ons of the frets requires the simplest bit of math. The (really) historical technique is called the rule of 18, and it involves successively dividing the scale length minus the offset to the previous fret by 18. [...] The invention of the pocket calculator made it possible to make use of a more accurate constant, and so these days we conventionally calculate fret positions for equal temperament by successively dividing the scale length minus the offset to the previous fret by 17.817.
And from here: http://www.stewmac.com/How-To/Online_Resources/Learn_About_Guitar_a...
The "factor" for fret spacing is 17.817154.
So using Anemone to loop, I got this:
I must admit that it doesn't look quite right, and I'm not sure why...?…
st shortest path. The guiding splines would work like a forcefield so that paths are "drawn" towards them with a user defined strength and radius of influence.Since each path is basically independent, it should be relatively straight forward to multithread. I downloaded the C# code for the pathfinding node and have to see if I'm up to it.
Would also be interesting to know how far away the first beta of a multithreaded GH 2 is.
I also had some hopes when "Fabric Engine" showed a demo of a Rhino exporter, since its "Canvas" is an extremely optimized node system that's fully multithreaded and optionally uses the GPU, which could be interesting to explore for some heavy lifting if they for instance would attach it to GH. But I guess it does not make much sense for them as a target.
Above image uses 20000 random points. In Softimage XSI ICE this would not be much, since it's nodes are fully multithreaded and optimized for huge numbers of particles and point deformation. In GH, with anything above 500 points, things get rather "meditative".
Illustrator takes up to half an hour after each and every change to colour, line style, blending mode etc. I have one even more complex file with over 3 GB size and there Illustrator (CS6 x64) goes into some kind of trance and after some hours of thinking moves on to some advanced psychotic, catatonic state to never fully return... ;-)So usually I run it in the background while doing something else...
I recently tried different other vector graphics apps (Inkscape, Affinity Designer, Xara) but they were even worse if they were able to open the files at all. Maybe I should give Corel a try too.
Cheers and thanks for your offer! Your work is a major inspiration for me while learning Grasshopper!
Tom…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
ike this, and more specifically about Lofted geometry, is that if you give the Loft function a bunch of complex curves to match the edges of, the resulting Loft surface does not always match the curves used to make the surface. If you have 2 Loft surfaces that meet at the same curve (for instance, when picking the top curve of an inside and outside Loft surface to make a closed lip), the connection between them will have tiny gaps in various places. I attribute this to truncation and/or roundoff errors in calculating the Lofted surfaces.
However, it seems that using the Cap function actually eliminates this problem by turning an open Brep Loft into a closed/solid one. Of course I have no idea why this happens, but it does eliminate naked edges, edge gaps, and any other weirdness associated with joining Loft surfaces.
Before discovering this method I spent about a week trying all the suggestion you mentioned. None of them worked. All of the Join functions failed, different meshing parameters had no effect, and Mesh Smooth and Weld did not help either.
In pretty much all of these cases the 3D Builder app that I use for fixing/simplifying STL files exported from Rhino would run for a very long time, forever, or add artifacts (like a closed top) that rendered the part unprintable.
I have changed my GH layout to incorporate the Cap/SDiff functions now, but if you' like a 3DM file that uses the previous method I can certainly go back and create one for you.
…
Added by Birk Binnard at 9:35am on September 14, 2016
hopper) and High Definition visualizations (V-Ray) and exploring its scientific innovations supporting the users' platform philosophical ideas.
SESSIONS: 5 sessions of 8 hours (40 hours total)
E-MAIL: educacion@chconsultores.net
REGISTRATION: (55) 56 62 57 93
TECHNICAL INFO: 044 (55) 31 22 71 83
INSTRUCTORS: Have past experience working at Gehry Technologies, and participated at studios with Eric Owen Moss and Tom Wiscombe at SCI-Arc (Southern California Institute of Architecture).
Day 1: Introduction to MAYA tools, 3D exercise start.
Day 2: Continue 3D exercise.
Day 3: Original 3D architecture design.
Day 4: Grasshopper optional application on 3D architecture design.
Day 5: V-Ray Application on 3D architecture design.
30 DAY TRIAL SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD:MAYA 2012: http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-maya/free-triaRHINO 4: http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.na.mcneel.com/rhino/4.0/2011-02-11/eval/rh40eval_en_20110211.exe3DS MAX 2010: http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-3ds-max/free-trialVRAY FOR 3DS MAX: http://www.vray.com/vray_for_3ds_max/demo/thankyou.shtml#thankyouPHOTOSHOP e ILLUSTRATOR: https://creative.adobe.com/apps?trial=PHSP&promoid=JZXPS
www.helenico.edu.mx
www.scifi-architecture.com/#!workshops/c1wua
LIKE US ON: www.facebook.com/scifiarchitecture
…
ceros. Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $4,000.00
Pagos diferidos $4,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
Martes y Jueves de 7 a 10 PM
Del 15 de Mayo al 14 de junio
DURACION: 30 HORAS
SESIONES: 10 DE 3 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
$4,000.00…
discussions during this period.
The major topics discussed for GH2 during this period will be:
Documentation/Help
GHA/Cluster/VB/C# App-Store
Localization (i.e. languages other than English)
Constraint Engine implementation
Improved VB/C#/Python development tools
Multi-threading the solver
Building a Mac version
If you feel something important was left out, please let us know here. Note that incremental improvements and bug-fixes are not worth discussion as we'll try and get around to them no matter what. Topics on this list have to fit the "Are we going to try and do X?" format.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on October 11, 2013
ts (other than Kangaroo - if required). Anyway notify if you want some taste of them (but they are a bit "chaotic" : too many parameters etc etc ...). Warning: Almost all are written with MCAD apps in mind: GH is used SOLELY as a graphical editor/topology solver and just makes the simplest instance definitions possible in order to send them (via STEP) to some MCAD (Frank G uses CATIA/Digital Project as you may probably know, CATIA is my favorite toy as well) for actually designing the components and composing the whole.
2. "Equality" in modules (panels/glass/lexan) it's not an issue (other than aesthetics). I mean cost wise since modules are prepared via CNC these days. I wouldn't suggest to waste your time with "equality" puzzles and completely ignoring the big picture (real-life) that is FAR and AWAY from aesthetics. I mean: assume that I of someone else or Daniel can "equalize" things (up to a point): Is this sufficient for designing a similar real-life solution? In plain English: don't get occupied by the tree and ignore the forest.
3. As regards the frame in most of cases some MERO type of modular system is used: either a "flat" dome-like arrangement or a classic spaceframe or a hybrid system [push: tubes, pull: cables]. Hybrids are the most WOW (and costly) for obvious reasons. When properly done (and combined with a planar glazing system) THIS is the star of the show.
4. As regards the skin we use either "hinged" custom stuctural/semi structural aluminum extrusions (they can adapt to different dihedrals up to a point) or classic custom planar SS16L systems that also can adapt to dihedrals. A custom planar glazing solution is hideously expensive, mind (say: 1K Euros per m2).
5. Smart Glass tech (changes light transmission properties under the application of voltage) is gradually penetrating the market especially in future bespoke designs.
So in a nutshell: these are "pro" territory - if I may use the term, thus I don't expect to find ANY similar "turn-key" solution in the very same sense that you can't find a tensile membrane turn-key solution.
Meaning that practices that can do it ... er ... they keep the cookies for themselves. …
sion app (Modo, Z Brush etc) in order to get "as equal" as possible mesh faces.
For instance ... see a W depth truss (tri mesh > meaning that the "out" grid is hexagons) out from a Kangaroo "inflated" mesh:
2. A space frame is NOT a collection of abstract lines ... meaning that clash members detection (via trigonometry and NOT by checking boolean intersections) is far more important than the "concept" it self. If "live" alterations are required for addressing local clash issues ... well ... that's 100% impossible with native components.
See a typical clash detection capability:
3. A truss without proper connectivity Data Trees means nothing in real-life (vertices to edges, vertex to vertex, edges to vertices).
4. Each "standard" truss member (say: sleeves, cones and the likes) should be an instance definition placed in space according appropriate orienting planes. That way you may be able to handle thousands of components that in real-life participate in any truss of a certain size.
All the above are far easier to do with code (V4 is impossible with components).…