f objects with the main ring body, and that cannot be done in parallel since you are modifying the item once at a time, algorithmically.
The original example of a cylinder and sphere are textbook failures of the Rhino 5 dumb algorithm, since that combination features kissing surfaces that confuse Rhino about where they are intersecting since really in tolerance values they are overlapping along a ribbon instead of a sharp line.
Normally you would slightly move or rescale one of the pair to create a single loop intersection curve that doesn't wander around in jerky fashion trying to combine two surfaces that fail to actually plunge through one another.
Your main Boolean union is 116 prongs with a ring base, and that's slow because Rhino bogs down as the model gets more an more complicated with each internal step, I imagine.
The speed is not all that slow either, only 21 seconds for the Booleans themselves.
If you turn of Grasshopper preview meshing via the toolbar menu it should be significantly faster while you are tweaking the design.
To troubleshoot the slow Boolean, I went into Rhino and tried merely splitting the ring body with the prongs and that itself was just about as slow as the Boolean union, so Rhino is not being badass about it. Then I exploded the ring body and tried splitting just that with the prongs and it was *much* faster to operate on just that single surface! The black box reveals itself a bit.
In kind, splitting the prongs with that single surface was about the same speed as splitting it with the whole ring body, so no speed gain there.
But, to speed up your script, since we *cannot* in fact use parallel processing, we can instead manually create that prong surface by doing our own splits and using Grasshopper's natural order of parts, hopefully consistent, to get rid of the junk.
That prong surface is item 4 of an exploded object.
So I will mutually split them and tease out the good parts from the junk and then rejoin the parts, no Boolean union component needed.
First, I went into your prong cluster and removed the capping, so I have merely an open revolution surface instead of a polysurface, letting me access the surface trim command after quickly finding the BrepBrep intersection curves between the prongs and the single ring surface.
For that Boolean union step I'm down from 11 seconds to 4 seconds, but confusingly we added a second to the Boolean difference that follows:
It's fast since we are manually selecting junk instead of Rhino having to sort which is which, I imagine.
We still have a slow Boolean subtraction of the gems and holes from the finished ring body.
That's not simple so will remain slow and cannot be parallel processed since again there's a single main ring body being modified in each step, and nor are there simple pairs of split object to select from manually to discard junk.
…
diseño, construcción y entendimiento de nuestro entorno.
BIM está poniendo a disposición de los diseñadores y gestores auténticas bases de datos que pueden generarse, conectarse y editarse de forma paramétrica, proporcionando una sólida capa de realidad a los ejercicios de diseño generativo y computación que son objeto de estudio en Algomad, el seminario que busca popularizar la programación y la parametrización en el diseño y en la experiencia de nuestro entorno construido.
Tras un paréntesis en 2015, Algomad vuelve con el objetivo de demostrar cómo una visión computacional del BIM es una oportunidad para mejorar la forma de trabajar de ingenieros, arquitectos, constructoras y operadores de edificios e infraestructuras, tendiendo un puente entre las técnicas de diseño digital más avanzadas y la realidad de la construcción.
Algomad 2016 tendrá lugar en el centro de Madrid, en IE School of Architecture and Design, IE University, los días 3, 4 y 5 de Noviembre de 2016 y comprenderá 4 talleres así como ponencias a cargo de expertos de primer nivel.
Estructura de Algomad 2016
Algomad 2016 se estructura en torno a tres áreas temáticas principales:
BIM, como la metodología total específica para el sector de la construcción.
Computación, englobando las aplicaciones de programación y parametrización al diseño de edificios e infraestructuras.
Realidad, como marco de trabajo, buscando siempre resolver problemas reales a través de los dos puntos anteriores.
Público objetivo
Arquitectos, arquitectos técnicos, ingenieros y en general académicos, estudiantes de últimos cursos y profesionales del mundo inmobiliario y de la construcción que compartan un interés por la digitalización de nuestro sector. Se espera un nivel mínimo en el uso de herramientas BIM y de parametrización. Algomad proporcionará formación adicional y gratuita en las herramientas básicas a emplear en los talleres para asegurar un correcto desempeño.…
imes. Your loop should go to y.Count - 1. Or, you could use a For...Each loop, circumventing the problem altogether:
Dim shortLines As New List(Of Line)
For Each segment As Line in y
If (segment.Length < x) Then
shortLines.Add(segment)
End If
Next
A = shortLines
--------------------------------
Another problem is this line of code:
New_Lines.Add(New_Line)
It is located inside the loop but outside the If statement, meaning it gets run every single iteration. This fills up the short line list with duplicates.
-------------------------------
Here's something else which is redundant:
Dim Input_Line As New Line
Apart from the fact that you don't need a special variable for this at all, you also don't need to add a New keyword. The type Line in RhinoCommon (just like Point3d, Vector3d, Plane, BoundingBox etc. etc.) are Structures, not Classes. Structures always exist when they are defined, whereas Classes can be null ("Nothing" in VB).
-------------------------------
Some more advice:
Dim i As Integer
For i = 0 To y.Count()
You can merge these two lines into one. VB.NET allows you to declare your iteration variable inside the loop:
For i As Integer = 0 To y.Count - 1
--------------------------------
If you don't like the For...Each approach at the top of this answer, here's how to write this using a For...To loop:
Dim shortLines As New List(Of Line)
For i As Integer = 0 To y.Count - 1
If (y(i).Length < x) Then
shortLines.Add(y(i))
End If
Next
A = shortLines
ps. A personal preference of mine is that I always encase the expressions inside If...Then statements in brackets. You technically don't need to do this, but I find it makes the code more readable.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
itects are at the spoke of a number of different specialties, and their work affects many different people. It's not like an architect is a painter, whose work may offend or upset the occasional viewer. As an architect you have a responsibility to produce quality work. How can anybody trust you with this responsibility if you're taking a purely artistic approach? What guarantees do you have that your clients money won't be spend on a poorly designed project if you can provide no rational for why your design is the way it is?
2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?
I don't get. Discourse is there to flesh out problems and agree on solutions. It might not always accomplish that, but what's the difference between talking about architecture as opposed to any other topic?
3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?
I'm sorry I don't understand.
4. What is purely architectural discourse?
I imagine it's having a discussion where you only talk about architecture?
5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support?
Functionalism and Rationalism are ideologies. Some would even call them methodologies. They are inherently philosophical things as they are nothing more than a collection of ideas and views. As a society we've decided that a certain level of rationalism is a good thing. The Enlightenment continued this trend after the Dark Age hiatus and it quickly led to a large number of very tangible benefits for almost everyone.
I'm not arguing for or against Functionalism as an architectural style. I'm asking for a measure of rationalism in our academic process.
6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ?
Let's find out. In the meantime I'll settle for a little functionalism.
7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?
Algorithms and algorithmic design are rational in the sense that they do not allow for ambiguity. But that doesn't make them rational in the real-world sense. These are not the same kind of 'rational's. I can make an algorithm that produces total nonsense, but does so completely reliably. I can also use an algorithm in a setting for which it wasn't intended, thus invalidating the results.
This is actually the crux of the problem. Which algorithms does one use to solve a problem and what data do they require? If you can't answer this question or if you do not understand the algorithms you are using (at least on a superficial level) then I'd say you have no business using them.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 12:48pm on August 19, 2013
an almost planar tissue (your case) can cause a variety of issues up to the undo able state (metal parts/components grow in size as well for no reason). See forces estimated by FF below.
2. Therefor I strongly suggest to consider Plan B (a) mastermind a secondary "anchor" capability in order to achieve a far more stable system (b) use a mount design that can support this (and comply with the attractor concept of yours). Here's a variable mount custom system (mostly machined AND not cast) that is suitable for the scope (Rhino reads the stp file OK .... but makes a colossally big file - thus I attach here the original).
3. On first sight lot's of things in this system appear "odd". For instance: is it stable? Why these double cables are used? How far can be adjusted? (that's a classic case for feature driven parametric design - not doable with Rhino).
4. This concept (strut axis exported only) is tested in FORMFINDER and some other far more complex membrane apps that I use quite often (not RhinoMembrane). Here's is what FF tells us about:
Observe a different kind of "stress" when this is converted to radial type:
5. If you insert the stp file to the Rhino file provided (exactly as exported from FORMFINDER - no mods of mine of any kind) you'll see what goes where (and why). That way the usage of double cables is rather obvious (and a lot other things - for instance the way that the struts achieve "equilibrium", see the slots in the base mount plate.
6. If this approach is worth considering your definition requires some serious rethinking (far more simpler/manageable with the drawback that the real parts they are "static" they can adjust only as far this particular solution allows them to do - controlling them parametrically is clearly impossible with the current state of R/GH capabilities).`
All in all: this case works because the cables push the anchor points downwards and the struts push them upwards.
more in a while
…
taTree.
2. Since GH is acyclic by design we can't pick individually (without code, that is) our "picks" for the iceberg ... thus we need a global policy applied to ALL grid points at once.
3. This is what the next part does: it picks randomly some iceberg stuff and modifies their Z by a random value. If the Z is always "above" the grid or not it depends upon the domain of values to operate. Seed means "roll the bones again" (meaning another collection).
4. So we have the modified points Data Tree (that are steady - acting as the tips of the iceberg). Let's call them Anchors.
5. If we subtract set 4 from 1 we have the points prone to vary according some manipulation. Kangaroo does that manipulation (this is the best add-on that GH has to offer by 1M miles made by a very clever fella).
6. But if we instruct Kangaroo to do the job... he makes chaos since the points in 4 are not sufficient: we need perimeter steady points that act as Anchors as well. So we manage some logic to pick a variable set of perimeter points and we "merge" 4 and 6 and we have the final set of Anchors on hand - whilst all the rest are points willing to change.
7. Kangaroo is a physics engine meaning that the only thing that understands is ... er ... points and their relation (the "line" connecting them, that is). Kinda like a CPU that understands 0 and 1 and nothing else.
8. So we provide Kangaroo info about all the lines involved: how "stiff" they are and what is the expected/desired final length.
9. By double clicking the Kangaroo component ... the "simulation" starts running (in some kind of "loops") and goes towards an "equilibrium" where all our desires are satisfied - or the solution's entropy is the minimum possible (well up to some level, he he). Kangaroo displays a small control dialog that allows you to halt the process or reset it (meaning: start again).
10. If the instructions are "good"/"proper" the "loops" (iterations) are relatively few: if K does 1M "loops" ... this means that your instructions are silly or not well thought.
After stopping Kangaroo ... we have (hopefully) a "well" distorted collection of points (and their equivalent mesh) to proceed further via components usually found in the WB add-on
PS: If all the above sound Greek to you ... it's because I'm Greek, he he.
Moral: Get the gist of Kangaroo ASAP - worth spending some time I recon. If you do that and you need examples (other than the ones available at download time) ... well I have more than 300 (from simple to ultra paranoid).…
reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…
d of interpenetrating surfaces somewhere:
Now all links (except a possible single ball on the very end of odd numbered ball series) are four balls long, including the jostled ones. Without that step, those items simply don't appear in the output, leaving way too big of gaps to ignore, eventually leaving huge gaps at later stages of segment doubling:
So if I turn the jostling multiplication factor way down it should work imperceptibly:
Ta-dah! The jostling strategy WORKS! Granted, only in this special case where I know I'm dealing with adjacent pairs of worms along a curve, not generic objects arranged in space by some artist.
Now I just need to wrap the multiple Python script components I'm stringing together into one script.
How long does the full 2400 balls take, finally? It took 12 Python scripts that merge pairs, to achieve this breakdown: 2400 -> 1200 -> 600 -> 300 -> 150 -> 75 -> 38 -> 19 -> 9 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1. Time was 2 minutes 50 seconds, so there is some extra struggle for 2X as many balls as 1200 that took 1 minute 20 seconds, but only ten more seconds.
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 9:06pm on February 17, 2016
hacia donde crecerán las venas, y tenemos otro conjunto de puntos 'N' que son los que forman el patrón de venas.
1. Por cada 's' perteneciente a S, buscamos el 'n' perteneciente a N más cercano. Ese 'n' va a "moverse".
2. Por cada 'n' que se mueve, hacemos un vector dirigido a todos los 's' hacia los que se mueve.
3. Calculamos el vector medio de todos los vectores del paso 2, movemos 'n' con ese vector y lo añadimos a V.
4. Si algún 's' está muy cerca de algún 'n', ese 's' se elimina.
5. Se repite el proceso.
Esto es para formar venaciones abiertas sin autocrecimiento (como la siguiente imagen, hecho con Visual Basic).
Para las cerradas (las reticuladas que forman algo como células, como en la imagen tuya), el paso 1 y 4 son distintos y no sabría decirte cómo hacerlo. En ese pdf explica un método usando delaunay pero es muy lento, además gh no tiene ese algoritmo en 3d (entonces solo se podría hacer este patrón en 2d), por lo que estoy buscando otras vías, solo he logrado llegar a esto:
Es más complicado de lo que parece.
No obstante, si te conformas con menos, hay muchas formas de crear raíces y patrones similares, con SortestWalk, Anemone, etc... Hay ejemplos en este foro.
Si realmente quieres conseguir ese patrón, deberías aprender a programar porque para añadir distintos radios a las venas es necesario que las venas tengan topología y eso se complica demasiado desde gh. Nervous System para su "Hyphae" usó C++ con la librería CGAL, que es una muy poderosa librería de algoritmos de 3d.
…