chitecture for quite a while. I've been through all versions of 3DS Max and I've used Maya and Softimage as well. In the last 3 years though, I started using the 3D apps as an architectural design tool, but you must already know that this it not the main purpose of them.
That's when a friend of mine introduced me to GH and I was blown away by it. This is like THE perfect thing for design. I'm currently designing a high-rise for a city here in China where I live and it has a very intricate twisting, thus I took the leap and started learning GH, but I think they time it'll take me to learn it will far exceed the time of this deadline so I did the whole model in 3Ds Max, but it was a real pain in the ass moving every individual row of vertices manually, and leading myself but nothing but rudimentary techniques to make it look right, and still, it doesn't look as I want and when having to modify it, it's just another full exhausting day at work.
Anyway, that's briefly the reason. I'm hoping to learn a lot from here. If you have any essential sources (preferably updated) from where I can push my knowledge do let me know please!
Thanks!!…
priety software). Think Kangaroo with RON 100 fuel (add some nitrous oxide).
Back to domes.
1. Obviously you know the free WinDome Bono thing...but anyway get it (code included).
2. As I said on another thread (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/the-necessity-for-a-data-tree-manager) ... the big thing in AEC (because, for instance, nobody does domes for decoration/artistic stuff etc etc) is how to implement already designed things (see images above) within a smart stuff definition (or many).
3. Goes several steps beyond: these "breps" (to speak GH/Rhino language) are in most cases nested and some parts are "locked" for transformations some other not. That's the big thing when trying to outline real-life AEC solutions in the so called Smart applications. I think that this is not doable in Rhino since there's no way to edit (in place) a nested block.
4. Goes even further: for each custom made thing (truss nodes and the likes) ... there's a bill waiting. Meaning that the less customized a solution is (with regard industrial sourced existed parts) the more is possible for the client to sign the dotted line.
Best, Peter…
ple and/or easy.
I use GH/Rhino (really GH almost exclusively) for design. I find the parametric capabilities of GH simply spectacular. The Autocad apps are all quite good (and free) so I would have no problem recommending any of them. Meshmixer is a common starter for people new to 3D printing; it is targeted at more "free form"/artistic designs that is Tinkercad, which is more oriented for geometric/engineering/architectural designs. Sketchup is also a good place to start with 3D design; it used to be owned by Google but is now owned by a 3rd party company.
For slicers I've tried them all and have settled on Craftware. It's free and available at https://www.craftunique.com/craftware. For backup to that (it is still a beta product) I use Simplify3D (very seldom) but it costs $150.
If anyone cares I have uploaded an updated version of the Stepwell GH file; I tweaked it a bit to make it a little simpler and to make the base thicker so it would be more robust when printed. The dimensions of the part are large so it has to be scaled down to fit a particular printer. This is easily done with any slicer. The STL file from Rhino still has to be fixed; as exported it would print with no bottom - and I haven't figured out why that happens.…
Added by Birk Binnard at 12:36pm on February 14, 2016
subsequently able to retain a higher level of flexibility.
In Rhino however a rectangle is defined as only a plane and two numeric intervals (one for x, one for y). The possible solutions to this would be:
Extend the Rhino SDK Rectangle3d type to include constant radius fillet corners. This can be done, but is a lot of work and will break the SDK.
Create a new type in Grasshopper which is smarter than Rectangle3d. This complicates developing for Grasshopper because now you have to keep two different types in mind whereas before only one was needed.
Remove the Fillet Radius input from Rectangle components. I like this solution because it results in cleaner, simpler code, but it does mean people may need to use two components where before one was sufficient.
Make the Rectangle type smart enough so that it can recognise filleted rectangles and undo the filleting. This is something I can do right now for Grasshopper 1.0 and it in all likelihood would not break actual existing files even though it is technically a behavioural change.
I'll try and get (4) done for Rhino 6 SR1, I might decide to do (3) for Grasshopper 2.0. I sincerely doubt that (1) will ever get done and I dislike (2).…
Added by David Rutten at 4:38am on November 6, 2017
(http://www.food4rhino.com/app/quelea-agent-based-design-grasshopper) take like 40 seconds when the toggle activates to go from one end of the ramp to another.
With proximity 3d i'm analyzing each instance the agents are closer than x units. In picture 3 we can see that in 212 instances the agent are closer than those x units.
Finally all the genes that controll the ramps are connected to the G of octopus component and one of the conflicting objectives connected to the O of octopus component is the number of instance quelea agents get close.
So the thing I need is to iterate the ramps controling the genes with octopus but activating the boolean toggle (quelea run) each time the ramps are modified so the agents take 40 seconds to perambulate the environment, analyze the instance they get close and let octopus iterate again searching for a optimized environment.
…
exploran los principios básicos de Grasshopper en Rhino 5 para desarrollar algoritmos de superficies responsivas a datos generados por dispositivos y aplicaciones como: iPhone/iPad/iPod, Android, GPS, Kinect, etc.
Es necesario traer tu Laptop con Rhino y Grasshopper instalados.
Rhino: http://download.rhino3d.com/rhino/4.0/ev aluation/download/
Grasshopper: http://download.rhino3d.com/Grasshopper/ 1.0/wip/download/
Cupo Limitado
info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
$4,000.00…
quite know where I'm going wrong. I can say that I have successfully put together a separate file which will send data directly to the Arduino (switch on a boolean toggle and watch an LED light up... how fun:) but receiving the data is a bit more complicated. For a long time, I was getting a continuous loop error, which would freeze my app. I've changed around the code (see attached file), but I'm still not receiving any data from my COM port (which I know is definitely working because I can turn on the Serial Monitor from the Arduino IDE and see the data coming in). I did have one question: Can you call different routines inside the script class (from Grasshopper), or do you have to always call the run script subroutine? If you guys have any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it. I understand it's a bit tricky to trouble shoot this issue since you may or may not have an Arduino handy to stream the data to your computer... but let me know if you see any glaring issues with the code.
Cheers,
Andy…
as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…