omes in as a tree branch for each day with a sub-branch for each hour. I want to extract the azimuth and elevation and convert it to points via the <Point Cylindrical> component (after converting to radians) and then place it back into the original tree structure. I think I need this original structure so that I can draw curves between each day's points and have a separate curve for each day.
I know that I can probably be helped in this task by using Ladybug but I didn't have Rhino 5 when I started and now I am a bit consumed by the challenge and interested in the more generic problem of what to do when you need to flatten a tree to manipulate the data but then need to put that manipulated data back into the original structure.
To that end, I put together a more generic... what do you call them... sketch. I just generate a grid of points, flatten it and then try to reconstitute the tree. As you will see the <Consecutive Domain> output feeding into a <sub List> component causes duplicate entries in my final tree because it it creates domains that are "0 to 6", "6 to 12", etc.
So finally my question, how do you flatten a tree, manipulate the data and then put it back into the original tree structure?
reconstitute.gh…
sinergetici associati alla compresenza simultanea di differenti strumenti di analisi e digital design all'interno di un processo di progettazione in svolgimento. I partecipanti utilizzeranno Grasshopper (modellatore parametrico per Rhino): l'uso di questo editor grafico di algoritmi si integra alla perfezione con gli strumenti di modellazione di Rhinoceros 3D espandendo le possibilità di corstruire modelli parametrici altamente complessi. Per generare una complessità simile saranno utilizzati collegamenti live ai diversi programmi elencati di seguito: . Autodesk Ecotect Analysis via GECO . FEA software GSA via SSI Durante questi intensi 3 giorni, i partecipanti impareranno il workflow dei plug-ins con l'aiuto di esempi esplorando una panoramica dei differenti software, le possibilità di testare le performances di un progetto o l'uso di strumenti addizionali non legati ad un singolo sistema (es. accentuazione, formazione, reazione parametrica) [english text] The focus of the workshop is to integrate and correlate the synergistic effect associated with simultaneous presence of different digital design- and analysis tools in an ongoing design process. The main attention is set on easy to handle interface , which should be used at a early stage of conceptual design to respond to external and internal influences in a intelligent and sustainable way. Participants will use the software Grasshopper as a parametric modeling plug-in for Rhino. The usage of this graphical algorithm editor tightly integrated with Rhino's 3-D modeling tools open up the possibility to construct highly parametrical complex models. To generate this complexity we will use live linkages to several programs listed below: . Autodesk Ecotect Analysis via GECO . FEA software GSA via SSI In this 3 intense days, the participants should learn the workflow of the plug-ins with the help of examples and get an overview of the different software's, there possibilities for evaluating the performance of a design or the usage of additional tools to be not chained to a single system . (e.g. parametrical accentuation, parametrical formation, parametrical reaction) [.] Dettagli : Istruttori: Thomas Grabner & Ursula Frick from [uto]. lingua del corso: inglese (saranno disponibili tutor di supporto ma è richiesta una conoscenza di base della lingua unglese).
Quote d'iscrizione (min 12 max 20 posti): educational* : € 280.00 + iva professional: € 450.00 + iva * studenti, docenti, ricercatori, dottorandi e laureati fino a un anno dalla data di laurea OFFERTA EARLY BIRD SPECIAL: le prime 5 domande di iscrizione pervenute entro il 31 Dicembre 2011 avranno diritto ad una quota di iscrizione scontata del 20% Quote d'iscrizione E.B. SPECIAL: E.B. SPECIAL educational* : € 224.00+ iva E.B. SPECIAL professional: € 360.00+ iva. ulteriori info, dettagli e iscrizioni: http://www.co-de-it.com/wordpress/nexus-advanced-grasshopper-workshop-with-uto.html…
ed four workshops, each featuring a partnership of a creator of hardware technology and a software developer. The outcomes of the four workshops will form a single structure.
Workshops:
1. Facade panels with RoboFold & Kangaroo/Lobster
2. Cantilever CNC wooden lattice with Archiwaste & SMART Form by BuroHappold
3. Corian freeform surfaces by Cutting Edge & Evolute Tools
4. Milled foam and cast concrete with Cordek & Galapagos/David Rutten
Book on the Shape To Fabrication website or via SimplyRhino on 0208 498 9900. Tickets are limited to 10 per workshop at £500+VAT (professional) and £400+VAT (student).…
Added by Gregory Epps at 5:15am on September 29, 2011
arm, controlled with a variety of sensory inputs. The project will be developed in Grasshopper and Firefly, using the Arduino microcontroller. No previous experience is required.
Workshop overview:
1 – Sensing and Actuating - Brief Introduction to Grasshopper - Brief Introduction to Arduino - Introduction to Firefly
2 – Arm simulation - Introduction to Vector Math in Grasshopper - Simulation of the multi-axis Arm
3 – Fabrication - Brief introduction to laser cutting - Laser cutting the arm components
4 – Motion Tracking to Actuation - Introduction to Motion tracking (Kinect, Leap Motion, iPhone) - Controlling the arm with various motion inputs
Please refer to this link for further information about the workshop series and registration specifics.
…
step-sizes. It starts out with large jumps, then as it cools the jumps get smaller and smaller as does the likelihood of a retrograde jump being accepted as a valid new state.
Most fitness landscapes have more than one dimension and therefore a 'jump' could include any number between 1 and N, where N is the dimensionality of the landscape. The Drift Rate setting —which may well be poorly named— controls the odds that a jump includes an additional dimension. All jumps must be at least one-dimensional, but 25 percent of them (on average) will include another dimension. 25% of those will include a third dimension and 25 percent of those a fourth and so on and so forth until the dimensionality of the landscape has been reached. Here's a list for 1000 jumps:
Drift Rate: 25%
1D jumps: 750
2D jumps: 187
3D jumps: 47
4D jumps: 12
5D jumps: 3
6D jumps: 1
A good question to ask would be; "Why would you want a jump to include more than one dimension?" and the answer is that the more genes are related, the higher the changes that a multi-dimensional jump will yield an improvement. It's not difficult to imagine that you cannot improve your current state by only modifying a single gene. Sometimes you need to change two in unison in order to reach a better solution. If your genes are highly related (which is bad practice to begin with) then you may need to adjust the Drift Rate to a higher value.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 11:09am on April 17, 2012
eedback. To go down the list:
Theodore, The PMV indoor comfort analysis is unfortunately much more computationally intensive than the adaptive comfort analysis. In my experience, an annual adaptive comfort map analysis of 3 zones took about 12 minutes to run in parallel on my system. Running the same analysis with PMV took about an hour. I would suggest either running the PMV case with analysis periods of typical/extreme weeks (use the "Import Stat" component to get these from the weather file) or run an annual analysis with the Adaptive comfort map. Alternatively, you could just let the PMV run overnight and I am confident that you should have something by morning.
Grasshope, The text looks like that because your Rhino model tolerance is not fine enough to capture all of the details of the text. Type "Units" into the Rhino command bar and drop your tolerance down to a smaller value. Then re-compute or re-open the GH file.
Oleksii, my initial reaction is to say that you can set up GH files with LB+HB components that allow you to do all of those things but the way that you have phrased the questions are a little vague (especially the last one there). I would recommend checking out this tutorial playlist that shows you how to set up an energy model with HB and this should help address the first two questions (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_). I am still having an issue understanding what you mean by the last one but maybe the comfort tutorials might be in the vein of what you are looking for (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sho45_D4BV1HKcIz7oVmZ8v). If you want to re-phrase the questions more specifically, please post them as a discussion.
Thank you all,
-Chris…
e length from center point to each vertex related to time, and make them roll on ground under gravity.
I have created the model with 1 center point and 12 vertex points using GH, however when I convert particles for Kangaroo and apply gravity, I faced several problems and have several questions related to that.
Problems are:
1. 13 particles does not keep the shape of icosahedron and just fall flat on the floor.
2. I have managed to keep the shape using multiple "Tetrahedral Element" component, however this component determines its shape by its starting point so I do not get to control the length from center point to vertex later.
Questions are:
1. Is there any way that I can restrain the relative coordinate of vertex particle from central particle using its angle and distance?
2. Is there any way that I can control the parameter for distance relative to time?
3. Is there any other component I can use or any advise you can give me about how my simulation can be achieved?
Regards.
Judai
…
hat said, the processes that would benefit most from it in Rhino and Grasshopper actually lend themselves remarkably well to multi-threading. Things like Intersections, Meshing, operations on individual items in arrays would all benefit since they involve a lot of repetition where one iteration does not depend on the previous one.
Rhino4 was not designed to be threadsafe, and there were places where it was not possible to thread certain tasks. For example, imagine the Contour command. You'd think that it would be a piece of cake to thread that, you assign the first 25 contour intersections to core 1, the next 25 to core 2, the next 25 to core 3 and so on and so forth. But as it turns out intersecting a Brep and a Plane requires Rhino to build a spatial tree of the Brep first (assuming it doesn't exist yet). These trees vastly speed up a lot of operations and they are created lazily, meaning they get created the first time they are needed. Now we suddenly have four threads all trying to run a Brep Plane intersection and all trying to build the same spatial tree at the same time. This cannot end well. So in Rhino5 we made sure that when the spatial tree is getting build, every other thread that tries to access the Brep gets put on hold until the tree is done.
Then there's problems that the Intersection function might store temporary data on the Brep during the intersection, which makes threading intersections on the same Brep an absolute impossibility.
Then there's the even worse problem that the Intersection function might store temporary data in a static cache, which means you cannot run the function more than once at a time, even if it's on different Breps.
In Rhino5 we tried to rectify all of these problems. I think we got most of them by now.
When Grasshopper switches to Rhino5 for good, we'll start looking into threading a lot more seriously, not in the least because we'll also switch to .NET 4, which has some pretty cool mechanisms for writing decent MT code.
Until then, we'll have to stick to good old fashioned optimization. Christoph's problem was that it takes 12 minutes to open a file. Even if you thread that and you get 100% efficiency (which you won't, there's always additional overhead when threading) it would still take 3 minutes if you have 4 cores. It's an improvement sure, but not much of one. I'd like to know exactly where all that time is spend, then maybe we can remove specific bottlenecks.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
est of the year so I'm trying to understand new things...
I downloaded Boids by Jan Pernecky and tried to do something like the flocking 2d pattern of this amazing video video (2:41) but i'm not very happy with it. You can see the first result on this image.Image of the code
For now, I have 3 groups of 3 circles with 12 points on each: blue circles (points) are used for the "Adhere" flock location and the red ones for the "Repulse" flock location.
After, I cut the whole thing with the wire-frame of the bounding box of the emitter of the points and their mirror according to the center axis of the central circle. (red rectangle on image).
First, how can i contain the curves into a region ?(without the bounce component because it's very slow...)
I think to have a result like the one in the video, i need many other forces ? I didn't understand the "finesse" of the flocking concept...
Is there a way to trim vectors but not just by speed but by angle or to replace them ?
I tried to put more forces like the "align" but results are bad for now: curves are too flat or not aligned at all.
The * parameter is also hard to manipulate (for nuts like me hehe): for example, my repulse forces are kind of not existing or too strong... ?
How can i use the stick geometry component with other behaviours on the same time ?
It will be very nice if someone can give some advises or share some codes to help me... first time I use agents in grasshopper...
Thanks in advance.
Peace.
Sorry for my frenchy English.
…