lines, dedicated MCAD apps, BIM apps, team work AND elevators as well: if you design something "variable" and then attempt to service it via a "static way" (Revit) you'll discover that you are wasting your time. I can list you a lot of WOW towers that failed on that (elevator) matter ... but this wouldn't be polite for the designers: so let's continue.
2. The other critical thing is the system that does the skin: since "liquid" is the new WOW (it shouldn't) the task of "faceting" a facade and doing it with a system that doesn't leak (in the long term), doesn't pop the panels out of the frames and it doesn't cost the GNP of Nigeria ... well ... is not that simple.
3. It's a very common mistake for some future Architect to "skip" (even mentally) "trivial" matters like these ... but if you get used on this type of thinking you'll gonna pay a heavy price (as an Architect).
So my advise is: whilst you are after "form(s)" sketch frantically the nuts and bits of that form (not to mention ... er ... hmm... the elevators, he he).
best…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…
milar real-life AEC things that in fact are complex assemblies ... then your next (actually the first) step should be top-dog MCAD apps (but try Microstation + Generative components as well).
But given the opportunity there's 2 kind of "parametric" things out there:
1. The Topology (an abstract collection mostly of coordinate systems) that can been handled via graphical editors like GH. If there's some logic behind ... then ... maybe ... we can talk about algorithmic stuff (but who cares about names? not me anyway).
2. The real-life 3d things that are designed via dimension driven design, history based modeling, feature modelling etc etc (using exclusively high end solid modeling apps NOT surface modellers like Rhino). Basically you design these "by hand" (by mouse in fact) and then you "export" their "events" that "matter" to the app that does the 1 > then either you change them (clash/cost/structural/aesthetic reasons etc) or you change the topology. If these are ready parts from the market (kinda like the Norsman cable tensioners used) then ... you just keep them in RDBMS controlled repositories and use them accordingly. But if the project is really bespoke you can design them too as well (blame client's vanity).
So you have 2 kinds of "parametric": the theory and the reality ... whilst the "ideal" solution is some kind of equilibrium between "I want" and "I can".
On the other hand doing FEA on real-life bespoke complex parts ... well .... as I said months ago > what about some other Project? he, he.
But ... hope dies last ... there's a "middle" solution as well: wait for the 4 horsemen (the 4 C# that in fact are 5).
You'll be surprised…
e buttons that need pressing and then call Button.PerformClick() on them. But that requires a .NET exe.
I think you're out of luck in this case, there do exist automation tools on Windows that can start apps and press certain buttons, but I do not know which ones are good and which ones can be controlled via command-line arguments.…
Added by David Rutten at 6:16am on August 24, 2014
he two, including project information, materials, etc.
I'm looking at embedding Ecotect information within VB (or possibly C#) components and was looking for the most efficient connection.
It looks like I have 2 main options:
1. XML database-centric model of which both GH + ECO write to the XML document.
2. LUA scripting from within GH and ECO.
XML would be the first choice as it seeks to contain data purely outside of both apps, however, the redundant code that ECO needs to read / write gbXML files may be a headache to script the content.
Another question I had was to whether I can populate data (such as weather, location, materials, etc) directly from the Ecotect libraries (.lib) to feed into the GH components or would I need to decompile these first.…
this, you'll have no horizontal force at the roller, but you will have it at the pinned support. If you wouldn't, then the structure will be displaced.
Usually, in 2 dimensional structures, if you want to know if an articulated structure is isostatic (as opposed to hyperstatic, which is what you have right now) is to use the following formula:
b+c-2·n=0;
b being the number of bars, c the number of constraints you have and n the number of nodes. In your case: b=19, c=3 (displacements constrained in X, Z at your pinned support and only constrained in Z at your roller support) and n=11, so: 19+3-2·11=0.
I recommend you to download the app SW Truss, as it's very useful to check your results instantly.…
a black hexagonal background. They are containers of parameters but parameters in themselves, like the "x" in a mathematical function. So, what I do is something like:
2) That depends exclusively on the panel, not the cluster. Then you can't. It is also not possible to assign access (item, list, tree) to the parameters.What you are trying to do, assigning components to the inputs directly, can only be done from code or using snippets. http://www.food4rhino.com/app/brick-box…
ay to make some real-life proper nodes for that kind of T truss (we use machined balls solely for MERO KK type of normal trusses).
3. I'll post here soon a modular demo system suitable for this case (real-life for AEC purposes - NOT for decorative/artistic stuff, I don't care about that since I'm an engineer). This would include a policy for the X struts that require a variable linkage (the X angle). and in the same time a multi cable tensioner "bracket".
4. "Basic" coding next week for T trusses ? Er ... well ... are you kidding me right? I mean that ... hmm ...
5. C# things (about 2+K) around me are classified into 2 "groups": things that are weapons in the right hands and others that serve as demos/start points for mostly abstract cases. The former are internal the latter for public use. I'll remove some sensitive lines from a T truss C# maker and I'll post it here as a "guideline" ... for ...hmm... 4.
All in all:
Provided that you have system(s) on hand (see 3) that work 100% OK in an ideal world you'll need:
A. Something that does the general topology AND (especially) clash detection. Maybe Kangaroo as well as a "first pass" with regard rigidity of the structure in case that you don't adopt a classic T "configuration" (there are many > Google tensegrity).
B. Connectivity trees that relate nodes/edges and maybe faces (say for roofing panels/curtain walls etc etc). Without them is impossible to assemble the T thingy.
C: Something that places real-life "parts" as instance definitions and/or (optional) a "tracking variants history" ability.
D. A bullet proof way to EXPORT things (on an assembly/component schema, say: STEP214 - see C) into a proper BIM app (the likes of AECOSim/Revit) and/or into a MCAD app (the likes of CATIA/NX).
E. FEA/FIM in order to validate the structural ability of the components and the T truss itself.
F. Roofing/cladding/envelope components.
G. "Interactive" cost estimation(s) - T trusses are hideously expensive at least versus "classic" trusses (exactly like a planar glazing system that retails 3++ times more than a humble semi-structural one)…
console app into "Rhino\System\" directory the program runs fine. I've searched for days regarding the loading of dll's but to no avail. Could it be that the Rhino dll's are protected in the program files directory? The code is very simple, please take a look.
using Rhino.Geometry;using System;using System.Collections.Generic;using System.Text;namespace Rhino{ class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Point3d j = new Point3d(1, 1, 1); Point3d k = new Point3d(2, 2, 2); List<Point3d> list = new List<Point3d>(); list.Add(j); list.Add(k); Console.WriteLine(new List<Point3d>{j,k}); Point3d p = Point3d.Add(j, k); Console.WriteLine(Point3d.ArePointsCoplanar(list, 1.0)); Console.Read(); } }}
…