ption file on this page (http://livecomponents-ny.com/2012/04/01/study-voronoi-relaxation/) to essentially create a triangulated frame from 3d voronoi points (ignoring the kangaroo part for now).
I'm stuck on the point where (..I think..) I'm trying to define a function that will offset a line to triangulate the previous offset. I've included an image of the component I'm stuck on as well as the original description jpg.
At this point I have no idea what I'm doing and if I've made any previous mistakes, any and all thought/ideas/help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks a heap in advanced :)
MakingtheTriangularSectionFrame.PNG
MinimalSurface-TriangularSectionFrame-from3DVoronoi.gh
OriginalTutorial_3d-voronoi.jpg…
is set up to manipulate strings into an STL file that is quite different from how Grasshopper defines meshes, in that an STL seems to define each face by XYZ points, Grasshopper wants a single list of all vertex points and then has an allied lists of topological connectivity according to vertex number, so for now I just hacked it to spit out points minus so many duplicates it generates for STL:
Right now it has an internal 3D trigonometric function I added input sliders to control, that creates surfaces that look a lot like molecular orbitals.
So how do I make a mesh? I failed to make a single mesh face from each STL face since AddMesh seems to want a list, so I tried making a single list and matching it with a simple ((1,2,3),(4,5,6),(7,8,9)...) array of connectivity but it hasn't worked yet since the STL list of vertices has duplicates that won't work for Grasshopper and removing the duplicates scrambles the connectivity relation.
After some work on this and seeing the output, I figure I could just randomly populate the mathematical function with points instead, unless it really gives a better mesh result than other routines. I'm not sure what to do with it yet, even if I get the mesh figured out.
import rhinoscriptsyntaximport RhinoPOINTS_CONTAINER =[]POINTS = []class Vector: # struct XYZ def __init__(self,x,y,z): self.x=x self.y=y self.z=z def __str__(self): return str(self.x)+" "+str(self.y)+" "+str(self.z) class Gridcell: # struct GRIDCELL def __init__(self,p,n,val): self.p = p # p=[8] self.n = n # n=[8] self.val = val # val=[8] class Triangle: # struct TRIANGLE def __init__(self,p1,p2,p3): self.p = [p1, p2, p3] # vertices # HACK TO GRAB VERTICES FOR PYTHON OUTPUT POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p1.x,p1.y,p1.z) ) POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p2.x,p2.y,p2.z) ) POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p3.x,p3.y,p3.z) )# return a 3d list of values def readdata(f=lambda x,y,z:x*x+y*y+z*z,size=5.0,steps=11): m=int(steps/2) ki = [] for i in range(steps): kj = [] for j in range(steps): kd=[] for k in range(steps): kd.append(f(size*(i-m)/m,size*(j-m)/m,size*(k-m)/m)) kj.append(kd) ki.append(kj) return ki from math import sin,cos,exp,atan2 def lobes(x,y,z): try: theta = atan2(x,y) # sin t = o except: theta = 0 try: phi = atan2(z,y) except: phi = 0 r = x*x+y*y+z*z ct=cos(PARAMETER_A * theta) cp=cos(PARAMETER_B * phi) return ct*ct*cp*cp*exp(-r/10) def main(): data = readdata(lobes,10,40) isolevel = 0.1 #print(data) triangles=[] for i in range(len(data)-1): for j in range(len(data[i])-1): for k in range(len(data[i][j])-1): p=[None]*8 val=[None]*8 #print(i,j,k) p[0]=Vector(i,j,k) val[0] = data[i][j][k] p[1]=Vector(i+1,j,k) val[1] = data[i+1][j][k] p[2]=Vector(i+1,j+1,k) val[2] = data[i+1][j+1][k] p[3]=Vector(i,j+1,k) val[3] = data[i][j+1][k] p[4]=Vector(i,j,k+1) val[4] = data[i][j][k+1] p[5]=Vector(i+1,j,k+1) val[5] = data[i+1][j][k+1] p[6]=Vector(i+1,j+1,k+1) val[6] = data[i+1][j+1][k+1] p[7]=Vector(i,j+1,k+1) val[7] = data[i][j+1][k+1] grid=Gridcell(p,[],val) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,2,3,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,2,6,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,4,6,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,6,1,2)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,6,1,4)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,5,6,1,4)) def t000F(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [] def t0E01(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3])) ] def t0D02(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v0],g.val[v1],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2])) ] def t0C03(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri=Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3])) return [tri,Triangle( tri.p[2], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2]), tri.p[1]) ] def t0B04(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v0],g.val[v2],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v1],g.val[v2],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3])) ] def t0A05(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri = Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3])) return [tri,Triangle( tri.p[0], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2]), tri.p[1]) ] def t0906(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri=Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3])) return [tri, Triangle( tri.p[0], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), tri.p[2]) ] def t0708(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v0],g.val[v3],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v2],g.val[v3],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v1],g.val[v3],g.val[v1])) ] trianglefs = {7:t0708,8:t0708,9:t0906,6:t0906,10:t0A05,5:t0A05,11:t0B04,4:t0B04,12:t0C03,3:t0C03,13:t0D02,2:t0D02,14:t0E01,1:t0E01,0:t000F,15:t000F} def PolygoniseTri(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): triangles = [] # Determine which of the 16 cases we have given which vertices # are above or below the isosurface triindex = 0; if g.val[v0] < iso: triindex |= 1 if g.val[v1] < iso: triindex |= 2 if g.val[v2] < iso: triindex |= 4 if g.val[v3] < iso: triindex |= 8 return trianglefs[triindex](g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3) def VertexInterp(isolevel,p1,p2,valp1,valp2): if abs(isolevel-valp1) < 0.00001 : return(p1); if abs(isolevel-valp2) < 0.00001 : return(p2); if abs(valp1-valp2) < 0.00001 : return(p1); mu = (isolevel - valp1) / (valp2 - valp1) return Vector(p1.x + mu * (p2.x - p1.x), p1.y + mu * (p2.y - p1.y), p1.z + mu * (p2.z - p1.z)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() # GRASSHOPPER PYTHON OUTPUTPOINTS = rhinoscriptsyntax.AddPoints(POINTS_CONTAINER)POINTS = rhinoscriptsyntax.CullDuplicatePoints(POINTS)…
rtitions." (http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1)
To continue with my wrapping career, TetRhino (or Tetrino) is a .NET wrapper for the well-known and pretty amazing TetGen mesh tetrahedralization program. It provides one new GH component for discretizing or remeshing objects using TetGen. Basic tetrahedralization functionality is exposed with a few different output types that can be controlled. At the moment, the only control for tetrahedra sizes is the minimum ratio, which is controlled by a slider. This is hardcoded to always be above 1.0-1.1, as it is very easy to generate a LOT of data (and crash)...
The libs are divided again into different modules to allow flexibility and fun with or without Rhino and GH, so have fun. All 4 libs should be placed in a folder (maybe called 'tetgen') in your GH libraries folder. Remember to unblock.
Once again, the libs are provided as-is, with no guarantee of support for now, as I use them internally and do not intend to develop this into a shiny, polished plug-in. If there is enough interest, I can tidy up the code-base and upload it somewhere if someone more savvy than me wants to play.
TetgenGH.gha - Grasshopper assembly which adds the 'Tetrahedralize' component to Mesh -> Triangulation.
TetgenRC.dll - RhinoCommon interface to the Tetgen wrapper.
TetgenSharp.dll - dotNET wrapper for Tetgen.
TetgenWrapper.dll - Actual wrapper for Tetgen.
Obviously, credit where credit is due for this excellent and tiny piece of software:
"The development of TetGen is executed at the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics in the research group of Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computing." See http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1 for more details about TetGen.
To wrap up, some notes about the inputs:
These are the possible integer Flags (F) values and resultant outputs for the GH component:
0 - Output M yields a closed boundary mesh. Useful for simply remeshing your input mesh.
1 - Output M yields a list of tetra meshes.
2 - Output I yields a DataTree of tetra indices, grouped in lists of 4. Output P yields a list of points to which the tetra indices correspond.
3 - Output I yields a DataTree of edge indices, grouped in lists of 2. Output P yields a list of points to which the edge indices correspond. Useful for lots of things, very easy to create lines from this to plug into K2 or something for some ropey FEA (or not so ropey!) ;)
As this component can potentially create a LOT of data, especially with dense meshes, care should be taken with the MinRatio (R) input. This will try to constrain the tetra to be more or less elongated, which also means that the lower this value gets, the more tetra need to be added to satisfy this constraint. Start with very high values and lower them until satisfactory.
Hopefully shouldn't be an issue, but it's possible that you need the 2015 Microsoft C++ Redistributable.
Happy tetrahedralizing...
UPDATE: The tetgen.zip has been updated with some fixes.
UPDATE2: This is now available on Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/tetrino
…
Added by Tom Svilans at 1:27am on October 24, 2017
he workshops focus on a variety of different advanced digital design platforms related to environmental analysis, BIM, parametric design, GIS, responsive systems, and urban/landscape design.
Eligibility: The workshops are open to all students and professionals in the design fields. Please review the specific experience requirements for each workshop in the full workshop descriptions.
Cost: Each workshop costs $75/$150 for students/professionals. [Registration will be online on Monday, March 1]
Hardware and Software: Attendees must bring their own laptop to the workshop. Workshop instructors will make available trial versions of the software.
Location: All workshops will be held on the CCA San Francisco Campus in the Graduate Center.
Parametric Modeling with Grasshopper I
Date: March 5, 10am-5pm
Instructor: Ben Golder (developer of Finches plugin)
Parametric Modeling with Grasshopper II
Date: March 12, 10am-5pm
Instructor: Ben Golder
(developer of Finches plugin)
Intro to Physical Computing with Arduino
Date: March 5, 10am-5pm
Instructors: Jason Kelly Johnson (CCA/FCL and co-developer of Firefly plugin), with Rip DeLeon (FCL)]
Conceptual Modeling Tools in REVIT
Date: March 12, 10am-5pm
Instructor: Charles Lee (HOK, BIOS Design Collective)
Environmental Analysis in Ecotect
Date: March 5, 10am-5pm
Instructor: Olivier Pennetier of Symphysis
ESRI ArcGIS I: Mapping and Analyzing Urban Information
Date: March 5, 2-9pm
Instructor: Richard M. Kos, AICP
ESRI ArcGIS II: 3D Analyst and ArcScene
Date: March 12, 2-9pm
Instructors: Richard M. Kos, AICP and Mona El Khafif (URBANlab)
Advanced Illustrator for Urban Ecologies
Date: March 5, 10am-5pm
Instructor: David Fletcher (Fletcher Studio, URBANlab)…
erona, nei giorni 01,02 e 03 dicembre 2016.
Il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico diventano sempre più rilevanti per una progettazione innovativa degli edifici. Ad esempio, il nuovo protocollo LEED 4 riconosce crediti per le simulazioni di daylighting e conferma l’importanza degli aspetti progettuali per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre i consumi di energia elettrica per l’illuminazione artificiale con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”. Senza strumenti software per la simulazione della luce non è possibile ottenere risultati di qualità. Radiance è un software validato, utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che dai progettisti ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale e artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Queste ultime facilitano le procedure di programmazione. Le principali e più versatili saranno oggetto del corso (DIVA4Rhino e Ladybug+ Honeybee, plug-in per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros 3D).
Il corso è rivolto a progettisti e ricercatori che vogliano acquisire strumenti pratici per la simulazione con Radiance al fine di mettere a punto e verificare le soluzioni più adatte alle proprie esigenze. Sono previste lezioni di teoria e pratica con esempi ed esercitazioni volte a coprire in modo dimostrativo ed interattivo i concetti trattati.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 16 novembre 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Glas Müller.…
BIM world.
I can well imagine that modeling your design would be a lot more cumbersome in GH. It does not lend itself to the kind of wall to wall 'algorithmic design' that GH is geared towards. I suspect the approach RhinoParametrics takes will yield comparably quick results. I think GH could equal this ease of use and eventually better the MCAD-style 'feature based' approach Inventor/RP uses.
The design has a lot of arbitrary setting out points, and parameters that are not amenable to an overarching mathematical formulation like 'replication'.
It also is more fragmented, where there is no obvious 'starting point' or 'root input' for the whole design. Not sure, but changing one 'roof assembly' look like it would need to propagate to the adjacent assemblies. This would be a problem for GH's DAG?
The arbitrary nature of the design components/setting out, would ideally be defined 'by hand' using traditional CAD event-driven techniques. I guess Inventor's 'features' are like mirco GH scripts that are placed and manipulated as part of its 'main loop', and provides the user all the feed back, alignment and snapping aids that have been accumulating over the years.
The snapping would also be 'persistent', and a geometric constraints solver built into its 'history tree'. Like most MCAD modelers, defining profiles with standard geometric/dimensional/algebraic constraints, using a 'sketcher' is pretty quick, and doesn't require any scripting. The 'declarative' way that the constraints are defined, is going to be far quicker than the 'imperative' / sequential way GH's relies on parametric math. I guess, GC will regain the upper hand when the design can't be described with constraints very well.
Constraints between 'parts' or groups of features would also be constraints-solved using a 3d constraints manager or kinematics solver. Needless to say, all the features are compiled, and tested/error-trapped against the comparatively restricted gamut of possibilities; i.e. other vendor provided features.
Inventor also has iLogic. Not sure if this was used. iLogic is interesting as it functions like an 'active spreadsheet' where the user can script 'rules, checks and reactions' that have full access to all of the parameters that drive the model's features. It uses VB, so I suppose you could get 'generative' with it via .NET. Probably not as comfortable as Catia's Knowledge Advisor workbench... still.
Would the best of both worlds be something like Inventor (for the mainstream stuff), but fully scriptable (for the esoteric stuff) in one app/thread? The user would weave between a DAG and MACD style history tree?
…
and...how to bake meaningful assembly/component type of structures for the rest of the tedious work required > you know what I mean > the ugly part of our business > documentation drawings, BOM, tech etc etc etc.
For instance, let's focus to the planar glazing support items: absolutely no need to make them it via any smart app since they are plenty of them around in the market (unless you are I.M.Pei and you do that exceptional Pyramid wonder thing).
But...the goal is...hmm...to create some kind of "smart" (kinda, he he) solution where components (the "baked" ones, so to speak) are structured in such a way that further work (via conventional CAD apps) is easily managed. To speak in Rhino dialect: nested Blocks and/or nested Refs. Like having components in GH that could manage nested Block/Ref stuff (but I guess that you can do it rather easily via VB).
Back to that ugly truss: It's obvious that this is a nested collection of "repetitions" (should I call them iterations?) : meaning that a void top node owns a module truss that owns 2 supportive sub-trusses that are made by some pipes that own connecting items that own the planar glazing items etc etc etc.
With regard the "own" thing: Imagine a CAD file that is simply a container/place holder of some individual entities (called Models). These Models can be "linked" to others (in a nested parent/child relation). Links can be external of internal. They can be either References or Cells or Shared Cells. This the way that Microstation classifies/handles "entities" (a bit primitive, mind, but nobody's perfect - for the real thing see CATIA/NX).
Back to that ugly truss: Obviously this structure (actually the assembly/component combo related with the given solution) has to be transfered into classic 2d extractions (say: plans, elevations, sections et all). This is done why a weird thing called Dynamic Views/live markers in Microstation (you define Clip planes in 3d space that manage 2d extraction content in something called Drawing Model that controls other weird things called Sheet Models, all these live linked etc etc).
To make things more spicy...these 2d extractions can been viewed as master detail directives: from where 1:1 classic details are made (that is: you apply more Dynamic Views and live markers and life goes on - red pepper extra strong Russian vodka is a must when you do that type of work).
This is where Rhino is out of his depth (but to be fair: it's not designed for this type of work) and also this is where Microstation has no competition at least for AEC purposes (but to be fair: it is designed for this type of work).
Of course Autodesk...well expect soon the Gen Comp equivalent for Revit...a fact that complicates things (for Bentley) a bit given the Revit mania in the AEC world.
Moral: intelligence is good but it's only the tip of the iceberg. …
e screenshot, there are only two ROT3D(rotation 3d) commands and SEC (Brep/Plane Section) are defined, it seems that the cylinders are generated at first, and the rotated planes are used to intersect the cylinders, in order to generate the curves.
[Figure 1]
The redrawing is based on the previous assumpation, and there are 21 pairs of cross-arc drawn[Figure 1]. Finally, the problem is focused on the last step how to intersect curves.
In CCX, there are only 21 run times, which means the curves intersection are looped one-by-one, and 21 curves are arranged to finished 21 intersection[Figure 2, plz zoom in]. That is the reason, why CCX is not able to get the cross points between the neighbour arc.
[Figure 2]
For the curve-to-curve intersection does not work, in order to get the intersection points, I try to enlarge the set of intersected component, using the plane or cylinder to intersect with curve. When the PCX (plane-curve-intersect) is tested, 21 curves are intersected with the previous 21 rotated planes, the loop runs 441 times, which shows that the curves are mananged to intersect with the neighbour plane, and the intersection points are found. Moreover, the SCX (surface-curve-intersect) is tested, and the 21 cylinders are successfully intersected with the 21 curves. And more important point is that the SCX makes the intection points exactly between the curves and the cylinders, while the redundant ones of the intersection of plane and curve, in some combination of the rotated angles and cylinder distances, are are avoided.
Besides, the Graft/Merge command is also tried, I hope to merge the curves list together, and to intersect them with each other, but it fails. It is supposed that the graft command may change the data structure. When a list of cylinders are grafted, the new data is no longer the cylinders, which fails to plot.
In conclusion, if the loops of geometry are in the same level, the command is run in correspondence; if the loop is between different types of geometry, the total trials of loop are run.
[Rhino Version 5.0; Grasshopper 0.9.0076]
BTW, the .gh file includes the initial base line, which could be run directly in Grasshopper. Please help me to check the model, thanks.…