when I re-open the GH file the persistent data is lost. I need to serialize the data in some way in order to write it to a GH file and I'm not entirely sure how to do this.... I've tried for quite a while now, looking through the forum & SDK which offer clues but no joy... so I'm admitting defeat and running here!!!
Here are some of the CS bits:
public class MyComponent : GH_Component { ......... private EM_SettingsParam myParam;
private EM_Settings localSettings;
private EM_Settings mySettings;
protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager pm) {
... myParam = new EM_SettingsParam(); EM_Settings localSettings = new EM_Settings(); myParam.PersistentData.Append(new GH_ObjectWrapper(localSettings)); pm.AddParameter(myParam, "Settings", "Se", "MySettings", GH_ParamAccess.item); }
protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) { GH_ObjectWrapper temp = new GH_ObjectWrapper(); if (!DA.GetData(5, ref temp)){ return; } mySettings = (EM_Settings)temp.Value;
...
} } public class EM_SettingsParam : GH_PersistentParam<GH_ObjectWrapper> { public EM_SettingsParam(): base(new GH_InstanceDescription("Settings", "Settings", "Represents a collection of Settings", "Params", "Primitive")) { } ...blah singular blah plural blah exposure.hidden blah... } public class EM_Settings { public bool Preview {get; set;} // (more parameters here) public EM_Settings() { Preview = true; }
}
Any help much appreciated $:)
John.…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
t. This was a reasonably effective workflow for the purposes of solving the initial problem. (in reviewing this post, it seems a bit lengthy, but hopefully it's of use to others).
Link to Illustrator Script example:https://forums.adobe.com/thread/508138
Portion I used: This applies to entire illustrator document. I am using Illustrator CC 64 bit and this worked okay. Tested a few times and it failed once, but a restart of Illustrator fixed it.
var v_selection = app.activeDocument.pathItems;SwapFillStroke(v_selection); function SwapFillStroke(objSel) { for(k = 0; k < objSel.length; k++){ var subSel = objSel[k]; var c_fill = subSel.fillColor; var c_stroke = subSel.strokeColor; subSel.fillColor = c_stroke; if(!subSel.stroked) subSel.stroked = true; subSel.strokeColor = c_fill; }} redraw();
My goal was to export colored geometry, (analysis meshes for example), from Rhino and get it into illustrator with solid fills.
If you want to know how meshes are colored in rhino...there are many explanations here on the forum, a quick search will get you more detailed information.
Short version: export your lines from rhino to illustrator and run the script listed above to make the stroke color the fill color. (in illustrator, shift+X will swap the fill and stroke colors on individual objects, but does not work on multiple objects..hence the need for the script).
Detailed Version:
In my case, I had 2 case studies I was working with.1 - wind rose meshes generated from Ladybug/honeybee2 - A mesh terrain that was colored by pre-set slope values.
NOTE: There are a few plugins to bake objects with color. I used Human tools, (Bake Geometry and JustifiedText3D).http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/human (lots of other great stuff in there too!)
I had two types of geometry. (2 different definitions)
1- An analysis mesh, (HoneyBee/LadyBug),
2 - Lines generated from mesh faces. (mesh terrain/slope values).
Export results as a DXF, and choose "do not explode". (these were my settings)
DXF seemed to produce the most consistent results.
(you could export/save as an AI file and just open them in illustrator, but that seemed to give inconsistent results with the script).
Open DXF in Illustrator:
Apply Script in illustrator:
In the terrain example, there are only 5 colors, so selection in illustrator, by color, is very easy. In the results from honeybee/ladybug, (or any analysis process I imagine), the default colors are created with a much wider range of values. I presume the legend is then created by an average of those values within a range. My point is that, with the analysis results, selecting objects by color in Illustrator is probably not a very effective workflow.
I only tested this on my instance of rhino and Illustrator. mileage may vary.
In summation, at this point, it seems that the best way to get colored mesh faces, into illustrator, is to export the meshes, (which really ends up being the mesh face edges...curves), and bringing them into illustrator and running a quick script to swap the colors. Once that is complete, you can then select ALL the objects, and change the stroke color/weight at once.…
URBS cup surface, and boy oh boy did it ever work more uniformly than using 3D orb cutters on a 3D cup. Different sized spheres return the *same* hex grid only less and less raised up as the spheres get very large.
My first question is whether these are different in character or just in Z scaling, so if I rescale them all to the same Z thickness, after extracting only the relief structure via Boolean union and splitting...and they are only *slightly* different in character, which means mere Z re-scaling of a single moderate ball size relief is an appropriate cheat to avoid slow Boolean union re-making each relief Z scale with different sized balls.
The one on the right is a very shallow relief scaled up to the same Z thickness as the pure sphere one on the left. And really, we will be mostly scaling *down* from a thicker master surface so that will attenuate any weirdness in the curvature. Indeed, I see no difference, so it makes sense to only archive the thickest one so we can control the full range of thicknesses, all the way to nearly flat bulbs. Here is the thickest one, just before the balls lose holes between them, scaled down compared to a shallow one made with huge balls to start with:
Now we just use Rhino Flow Along Surface or the Grasshopper Jackalope plug-in Sporf to morph this flat system onto our lathe form.
With Rhino history for the Flow Along Surface step I can rescale the original in Z and wait twenty seconds to see the update:
There are sad edge artifacts that will require some strategy to retain or later delete a whole row:
Maybe add more geometry to later delete or make a solid to hold stuff together?
So vastly decreasing the cell count and changing grid direction to match your cup:
The edges came out fine on this one, happily. The isocurve count has been increased by the Flow Along Surface command:
It can't be filleted yet since the joint where the cup NURBS surface has a joint now leaves feathery edges, so I went back and duplicated the border of the flat array, offset and lofted to make a protecting surface:
But that gave crazy artifacts:
I'm just going to use symmetry to fill in the joint with good faces that are not having to be joined as two halves. I had to turn my Rhino units tolerance down from a silly 0.0001 to 0.01 units to get a good re-join, but it still won't fillet without leaving holes.
SO LET'S FILLET THE FLAT THING. Same problem but a bit faster, and actually repairable manually. Rhino 5 is buggy as hell with core commands, damn it. This is not world class behavior.
Let's try it in Rhino 6 WIP, our great hope of the future: nope, the same. I had to simply manually copy the missing pieces from where it did work, which at least is easy to do in flatland. Now I get a cup:
This can *all* be done quickly in Rhino without Grasshopper, and Rhino affords you fast cage editing of the original flat array that Grasshopper cannot yet do. You just need to use Analyze Direction to be able to swap UV directions of the source or target and flip the source surface to achieve concave vs. convex patterns.
Grasshopper doesn't even have a fillet (multiple) edges component so there's not a lot of advantage to having some super slow parametric system via Grasshopper. It's not like you'll be able to see the changes fast enough to tweak a design.…
/www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/vb-vs-c-vs-python
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/which-programming-language-should-i-focus-on-vb-or-python
VB.Net and C#
VB.Net and C# both belong to the ".Net" family of languages, and the things you can do with them in Rhino/Grasshopper are nearly 100% equivalent. Grasshopper itself was written in a combination of VB.Net and C#. Some advantages/comments, in no particular order:
Performance - VB.Net and C# scripts tend to execute faster because they are "Just-in-time" compiled as opposed to interpreted.
Autocomplete - both VB.Net and C# have rich autocomplete functionality in their respective script editor components - significantly more so than the python editor. This can be helpful for beginners since you can "hunt" for methods and properties by just typing a "." after an object name and looking at the list of available methods/properties.
Native Component development - If you eventually want to develop GHA assemblies/plug-ins for grasshopper, as of Rhino 5 you will have to use one of these two languages. However, there are plans to introduce python-based plugins in Rhino 6. Even so, the resources around plug-in development are very rich in the C# and VB.Net environments (with c# seeming to be the more popular of the two).
"Strong Typing" - VB.net to some degree, and C# especially, are less "forgiving" languages than python - they require you to know about the data type of the objects you're operating on. This can sometimes result in more verbose code - as you explicitly convert from type to type - but it also promotes good programming practice and helps make errors more understandable.
.Net ecosystem - using a .Net language means you have access to the thousands of libraries publicly available, and the process of referencing these libraries and making use of them is comparatively straightforward relative to python. More on this in the following section.
Resources/Support - At least as of 2012, VB and C# turned up more results on this forum than python, and I think you'll find slightly more expert-level coders in those languages able to help you here.
Which one between the two? C# or VB.Net? - Personally, I greatly prefer C# - I find it to be cleaner and clearer to use. I also have some programming background in C++/Java/Processing so I found the "C family" approach to be more familiar. As David and Damian point out in some of the posts linked above, C# is more popular than either python or VB.net in the rest of the coding world. However, if you are learning without any prior programming experience you may find VB.net to be a bit easier to learn.
Python
Python is, without a doubt, a beautiful and elegant language, which is probably more than can be said for VB.Net/C#. It is very popular with beginner coders, and its syntax is more readily understandable.
Syntax - Python is beautiful to read and write. Its syntax is very clear and free of extraneous punctuation (for example the ";" line endings in c#). It has many very nice language features that make common tasks more concise, like its loop syntax, list comprehensions, list "map" and "filter."
Multiple ways to talk to Rhino/Grasshopper - Python enables two general approaches to interacting with the Rhino/Grasshopper environment: RhinoCommon and RhinoScriptSyntax. If you have prior experience with Rhinoscript, you may find RhinoScriptSyntax to be preferable - it adapts many of the methods you're familiar with to the python language, and simplifies some tasks. A word of caution though - working with Rhinoscriptsyntax can introduce a performance hit relative to RhinoCommon operations. C# and VB.net by contrast can only work with RhinoCommon.
"Goodies" - The Python environment in Grasshopper has some "special features" that the other languages lack. In particular, the "GHPythonLib" library enables the ability to call most Grasshopper components from within your code, and the ability to easily enable parallel processing to improve performance. (A word of caution though - these two features do not seem to "play well" with each other, there may be bugs causing memory leaks that result in increasingly worse performance with each execution).
Cross-Platform - Unlike C#/VB.net, Python can be used natively in Rhino for Windows and Rhino for Mac.
Direct scripting in Rhino - You can also use Python directly in the Rhino environment without the need for Grasshopper if you desire, using the Rhino Python editor.
IronPython / Ecosystem issues - one frustration / potential downside to working with Python for Rhino/GH is that though there is a vast, amazing ecosystem of external libraries for Python, getting these to install/work properly in the Rhino/GH environment can be a real pain - largely because the language is actually "IronPython," a version of python designed to work closely with the .Net ecosystem. Many popular libraries like numpy and scipy are very challenging to get working in Rhino/GH.
Scripting in other programs - Especially in the AEC industry, Python is a popular scripting language for other applications. Tools like Revit, Dynamo, Blender, and ArcGIS all offer their own Python scripting interface - so learning Python in Rhino/GH can give you a leg up in eventually scripting in these other programs.
Python's Stock is Rising - there are currently a number of efforts to improve the "status" of python within the Rhino/GH ecosystem. The python editor in Rhino 6 has a number of improvements, not least of which is the ability to "compile" add-ons for Grasshopper written in python. I'm sure Giulio can speak to other upcoming improvements.
I hope this summary helps you find the right option for you. Ultimately you can't go wrong; concepts from any of the available scripting languages will make it much easier to learn the next one. In my day to day work I use a combination of both C# and python, where appropriate, and I love them both.
I hope others will feel welcome to chime in on this FAQ and add their own thoughts about advantages/disadvantages of these various options! If you have time, read through some of the other posts linked to at the beginning - there's lots of additional great information there. …