it within the same smart umbrella? Or put it differently: is it worthy to exploit/consider/evaluate GH methods and development orientations that could "approximate" Utopia?
Let's split the case into segments:
The parametric part thing (although critical) is complex and rather beyond the scope of GH. Affects Rhino far more than GH. That said Microstation has 3 levels for doing this (but forget Microstation and/or Gen Comp).
So for a start we can focus in GH acting as a "composer" in 3D place of all the required (hopefully real) parts for the job. Parts must be nested AND readable as such by an external AEC app.
I'll post here (soon I do hope) all the parts that are required for assembling this. I mean individual static "blocks" that we assume (wrongly) that remain static: I mean we presuppose that the whole GH geometry is fixed (thus this is really a smart sketch of some sort) and no further changes are on schedule (that MAY affect parts).
That said I prefer an incomplete Utopia (one thing that "does" it all, or it thinks that does it) than a myriad of individual apps that take input one from the other and promise the Holly Grail (and/or delivering it). The core reason that I use Microstation as my basic platform is exactly that (obviously with a certain price to pay: bugs, shortcomings, wrong concepts in places etc etc etc).
Best, Peter
…
loop is a simple component
to iterate generative shapes with Grasshopper®
http://antonioturiello.blogspot.com/
RHINO OFFICIAL BLOG
FOOD4RHINO PROJECT
AEC-APPS.COM REVIEW
question. Why are you using Win 8 or Win 10, instead of staying with Win7 ?The 102 page long EULA from Microsoft asks you to accept, prior to the install, should give any thinking person pause, and to think carefully before he or she is accepts the consequences of installing Win 8 or Win 10.No IT profession would allow any company to install Windows 8 or 10 on their companies computer networks. Imagine for a moment your Doctor installed Windows 10, and now all his daily clients details are shared with Microsoft. Or imagine for a moment your Lawyer installed Windows 10, and now all his daily clients details are shared with Microsoft.Win 8 or 10 is an open apps shared OS that lacks any sense of network security.... stay with Win 7!…
nd me to kill him but give him my regards anyway) is still around in BirdAir Italy ... talk with him.
3. Hope that you understand that designing the "details" means some decent MCAD app + FEA + this + that. "Fusing" this with some abstract graphic editor like GH ... is ... er ... impossible (in real-life, you know, he he ). Generative Components on the other hand may qualify but requires a lot of time in order to fully master it (approx 2-4 years).
4. FormFinder ... well ... that's utterly Academic but on the other hand ... (good luck).
http://www.formfinder.at/main/software/team/
5. http://tecno.upc.edu/cotens/software.htm
6. This is the second best (after the BirdAir internal stuff) but costs an arm and a leg
http://www.ndnsoftware.com/
7. This is a !%$!%$ in the !%$%!$:
http://www.sofistik.com/no_cache/loesungen/fem/leichte-tragwerke/
My realistic (low cost) advise:
use K1/2 (especially if you are after "parametric" exploitation(s)) ... and then diversify tasks: stuff for the structural department, stuff for whom claims that he can(?) design the "details" ... whilst be in a constant contact with the membrane provider (and in fact: the contractor for doing the real thing as well)
…
y to heaven (or hell) is full of pain,frustration and tears. In plain English: if you are not totally committed (and willing to pay the heavy price) ... well ... what about forgetting all that freaky stuff? (the best option, trust me)
Note: 99% of beginners dream to learn programing in order to make geometry. But the truth is that this is the least (and rather the most insignificant) that you can achieve especially when working in teams with lot's of CAD/MCAD apps (and verticals) in the practice of tomorrow (bad news: tomorrow is already yesterday).
Anyway: How to go to Hell in just 123 easy steps
Step 1: get the cookiesThe bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).The bible PlanC: C# 5.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favoriteThe reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334The candidates:C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)C# Language (Jones)Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)...
Step 122: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 123: Open computer > burn computer > computers are a bad thing (not to mention the Skynet trivial thingy).May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.
…
really nice because kangaroo give us kick feedback about how the structure could work; with this data in our hand modifications and redesign was really straight forward.
For final steps because the nature of the project (we design 2 big supports attached to the structure and floor with steel wires) we needed to use multi-step calculus.
My experience in this workflow is that Kangaroo in impressively good and quick for first design stages but when things comes harder, you always will need a good FEA app.
You can see that I implemented a simple interface to check compression-traction bar state.
Best.…
els of freedom in the actual node are different as well - totally different "linkage" design.
Dealing with the actual node combo requires far more complex plane arrangements since (a) the connecting ring lays in the planes already calculated BUT (b) the adapter primary axis must align with the dihedral for a given edge: the angle of the neighbor faces. Meaning in other words: connectivity [edge-to-face, point-to-point, etc etc] trees (for internal use only).
So the only thing that this test node (2 layers used) does correctly is to lay (with regard the ring primary axis) at the right place (plane, that is): linkages are NOT moving at all.
But in general is a rather useful indication upon how to deal with component based designs (where a void instance has the ring as child that has N adapter instances as childs etc etc). Place the test node [NOT bake anything] and export [STEP 214] a test R file to some CAD/MCAD app that works that way (CATIA, NX, Microstation etc etc).
best, Peter …
tly light vehicles such as bicycles and variations thereof. Although frame design is mostly of a structural nature, there are a number of elements that interact mechanically. Also, as you may be aware, bicycle and high grade tubing is not of constant section so shelling method in FEA is out of the question, but even so, because the joint needs to be modeled very accurately, that means different geometry and properties for welded area, heat affected area and base material; like so a simpler FEA package may not suffice.
I don't know karamba extensively, rather superficially, actually, but I'm under the impression it mostly deals with beam analysis. Pls correct me if I am under the wrong impression. I must say it would be very nice to have a complete FEA package inside GH really!!
Typical workflow for me would be to model everything in Solidworks, and then export to Ansys Mechanical. Although Ansys needs to read every input and naturally remesh back again, integration within Solidworks, Catia, Inventor, Creo, Solidthinking... and the sort, works reasonably well.
Now, I don't remember Ansys having a Rhinoceros plugin so that you could bridge the 2 together, but maybe I should go check again.
3) Great work with that fractal tree. It's nice to know it is a possibility at least. I have tried Apophysis and others, but to my knowledge there's not an application that could deliver 3D fractal designs in a way that you could further manipulate with conventional modelling techniques, maybe apply textures and render, or export to CAM, 3D printing... etc.
P.S.: I have tried all the apps mentioned above and then some more. All of them have serious limitations when it comes to parametric design. For complex models they crash plenty upon rebuilding... a number of time consuming errors appear, and general work flow isn't very efficient for purely parametric work. Speaking for myself, I'd rather spend the time on a definition that enables me to have full control and then generate a new result within seconds, than model everything very quickly and then taking a long time with each new result.
(Thanks for the replies and sorry for the long text, you asked to elaborate).…
r.
Jon has already done some very interesting stuff with regard decomposing matters using IFC schema (I'm not a strong admirer of any schema policy mind - for a variety of reasons).
Now the chaotic case:
1. This is deliberately fuzzy, faulty and chaotic in order to indicate the need (at least IMHO) for a next step with regard handling and visualizing (on a per individual data item basis, not on a per branch basis) data trees.
2. Why this Tree Manager future thing could boost GH up to an unseen level? Exploit the PDF attached - use Saved views and/or the Model Tree "decomposer" (file is greatly reduced in detail - only 1 out of 5 floors shown, no envelope stuff, stripped out of everything actually etc etc etc). Among a variety of things observe that there's transformations that are "selectively" applied whilst various components remain intact (in other words: invite existed "static" objects into the smart chaos) - this means that we need a far better control VS the series (of various type of data) that outline the solution of similar things.
3. What could/should do such a "visual" Tree Manager? Could he function within the existed "one Canvas for all things" environment? Do we need N "sub-canvas" (kinda the Views in any CAD app these days) to handle and visualize complex tree operations? Do we need control on a per data item basis? Do we need a re-mapper of a totally different kind? Do we need a Bake Manager? Do we need a Scenario (parameter combos stored etc) Manager?
Let's the debate begin
Best, Peter
…