igned by this software may be terrible, this is how the future is being shaped, so an understanding of the technology is important.
http://bimandintegrateddesign.com/2014/10/24/googles-bim-busting-app-for-design-and-construction/
https://vimeo.com/107291814
-Projects are due May 8th at the WAAC Final Gallery (I think at 5:30 PM). You will have your board(s) pinned up and your physical model complete underneath. The location is still being worked out, so I will let you know when I know. After the physical submission, a digital submission is required as well. There should be at minimum -
A board with the discussed drawings and images below, named LastName_FirstName_FinalProject.pdf
A photo of your physical model (if not included on the board), named
LastName_FirstName_FinalModel.pdf.
These should be posted on the dropbox sometime before the last day of the semester. Your project will not be graded if you do not physically submit on May 8th and digitally submit sometime before the semester is over.
-Project brief is below
Project Brief: Up until now, you have been using grasshopper to develop, analyze, and fabricate architectural ideas in a very controlled format. The final project is a chance to combine this knowledge with your own design intent and aspirations. The project will use specific deliverables to spur growth, but also allow for you, the designer, to do what you please within the following boundaries.
Requirements:
# open project# must be a design project # story of what you are designing and why you are using grasshopper - specific design intent# must have physical scale model # must have 24” x 36” board - made in Adobe InDesign or Photoshop # grasshopper definition image # 1 artistic rendering - any format - with scale figures # 5 iterations of your project must be presented # 1 diagram to visually describe your project # text describing project # process drawings - photos/sketches/models/other iterations# this is the bare minimum - to have an excellent project, one must go above and beyond these requirements# talk to me if you have out of the box ideas of presenting/ teams / etc...
That is all, there are no assignments due this week, just keep working on those projects. I am available for help during the week, just email or post in the forum. USE THE GRASSHOPPER FORUM IF YOU ARE STUCK. There are many people on here that are way smarter than I that can help you.
See you all next week!…
installing or running.Here is the direct link to download the PanelingTools installer. Simply double click the downloaded file and follow the prompts to install:https://www.rhino3d.com/download/panelingtools/1/wip/rcImportant Note:You will need the latest Rhino 6 Beta to run the new PanelingTools. Download from here:https://www.rhino3d.com/download/rhino-for-windows/betaIf you own Rhino 5.0 License, then you can access Rhino 6 Beta now. Grasshopper installs and runs as part of Rhino 6 Beta.You can download older versions of PanelingTools and access documentation from one of the following:- PanelingTools Wiki: https://wiki.mcneel.com/labs/panelingtools- PanelingTools at Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/panelingtools-rhinoA great place to post questions and suggestions is the McNeel Discourse Forum:https://discourse.mcneel.com/For those of you using PanelingTools in Rhino Mac, you can continue to access PT thought the commandline (type pt, and the commands will auto-complete). You can also access PT Grasshopper components by following the instructions here:http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/panelingtools/forum/topics/pt-gh-for-the-rhinowip-for-the-macRelease Notes November 14, 2017:-------------------- PanelingTools is now compiled against the public Rhino 6 SDK. This will help with quick updates and improvements independent of the Rhino release cycle.- Paneling data is compatible between Rhino 6 Beta and earlier Rhino versions.- ptGridExtrude1 allows defining a rotation base point when you set a rotation axis (from point becomes the base).- Fixed the paneling output of partial patterns when the grid does not extend far enough to accommodate a full unit pattern.- ptWeaveGrids has now an option to weave by columns. It used to support weaving by row only.- Writing a reading managed patterns has been re-written.- Fixed a number of various bugs.Enjoy!Rajaa IssaRobert McNeel & Associates…
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
…
All example files below are updated and compatible only with Wasp 0.1.0
Download it here: Food4Rhino
01_Basic_Aggregation
02_Multi_Part_Aggregation
03_Field_Driven_Aggregation
04_Part_Geometry_Rep
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).…
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).…
le] demo):
1. A transformation Matrix is a 4*4 collection of 16 values that "deform" 3d things according the values in the cells. The orthodox way is to deploy "cells" left to right and top to bottom. Rhino does the opposite (why?) hence we need the transpose method.
2. Since "translate" and "perspective" are "symmetrical" the transpose boolean toggle (within the C#) "flips" rows with columns ... so we get perspective or move.
3. When in perspective "mode" the vanishing points are computed internally within a min/max limit (per X/Y/Z axis) thus avoiding the usual havoc with "extreme" perspective angles (very common "glitz" in pretty much every CAD app - CATIA excluded). Vanishing points (and limits) are oriented with respect the pos/neg value of a given control slider.
Note: slider values are percentages between min/max (mode: perspective) and/or actual values*100 (mode: move).
4.In order to start mastering the whole thing: don't change anything: just play with these 4 sliders selected:
5. The 123 sardine cans challenge: even with DeusExMachine = true (see inside C#: that one redirects the transformation per BrepFace and then joins the breps instead of applying it on a brep basis)... odd things (and/or invalid breps) occur ... thus what is required in order to make things working 100% ??.
he, he
best, Lord of Darkness …
ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …