s that I just can't quite figure out.
Zoom in of the lower left hand corner...
1. First off, I am not sure why two versions of the rectangles are showing, the original and the scaled versions from the image. This doesn't appear to be affecting my final results, so not a big deal, but would like to understand why there are two and get rid of the original rectangles if possible.
2. I would like to change the scaling factor of the the rectangles in the Y direction. They are currently scaling too small based on the image I provided. Is there a way to set a lower value minimum so that the rectangles are not quite so small. Please not that I am only wanting to scale the rectangles in the Y direction. I want the X to currently remain constant.
3. Lastly, I would like to offset the grid points in the y direction randomly so that the image does not seem so gridded. These should shift no more than 3/8 of the distance between the grid from the center point.
Desired Result:
Any help is greatly appreciated!…
Added by Josh Sawyer at 10:48am on September 17, 2017
or a couple of thingies.
Pattern.gh
I defined parametrically a triangle which I then smoothed out to become more like a blob shape. After that I created a pretty simple pattern that I had in my mind (costed me a lot of time to make this in GH) and finally wanted to rotate each element as it goes higher . The dispatching part seems to be working pretty slow, so it might need an optimization, but I’m still happy with the result as it shows exactly what I wanted, so this is a minor issue in my case.
I then decided to try tessellating my extrusions. You’ll see the voronoi script which is a blob-group in the same Pattern.gh:
I had an idea of something and started the code from scratch, then decided to watch tutorials and implement the code shown there. I somehow coped to combine my code with this in the tutorials, but since my knowledge of Grasshopper is zero to basic my code seems to be very unoptimized and lagging.. When dragging the sliders, it takes a lot of time to compute the changes, although, I’m working on a 24gigs 6th gen i7 machine. It might also need optimization.
Here comes the first tricky part that I couldn’t sort out in an elegant way neither in Grasshopper nor in Rhino. I want a smooth transition between the wall and the ceiling, so that the voronoi tessellation doesn’t get interrupted. If I was to do it in Rhino I’d make a curve with a filleted edge which I’d then revolve/sweep along a rail.
Pattern.gh:
Second thing is – I’ve defined a shape which I want to rotate at a certain degree as it goes higher, however, I don’t have the knowledge to make this happen automatically and just copy the script over and over again. Is there a chance to somehow “loop” the code and parametrically define the degree of rotation and amount of units in the loop?
Next thing is I want to somehow be able to rotate each “6-storey-building” dependently on its surrounding buildings, so that their “terraces” never overlap. I’m using quotes, since they’re still some silly shapes that have nothing to do with buildings and terraces. The principle has to be something like gear wheels or the so-called rack wheels . There has to be some pace which I could set parametrically, but I’m still unsure how to do that in Grasshopper.
The pre-last thing is that I want to control the height of each “building” based on let’s say a topography. I presume this could be done somehow with height maps or some gradient mapper connected to curvature analysis. Not really sure how something like this would work, but I’ve seen such codes that control height depending on a variable.
The last one is more or less similar to the previous. I want to be able to “dissolve” the pattern that I initially created and make it irregular. I suppose this could be done with attractor curve, but again this is just a guess. Please note that this is a top view and the shapes on the upper-left corner have got more "wings" which means there is more floors in the according building. Let's say the buildings in the upper-left corner are 6-7 floors high, in the middle are 4-5 and to the right they're only 3 floors high.
Sorry for that many questions in a single thread. Please let me know if I have to split them in separate threads. All this information is needed for learning purposes. I’m now preparing myself for my bachelor thesis and try as much things as I could, so that I’ll be ready for the final stage of my bachelor’s degree.
Many thanks in advance! Cheers!…
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Hi Clemens I've analysed a plate structure using Karamba and wanted to do a convergence analysis on results computed as a function of the number of elements.
Now, when strictly looking at the result magnitudes of internal energy (IE) and maximum displacement (w_max), it's acceptable, that their relative deviations are very small. But I cannot explain the tendencies of their graphs. From what I know, FEM should always compute underestimated results when compared to analytical solutions. So I don't understand why both the IE and w_max seem to be decreasing for an increasing number of elements.
But my main concern is the behaviour of the peak moment, it seems to be simply hill climbing untill suddenly a singularity kicks in. I initially wanted to use the peak moment as a fitness value for optimisation, but with this behaviour, I don't think that would make sense. I've attached my GH file as well.
It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me on these subjects. Cheers Daniel Andersen
2)
Hi Daniel,
I could not run your definition because I have not all the plug-ins installed that you use.
You are basically right that the displacement should increase with a finer mesh. However the result of the shell analysis also depends on the shape of the triangles (well formed vs. very distorted). In order to test this, I think it would be interesting to use a very simple example (e.g. rectangular plate with one column) where you can easily control mesh generation. Would you like to start a discussion on this in the karamba group at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba?
It is not a good idea to use the bending moment at a singularity for optimization because the result will be heavily mesh dependent. Also real columns do have a certain diameter and modeling them as point supports introduces an error.
Best,
Clemens
3)
oh, and by the way!
Here's some relevant literature on handling peak moments: https://books.google.dk/books?id=-5TvNxnVMmgC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=blaauwendraad+plates+and+fem&source=bl&ots=SdDcwnrSA1&sig=6HulPmKNIhqKx4_rGxitteMC4CU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIg66k0LPaxgIVgY1yCh1KPAeY#v=onepage&q=chapter%2014&f=false (Blaauwendraad, J., 2010. Plates and FEM : Surprises and Pitfalls, see Chapter 14) It would be great if a feature dealing with peak moments could be incorporated in Karamba. In my work, I ended up exporting my models to Robot in order to verify the moment values. Best, Daniel
4)
Hi Daniel,
thank you for your reply and the link to Blaauwendraads excellent book!
At some point I hope to include material nonlinearity in Karamba which will help in dealing with stress singularities.
If you want you could open a discussion with a title like 'moment peaks in shells at point-supports'. Then we could copy and paste the text of our conversation into it.
Best,
Clemens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------…
o express my gratitude. I've been experimenting with your definitions (and still am), but let me extend my question.
Actually what I'm trying to achieve, is to recreate another project by Andrew Kudless, the spore lamp (I mentioned the Chrysalis at the beginning just because of the animation, which wasn't included in the Spore Lamp presentation).
Basically the spore lamp seems to me to be something like a preliminary study to the Chrysalis III project (I think it's a similar approach).
Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere which then has been planarized, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome.
The trick is to:
1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells)
2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on.
Here is what I have by now. (files: matsys spore lamp attempt)
That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design.
Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation.
1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01)
2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02)
3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03)
The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this:
you can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-released?g...
Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar...
The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve.
So to sum up:
Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever).
Goal no 2: Keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later and obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily
Any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?…
t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
oftware connections built from the initial seed of the project. As always you can download the new release from Food4Rhino. Make sure to remove the older version of Ladybug and Honeybee and update your scripts.
This release is also special since today it is just about 3 years (3 years and 2 weeks) from the first release of Ladybug. As with any release, there have been a number of bug fixes and improvements but we also have some major news this time. In no specific order and to ensure that the biggest developments do not get lost in the extensive list of updates, here are the major ones:
Mostapha is re-writing Ladybug!
Ladybug for DynamoBIM is finally available.
Chris made bakeIt really useful by incorporating an export pathway to PDFs and vector-based programs.
Honeybee is now connected to THERM and the LBNL suite thanks to Chris Mackey.
Sarith has addressed a much-desired wish for Honeybee (Hi Theodore!) by adding components to model electric lighting with Radiance.
Djordje is on his way to making renewable energy deeply integrated with Ladybug by releasing components for modeling solar hot water.
There is new bug. Check the bottom of the post for Dragonfly!
Last but definitely not least (in case you’re not still convinced that this release is a major one) Miguel has started a new project that brings some of Ladybug’s features directly to Rhino. We mean Rhino Rhino - A Rhino plugin! Say hi to Icarus! #surprise
Before we forget! Ladybug and Honeybee now have official stickers. Yes! We know about T-Shirts and mugs and they will be next. For now, you can deck-out your laptops and powerhouse simulation machines with the symbology of our collaborative software ecosystem.
Now go grab a cup of tea/coffee and read the details below:
Rewriting Ladybug!
Perhaps the most far-reaching development of the last 4 months is an effort on the part of Mostapha to initiate a well structured, well documented, flexible, and extendable version of the Ladybug libraries. While such code is something that few community members will interact with directly, a well-documented library is critical for maintaining the project, adding new features, and for porting Ladybug to other software platforms.
The new Ladybug libraries are still under development across a number of new repositories and they separate a ladybug-core, which includes epw parsing and all non-geometric functions, from interface-specific geometry libraries. This allows us to easily extend Ladybug to other platforms with a different geometry library for each platform (ie. ladybug-grasshopper, ladybug-dynamo, ladybug-web, etc) all of which are developed on top of the ladybug-core.
Without getting too technical, here is an example of a useful outcome of this development. If you want to know the number of hours that relative humidity is more than 90% for a given epw, all that you have to code (in any python interface) is the following:
import ladybug as lb
_epwFile = r"C:\EnergyPlusV7-2-0\WeatherData\USA_CO_Golden-NREL.724666_TMY3.epw"
epwfile = lb.epw.EPW(_epwFile)
filteredData = epwfile.relativeHumidity.filterByConditionalStatement('x>90')
print "Number of hours with Humidity more than 90 is %d "%len(filteredData.timeStamps)
Compare that to the 500 + lines that you would have had to write previously for this operation, which were usually tied to a single interface! Now let’s see what will happen if you want to use the geometry-specific libraries. Let’s draw a sunpath in Grasshopper:
import ladybuggrasshopper.epw as epw
import ladybuggrasshopper.sunpath as sunpath
# get location data form epw file
location = epw.EPW(_epwFile).location
# initiate sunpath based on location
sp = sunpath.Sunpath.fromLocation(location, northAngle = 0, daylightSavingPeriod = None, basePoint =cenPt, scale = scale, sunScale = sunScale)
# draw sunpath geometry
sp.drawAnnualSunpath()
# assign geometries to outputs
...
Finally we ask, how would this code will look if we wanted to make a sunpath for dynamo? Well, it will be exactly the same! Just change ladybuggrasshopper in the second line to ladybugdynamo! Here is the code which is creating the sunpath below.
With this ease of scripting, we hope to involve more of our community members in our development and make it easy for others to use ladybug in their various preferred applications. By the next release, we will produce an API documentation (documentation of all the ladybug classes, methods and properties that you can script with) and begin making tutorials for those interested in getting deeper into Ladybug development.
LADYBUG
1 - Initial Release of Ladybug for Dynamo:
As is evident from the post above, we are happy to announce the first release of Ladybug for Dynamo! You can download the ladybug package from Dynamo package manager. Make sure to download version 0.0.6 which is actually 0.0.1! It took a number of trial and errors to get it up there. Once you have the file downloaded you can watch these videos to get started:
The source code can be find under ladybug-dynamo repository and (as you can already guess) it is using the new code base. It includes a very small toolkit of essential Ladybug components/nodes but it has enough to get you started. You can import weather files, draw sunpaths and run sunlighthours or radiation analyses.
There are two known issues in this release but neither of them is critical. You need to have Dynamo 0.9.1 or higher installed which you can download from here (http://dynamobuilds.com/). It is recommended that you run the scripts with ‘Manual’ run (as opposed to ‘Automatic’) since the more intense calculations can make Dynamo crash in automatic mode.
To put things in perspective, here is how we would map Ladybug for Dynamo vs Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper on the classic ‘Hype graph’. The good news is that what we learned a lot from the last three years, making development of the Dynamo version easier and getting us to the plateau of productivity faster.
We should also note that the current development of the Dynamo interface is behind that of the Ladybug-Core, which means there are a number of features that are developed in the code but haven’t made their way to the nodes yet. They will be added gradually over the next month or two.
If you’re interested to get involved in the development process or have ideas for the development, follow ladybug on Facebook, Twitter and Github. We will only post major release news here. Facebook, github and twitter will be the main channels for posting the development process. There will also be a release of a new ladybug for Grasshopper soon that will use the came Ladybug-Core libraries as the Dynamo interface [Trying hard not to name it as Ladybug 2].
2 - New Project “Icarus” Provides Ladybug Capabilities Directly in Rhino
Speaking of expanded cross-platform capabilities, the talented Miguel Rus has produced a standalone Rhino Plugin off of the original Ladybug code that has been included in this release. After writing his own core C# libraries, Miguel’s plugin enables users to produce sunpath and run sunlight hours analyses in the Rhino scene without need of opening Grasshopper or engaging the (sometimes daunting) act of visual scripting.
This release includes his initial RHP plugin file. It is hoped that Miguel’s efforts will extend some of the capabilities of environmental design to individuals who are unfamiliar with visual scripting, casting the network of our community into new territory. We need your help spreading the word about Icarus since the people who will benefit the most from it have probably not read this far into the release notes. Also, as the project is in the early stages, your feedback can make a great difference. You can download the current release from this link.
Once you download the zip file. Right click and unblock it. Then extract the files under C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\ folder. Drag and drop the RHP file into Rhino and you should be ready to go. You can either type Icarus in the command line or open it via the panels. Here is a short video that shows how to run a sunlighhours analysis study in Rhino.
3 - BakeIt Input Now Supports a Pathway to PDF +Vector Programs
As promised in the previous release, the BakeIt_ option available on Ladybug’s visual components has been enhanced to provide a full pathway to vector-based programs (like Illustrator and Inkscape) and eases the export to vector formats like PDFs.
This means that the BakeIt_ operation now places all text in the Rhino scene as actual editable text (not meshes) and any colored meshes are output as groups of colored hatches (so that they appear as color-filled polygons in vector-based programs). There is still an option to bake the colored geometries as light meshes (which requires smaller amounts of memory and computation time) but the new hatched capability should make it easier to incorporate Ladybug graphics in architectural drawings and documents like this vector psychrometric chart.
4 - Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) Now Available
Thanks to the efforts of Djordje Spasic, it is now possible to compute the common outdoor comfort metric ‘Physiological Equivalent Temperature’ (PET) with Ladybug. The capability has been included with this release of “Thermal Comfort Indices” component and is supported by a “Body Characteristics” component in the Extra tab. PET is particularly helpful for evaluating outdoor comfort at a high spatial resolution and so the next Honeybee release will include an option for PET with the microclimate map workflow.
5 - Solar Hot Water Components Available in WIP
Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic have built a set of components that perform detailed estimates of solar hot water. The components are currently undergoing final stages of testing and are available in the WIP tab of this release. You can read the full release notes for the components here.
6 - New Ladybug Graphic Standards
With the parallel efforts or so many developers, we have made an effort in this release to standardize the means by which you interact with the components. This includes warnings for missing inputs and the ability to make either icons or text appear on the components as you wish (Hi Andres!). A full list of all graphic standards can be found here. If you have any thoughts or comments on the new standards, feel free to voice them here.
7 - Wet Bulb Temperature Now Available
Thanks to Antonello Di Nunzio - the newest member of the Ladybug development team, it is now possible to calculate wet bulb temperature with Ladybug. Antonello’s component can be found under the WIP tab and takes inputs of dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure.
8 - New View Analysis Types
The view analysis component now allows for several different view studies in addition to the previous ‘view to test points.’ These include, skyview (which is helpful for studies of outdoor micro-climate), as well as spherical view and ‘cone of vision’ view, which are helpful for indoor studies evaluating the overall visual connection to the outdoors.
HONEYBEE
1 - Connection to THERM and LBNL Programs
With this release, many of you will notice that a new tab has been added to Honeybee. The tab “11 | THERM” includes 7 new components that enable you to export ready-to-simulate Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) THERM files from Rhino/Grasshopper. THERM is a 2D finite element heat flow engine that is used to evaluate the performance of wall/window construction details by simulating thermal bridging behavior. The new Honeybee tab represents the first ever CAD plugin interface for THERM, which has been in demand since the first release of LBNL THERM several years ago. The export workflow involves the drawing of window/wall construction details in Rhino and the assigning of materials and boundary conditions in Grasshopper to produce ready-to-simulate THERM files that allow you to bypass the limited drawing interface of THERM completely. Additional components in the “11 | THERM” tab allow you to import the results of THERM simulations back into Grasshopper and assist with incorporating THERM results into Honeybee EnergyPlus simulations. Finally, two components assist with a connection to LBNL WINDOW for advanced modeling of Glazing constructions. Example files illustrating many of the capabilities of the new components can be found in there links.
THERM_Export_Workflow, THERM_Comparison_of_Stud_Wall_Constructions
Analyze_THERM_Results, Thermal_Bridging_with_THERM_and_EnergyPlus
Import_Glazing_System_from_LBNL_WINDOW, Import_LBNL_WINDOW_Glazing_Assembly_for_EnergyPlus
It is recommended that those who are using these THERM components for the first time begin by exploring this example file.
Tutorial videos on how to use the components will be posted soon. A great deal of thanks is due to the LBNL team that was responsive to questions at the start of the development and special thanks goes to Payette Architects, which allowed Chris Mackey (the author of the components) a significant amount of paid time to develop them.
2 - Electrical Lighting Components with Enhanced Capabilities for Importing and Manipulating IES Files
Thanks to the efforts of Sarith Subramaniam, it is now much easier and more flexible to include electric lighting in Honeybee Radiance simulations. A series of very exciting images and videos can be found in his release post.
You can find the components under WIP tab. Sarith is looking for feedback and wishes. Please give them a try and let him know your thoughts. Several example files showing how to use the components can be found here. 1, 2, 3.
3- Expanded Dynamic Shade Capabilities
After great demand, it is now possible to assign several different types of control strategies for interior blinds and shades for EnergyPlus simulations. Control thresholds range from zone temperature, to zone cooling load, to radiation on windows, to many combinations of these variables. The new component also features the ability to run EnergyPlus simulations with electrochromic glazing. An example file showing many of the new capabilities can be found here.
Dragonfly Beta
In order to link the capabilities of Ladybug + Honeybee to a wider range of climatic data sets and analytical tools, a new insect has been initiated under the name of Dragonfly. While the Dragonfly components are not included with the download of this release, the most recent version can be downloaded here. An example file showing how to use Dragonfly to warp EPW data to account for urban heat island effect can also be found here. By the next release, the capabilities of Dragonfly should be robust enough for it to fly on its own. Additional features that will be implemented in the next few months include importing thermal satellite image data to Rhino/GH as well as the ability to warp EPW files to account for climate change projections. Anyone interested in testing out the new insect should feel free to contact Chris Mackey.
And finally, it is with great pleasure that we welcome Sarith and Antonello to the team. As mentioned in the above release notes, Sarith has added a robust implementation for electric light modeling with Honeybee and Antonello has added a component to calculate wet bulb temperature while providing stellar support to a number of people here on the GH forum.
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.
Enjoy!
Ladybug+Honeybee development team
PS: Special thanks to Chris for writing most of the release notes!…
ni-corso introduttivo di Rhino e Grasshoper
Il corso non spiega una stampante 3D in particolare (quelle presenti sono state realizzate dai docenti) ma si rivolge a chiunque abbia la necessità di progettare un oggetto in 3D tra cui artigiani, studenti, ingegneri, progettisti spiegando pregi e difetti di tutte le stampanti.
Dalle 14.00 alle 16.00 Andrea Bruni e Valerio Monticelli di Studio MP affronteranno i temi:
1) Introduzione al mondo della stampa 3D
2) Il primo passo è creare un modello 3D - Introduzione pratica alla modellazione 3D con gli strumenti offerti dal software Rhinoceros
3) Preparazione e slicing attraverso Cura dei modelli per ottenere i risultati desiderati - ogni singola geometria è un mondo a sé. Non faremo qualcosa per te ma ti spiegheremo come farlo da solo.
Dalle 16.00 alle 18.00 Antonino Marsala di Mandarino Blu terrà un mini-workshop di introduzione aGrasshopper e la scomposizione di un pattern matematici secondo il processo di reverse engineering.
- Introduzione alla modellazione parametrica/generativa attraverso l'uso di Grasshopper- Il fiore della vita: significato simbolico e matematico- Scomposizione geometrica e analitica- Creazione del pattern attraverso la geometria generativa- Applicazioni pratiche
Biglietto 10,00 €
Biglietti disponibili al seguente link…
ally to describe a process of repeating objects in a self-similar way. Simply stated, the definition of a recursive function includes the function itself. Fractals are among the canonical examples of recursion in mathematics and programming. A loop can simply be a way to apply the same operation to a list of elements, but it is an iterative loop if the results from one step are used in the calculation of the next step. In design research controlling recursion becomes a new strategy to define new forms and spaces.
BRIEF
In this workshop we will be exploring iterative strategies through parametric design. Main tool for the course will be grasshopper3d and its add-on Anemone. Anemone is a simple but effective plug-in for Grasshopper that enables for loops in a simple and linear way. We will explore several strategies such iterative growth, L systems, fractals, recursive subdivisions and more. Our course will focus on how those methods can affect three-dimensional geometries, generating unexpected conformations.
TOPICS
intro to rhinointro to grasshopperadvanced grasshopperdata managementintro to loopscellular automatal-systemsagent based modelling
SCHEDULE
Day 1 / friday 16:00Tour Green Fab LabBasics of 3D modeling in RhinocerosBasics of GrasshopperOpen Lecture by Jan Pernecky, founder of rese arch
Day 2 / saturday 10 am- 18 pmRecursive iterative methodsAdvanced Topics of looping
Day 3 / sunday 10 am – 18 pmRecursive iterative methodsFinal presentation session
REQUIREMENTS
The workshop is open to all participants, no previous knowledge of Rhinoceros and Grasshopper is required (although an introductory knowledge is welcome). Participants should bring their own laptop with a pre-installed software. The software package needed has no additional cost for the participant (Rhino can be downloaded as evaluation version, Grasshopper and plugins are free). These softwares are subject to frequent updates, so a download link to the version used in the workshop will be sent to the participants a few days before the workshop.…
Added by Aldo Sollazzo at 11:10am on October 6, 2015
that, I have a few more comments on what you are trying to do:
1. It is not possible to divide the surface of a sphere with regular hexagons [the most efficient way includes pentagons as well (classic soccer ball)].
So I believe that in the image you posted there is some serious twisting taking place at the back side (you can actually see this starting on the right side of the picture).
Lunchbox's [hexagon cells] component divides the surface in U and V (orange slices for a sphere) and draws hexagons on it. The result is some serious deformation on the 2 poles and many non-planar cells. If you are ok with this, then my only tip would be to use an even number for the U divisions in order to have a clean seam:
instead of:
2. The hexagons you have defined in 2d are wrong as they are overlapping and also leaving gaps between them:
You should define your hexagons so that they form a honeycomb pattern. It could be something like this:
3. There is no direct way for hexagonal mapping, so your best bet would be to draw your pattern inside each cell (good GH data structure understanding is crucial for this). Also, the non-planar cells will probably give you a hard time there...
Hope I cleared some things and didn't cause more confusion!
Nikos
…
he process. The last one is there because fixing it would cause another problem, which we feel is more serious. Solutions may well be forthcoming in the future though.
1. Grasshopper curves and points are drawn more towards the camera than they really are. This is a conscious decision. Often Rhino geometry and Grasshopper geometry exist in the same place. If we would draw the Grasshopper preview in place, then there's no telling whether you'd see the Rhino curve or the Grasshopper curve. We feel it's important that you always see the Grasshopper curve on top. This is why we draw all curves and points slightly towards the camera. However we don't do this for meshes. This results in something akin to the image below. The eye represents the location of the viewport camera, the shaded box represents the actual location of the geometry and all the thick black lines represent the edges of the geometry moved towards the camera. As you can see, the red lines will be visible, even though they should be behind the shaded box. This effect can get very strong when the camera is close to some geometry relative to the size of the boundingbox of all geometry.
2. Wires behind the camera are sometimes visible. This is a bug I don't know how to solve. We'll get around to it eventually. When an object is behind the camera the display transform sometimes makes it visible in front of the camera in some weird inverted perspective mode.
3. Meshes are not z-sorted prior to display. This means that the order in which they are drawn is not back-to-front, but fairly arbitrary. This means that a transparent mesh may appear to punch a hole in the mesh behind it. If this is annoying you to no end, you can use Ctrl+F on the Grasshopper components that contain the meshes that are punching holes and then press F5 to recompute. The draw order should now be different. Of course sometimes it will only 'fix' it for a specific camera angle.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…