The generic problem with the 2 apps that support dependent modelling (MS, Rhino) is that they are both very poor in Assembly/Component concepts/tools/you name it. Defining topology is one thing...but real life projects demand a bit more than that.
…
glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
y, he he) on that market segment (trusses and the likes) ... well ... you can't do anything in real-life without code. Too many reasons to list them here (indicative: connectivity Trees, member clash detection, instance definitions, managing solution variations talking to MCAD apps that do the parts in real-life ... blah, blah). If this is just an abstract exercise ... forget all the above.
3. Using a // (to the ground) "inner" surface (the 2 edges, that is) is tricky because without code you can't be sure where the whole procedure failed (a red component means nothing).
4. The weird big "component" provides ways to do things with surfaces (most notably: rebuild) that are not available as native components. Rebuild is critical when dividing surfaces
have fun, best, Lord of Darkness…
hings using BIM AEC oriented apps (only 3 around, the ones already mentioned). Keep in mind that GH is a graphical editor and Rhino is NOT an AEC BIM app nor it would ever be.…
gt; most probably > adios Amigos.
3. WP Loop VS ... > see above
4. Daniel VS ... > see above.
There's other dedicated apps for handling huge amount of data (using very fast ball pivot algorithms for dealing with the gazillion of points).…