be deleted because of the following concern:
Non-notable software; fails the general notability guideline.
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e. after 13:32 on 5 February.If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy.
Notify author/project: {{subst:proposed deletion notify|Grasshopper 3d|concern=Non-notable software; fails the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]].}} ~~~~Timestamp: 20110129133248"…
Added by Danny Boyes at 11:47am on January 29, 2011
tholic Church (seecalendar), Anglican Communion (see calendars),Eastern Orthodox Church (seecalendar), Lutheran Church(see calendar)
Type
Christian, national, ethnic
Significance
Feast day of Saint Patrick, commemoration of the arrival of Christianity in Ireland[1]
Date
17 March
Celebrations
Attending parades, attendingcéilithe, wearing shamrocks, wearing green, drinking Irish beer, drinking Irish whiskey
Observances
Attending mass or service
…
vid Rutten (the creator of Grasshopper) as the leading poster. Amassing just over 7000 posts. I have been a regular contributor since this forum starter 5 years ago and I am only half way there.
The line between "the only stupid question is the unasked question" and the "why is no one here answering my questions question" needs to be walked with care.
We have all been where you are now. Admittedly it was probably easier for me as there wasn't that much to the program when I started using it and my learning curve has been an incremental one as things get added.
It doesn't help that all the documentation that is around is out of date as soon as it gets published, but that is the nature of software in BETA... things change. I know of a concerted effort by the powers to be to document Grasshopper better. But this is a little way of from completion.
If it helps I can think of two examples of questions that I either should have asked or did and regretted.
Firstly I had no idea you could bake geometry into the rhino document when I first used Explicit History (former name of GH) I mean what the hell does a fried egg have to do with it :) so I simply ignored the plug-in for a month or so. If I'd asked how do I get my Red transparent surfaces into Rhino, I would have been using it a lot sooner.
Secondly I wished for a way to display the output of a component so that I could see it without having to hover over the tool tip each time. I didn't realise that Post-it Note (or Panel as it is now due to copyright issues) had an input as well as an output.
The most important thing to remember is that Grasshopper is an extension of Rhino. By not knowing Rhino you are at a greater disadvantage than the rest.
If you don't know how you should go about modelling something in Rhino how are you going to be able to develop meaningful algorithms in Grasshopper.
Danny…
sistance of radiative and convective heat transfer through the _filmCoefficient input on the "Create Therm Boundaries" component. This filmCoefficient in W/m2K represents the "U-Value" of the air film between the edge of the THERM materials and the surrounding environment that is at the specified _temperature. The extra resistance from this air film is why the full construction U-Value that you are getting out of THERM is a lower than just the (conductivity of material) / (depth of the material). Accounting for air films is particularly important when you get constructions that have a high overall conductivity (like a single pane window), since almost all of the resistance of such a construction is due to the air films.
To elaborate further, you might have noticed that, in the example files on hydra, I set this filmCoefficient to be either "indoor" or "outdoor", which basically uses some code that I wrote to autocalculate the film coefficient for you. I take into account both the emissivity of the material at the boundary (which gives you more air film resistance for lower emissivities) as well as the orientation of the boundary in the 3D space of the Rhino model. The code I wrote will take these parameters and match them to those published in ASHRAE Fundementals, which you can see in table 1 of the first page of this PDF:
http://edge.rit.edu/content/C09008/public/2009%20ASHRAE%20Handbook
I interpolate between these values in the event that your emissivity is not 0.05, 0.2, 0.9 or the orientation of your boundary is not any one of the 5 that they give.
I know that THERM also has the capability to actually run the radiative and convective formulas that you posted, Mauricio, as opposed to just using a single film coefficient to account for all of this resistance. The running of these formulas is particularly useful is the radiant temperature at the boundary is different than the air temperature. However, as long as you are ok with this assumption that the air and radiant temperatures are the same (which is the case for all of the situations that I have encountered), the film coefficient is perfectly sufficient. If anyone ever has need for this capability of running boundary conditions that have different radiant and air temperatures, please post here and I can think of a way to implement it. I rather like the simplicity of the current interface, though, and I think that I will keep it this way until we understand the purposes for why someone would need separate radiant and air temperatures.
-Chris…
he Summer in the City program, part of the Portland School of Architecture and Allied Arts (an extension to University of Oregon).
Using both Grasshopper and the Firefly plug-in, this workshop will focus on the design of innovative facade prototypes that are configurable, sensate, and active. Students will become familiar with the terminology used in interactive facade design including an overview of hardware (ie.sensors, actuators, and programmable microcontrollers) as well as software interfaces terminology. We'll learn new prototyping techniques and develop digital and physical models which can respond to a plurality of environmental and user driven forces. This workshop will take a hands-on approach, and you will walk away with the ability to build your own custom electronic circuits (using the Arduino), as well as create interactive simulations and models.
This course will primarily focus on physical computing techniques. Unfortunately, given the time constraints of the workshop, I will not be able to provide an extensive overview of the Grasshopper interface (it is suggested that participants have some familiarity with the Rhino/Grasshopper environment). There are many great online resources to get you up to speed relatively quickly if you are new to this software. This is a good place to start.
The course will be held at the School of Architecture and Allied Arts in Portland, OR. The date/times of the workshop are as follows:
Friday July 19, 5:00-7:50 P.M.
Saturday July 20, 9:00 A.M.-3:50 P.M.
Sunday July 21, 1:00-3:50 P.M.
If you are a designer, architect, or anyone who is interested in learning about the digital tools and technology trends that are revolutionizing design today, this workshop is for you. Make sure to click here to find out more about registration and enrollment in this exciting new workshop.…
es which you can see below in my mesh repair report I ran on the mesh after baking it.
This is a bad mesh.
Here is what is wrong with this mesh: Mesh has 2 non manifold edges. <<------because of the duplicate face Mesh has 1 duplicate face. Skipping face direction check because of positive non manifold edge count.
General information about this mesh: Mesh does not have any degenerate faces. Mesh does not have any extremely short edges. Mesh does not have any naked edges. Mesh does not have any self intersecting faces. Mesh does not have any disjoint pieces. Mesh does not have any unused vertices.
Continuing the repair process does rid the duplicate face. I also realized that rhino 5 has the command called "ExtractDuplicateMeshFaces" which works quite nicely.
However, this "method" is not available in rhinocommon currently. So I just wonder who can I ask to add it? It seems it would make sense to be in rhinocommon considering we have methods available for each of the other tests run by mesh repair. The reason I am interested in this command is it seems to work very fast.
Thanks
…
Added by Michael Pryor at 12:53am on December 11, 2014
f objects with the main ring body, and that cannot be done in parallel since you are modifying the item once at a time, algorithmically.
The original example of a cylinder and sphere are textbook failures of the Rhino 5 dumb algorithm, since that combination features kissing surfaces that confuse Rhino about where they are intersecting since really in tolerance values they are overlapping along a ribbon instead of a sharp line.
Normally you would slightly move or rescale one of the pair to create a single loop intersection curve that doesn't wander around in jerky fashion trying to combine two surfaces that fail to actually plunge through one another.
Your main Boolean union is 116 prongs with a ring base, and that's slow because Rhino bogs down as the model gets more an more complicated with each internal step, I imagine.
The speed is not all that slow either, only 21 seconds for the Booleans themselves.
If you turn of Grasshopper preview meshing via the toolbar menu it should be significantly faster while you are tweaking the design.
To troubleshoot the slow Boolean, I went into Rhino and tried merely splitting the ring body with the prongs and that itself was just about as slow as the Boolean union, so Rhino is not being badass about it. Then I exploded the ring body and tried splitting just that with the prongs and it was *much* faster to operate on just that single surface! The black box reveals itself a bit.
In kind, splitting the prongs with that single surface was about the same speed as splitting it with the whole ring body, so no speed gain there.
But, to speed up your script, since we *cannot* in fact use parallel processing, we can instead manually create that prong surface by doing our own splits and using Grasshopper's natural order of parts, hopefully consistent, to get rid of the junk.
That prong surface is item 4 of an exploded object.
So I will mutually split them and tease out the good parts from the junk and then rejoin the parts, no Boolean union component needed.
First, I went into your prong cluster and removed the capping, so I have merely an open revolution surface instead of a polysurface, letting me access the surface trim command after quickly finding the BrepBrep intersection curves between the prongs and the single ring surface.
For that Boolean union step I'm down from 11 seconds to 4 seconds, but confusingly we added a second to the Boolean difference that follows:
It's fast since we are manually selecting junk instead of Rhino having to sort which is which, I imagine.
We still have a slow Boolean subtraction of the gems and holes from the finished ring body.
That's not simple so will remain slow and cannot be parallel processed since again there's a single main ring body being modified in each step, and nor are there simple pairs of split object to select from manually to discard junk.
…
- nickname is rather the best approach - and not on active group, but that's irrelevant anyway).
Step back (assuming that you are talking about the "Tens_from_random_blah_blah" definition):
1. Engineering is the art of demystifying (or we are promising that anyway, he he). This means that you start defining (better: outlining) some topology for things based on some "generic" rules (like the ones applied for the masts,cables,cones etc etc). These things are kept in some kind of structure (Lists, DataTrees etc). Things are few in 99.99999% of cases (i.e. : even the biggest membrane "module" has, say, 20-50 masts per "module").
2. Then ... handling things "individually" (mostly modifying) becomes the most critical part. See this (an x "possible" solution by combining a myriad of "options" : a no cones membrane solution, in plain English):
3. But the above is impossible (for more than obvious reasons). You should deploy masts in some high/low sequence in order to achieve some meaningful convex/concave formation that could work.
4. This "works" : 5. This doesn't:
6. This works partially (the formation at the back is "flat" == undo able):
7. This is utterly kitsch (and faulty as the case6 - the back portion):
So it's quite obvious that without a (quite complex) capability to individually control things (in this occasion : mast heights) the whole definition is a waste of computer time. Additionally the more the solution is "demystified" (some curve is defined, some random points are created, some masts are in place, some cables appear etc etc) the more additional constrains are required in order to "narrow" the possibilities (In plain English : sliders should control other sliders as regards their min/max values, true/false, you/me etc etc).
Remember that we are talking about ONE (mast height) out of a myriad things that you should control "manually" (it's utterly pointless to mastermind some kind of "generic" rules - or use naive attractors etc etc) .You'll see the difference when I'll completely reform the definition by adding individual control upon anything.
PS: what about the blocks? (the real life stuff that actually make any solution possible). Can you imagine a 2nd set of "restrictions" imposed by "a child to his parent"? (Assembly/Component modeling , that is).
more soon
…
uick answers. Below you will find some suggestions, but don't think of them as rules and especially don't think of them as guarantees.
1. Choose a descriptive title for your post
Don't call your question "Help!" or "I have a problem" or "Deadline tonight!", but actually describe the problem you are having.
2. Be succinct but clear in your wording
People need to know some details about your problem in order to understand what sort of answers would satisfy you, but nobody cares about how angry your boss or how bad your teacher or how tight your deadline is. Talk about the problem and only the problem. If you don't speak English well, you should probably post in your native language as well as providing a Google Translation of your question.
3. Attach minimal versions of all the relevant files
If you have a GH/GHX file you have a question about, attach it to the post. Don't expect that people will recreate a file based on a screen-shot because that's a lot of pointless work. It's also a good idea to remove everything non-essential from a GH file. You can use the 'Internalise Data' menu option to cut everything to the left of a parameter:
If you're importing curves or Breps or meshes from Rhino, you can also internalise them so you won't have to post a 3DM file as well as a GH file. If you do attach large files, consider zipping them first. Do not use RAR, Ning doesn't handle it.
It is especially a good idea to post files that don't require any non-standard components if at all possible. Not everyone has Kangaroo or Hoopsnake or Geco installed so if your file relies on those components, it might not open correctly elsewhere.
4. Include a detailed image of the GH file if it makes sense
If your question is about a specific (group of) components, consider adding a screenshot of the file in the text of the post. You can use the Ctrl+Shift+Q feature in Grasshopper to quickly create nice screenshots with focus rectangles such as this:
5. Include links to online resources if possible
If you have a question about Schwarz Minimal surfaces, please link to a website which talks about these.
6. Create new topics rather than continuing old ones
It's usually better to start a fresh question, even if there's already a discussion that kinda sorta tangentially touches upon the same issue. Please link to that discussion, but start anew.
7. This is not a 'do my work for me' group
Many of us like to help, but it's good to see effort on our part being matched by effort on your part. Questions in the form of 'I need to do X but cannot be bothered to try and learn the software' will (and should) go unanswered.
7b. Similarly, questions in the form of 'How do I quickly recreate this facade that took a team of skilled professionals four months to figure out?' have a very low success rate.
--
David Rutten
Lead Grasshopper Development
Robert McNeel & Associates…
Added by David Rutten at 12:58pm on October 1, 2013