ween the extremes of each goal.
Also see octopus.E for custom evolutionary algorithms.
Download the latest version on food4rhino
It is part of a range of tools developed at the University of Applied Arts Vienna, and Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers.
search for single goal + diversity of solutions
search for best trade offs between 2 to X goals
improve solutions by similarity-goals
choose preferred solutions during a search
change objectives during a search
solutions' 3d models for visual feedback
recorded history
save all search data within the Grasshopper document
save a solution as a Grasshopper State
export to text or text files
Octopus introduces multiple fitness values to the optimization. The best trade-offs between those objectives are searched, producing a set of possible optimum solutions that ideally reach from one extreme trade-off to the other.
Based on SPEA-2 and HypE from ETH Zürich and David Rutten's Galapagos User Interface. Developed by Robert Vierlinger in cooperation with Christoph Zimmel, karamba3d.com and Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers.
To install:
Copy the .gha and .dll file into the Grasshopper components folder
Right-click the file > Properties > make sure there is no "blocked" text
Restart Rhino and Grasshopper
Some examples are provided here.
New commented examples and a brief manual are provided in the download of octopus on food4rhino.
…
Added by Robert Vier at 2:51am on December 6, 2012
I live on my computer and I even sleep with it, so learning all this is probably within my reach but I'm a complete beginner as of now.
I'm downloading the 32 bit version of rhino 5 since the 64 bit doesn't seem to work with your downloads Jon.
I haven't grasped everything you have made yet Jon I can't even begin to understand what your IFC stuff is actually capable of, but just to be clear I'm not interested in solely being able to tell that something is colliding as there are already software that can do that beautifully. What I want to do is bypass that step altogether by never having collision-checking back and forth go on, even collisions which aren't physical collisions, but rather just violations by code. The simplest way to do this would be to simply make the geometry of the beams 2 feet wider than they are in real life, so that way you could put a light right next to the 'over-sized' beam and it would still be within the rules. But that would be extremely primitive and I'm sure there's a way to do it mathematically.
Just to clarify, I'm the fire sprinkler designer in the architectural circus. The sprinkler designer (me) doesn't really get the luxury of telling the other trades that they're colliding with my stuff and they should move. Rather, I get their drawings, find out I'm colliding with them, and move around them. So it would be of great use to me to have this be automatic - that is, to automatically space my sprinklers the neccesary distance away from all obstructions. There are different spacing rules for different obstructions - walls, beams, open web steel, unit heaters, hvac ducts depending on how wide the ducts are, lights, fans, high rack storage, basically anything that would obstruct the water spray from a sprinkler needs to be taken into account and spaced away from.
It's therefore a very attractive idea to be able to just draw a rectangle (representing the walls of a simple room) for instance, have the sprinklers automatically spaced as far apart as possible within the rectangle according to the rulebooks (to minimize the amount of sprinklers needed which minimizes the material cost of the job).
Then add obstructions inside the rectangle, such as a beam, and have the sprinklers relocate themselves or add new sprinklers to accommodate for the new obstruction.. Keep adding obstructions until you have the realistic 3d model of the room, with the sprinklers spaced accordingly, and you have an up-to-code sprinkler system.
There is one example where sprinklers actually need to be spaced really close to, rather than away from, an object.. and that is the ceiling (sprinklers must be within 12 in of ceiling typically).
If the HVAC guy decides to reroute his ducts right through my sprinklers, then I could draw 3D HVAC ducts (I usually get 2D drawings coming in) going right through the room and the sprinklers would relocate and auto-space away from the ducts, without actually having to tell the HVAC guy he is colliding with me because all that will do is require me to do a redesign anyway.
And presto, the HVAC guy loves me because I didn't complain to him at all and seemingly did all this work by moving around him when all I really did was use the computer to do it, the job gets done much faster and I don't have to worry that I'm going to lose my job in court because I made a silly human error when I was patching my system manually because some HVAC guy made me redesign 12 times in different places.
From what I have been reading from you guys, doing this is possible although (I realize) ambitious. The end result would be vastly increased productivity, less error making, cheaper design cost, etc. Using programs like Rhino, architects are getting more and more funny-shaped buildings and making it difficult for guys like me to make sprinkler systems within the rules, and I see it as an inevitability that computers will be making almost all of the typical design decisions in the future when it comes to life safety systems, I'm just trying to see if it's possible to start implementing this extra aid today.
…
project below- should I be learning Grasshopper & Rhino or just Rhino first?
I'm trying to panel modules with low tolerances- I've prototyped regular shapes like geodesics and am now looking to experiment with irregular shapes with lots of different panel shapes.
I understand some things are best done through Grasshopper when using Paneling Tools- I'm trying to figure out if I can do what I want to achive with PT alone or should do it through Grasshopper (or some other route).
I’m on the MAC WIP - The module was built in Sketchup - all the components seem to be in order as blocks though am having problems running the ptpanel3dcustom command - thinking maybe a bug in the WIP or something wrong with my input or that I imported the sketchup file the wrong way. (I dropped it in the window) - If the 3D command is run it doesn’t do anything - if 2D (ptpanelgridcustom) it crashes.
The tileing pattern - the green rectangle is a refrence. each tile contains 4 blocks with 3 more nested in each.
How the module tiles.
The other thing I'm trying to do is specify that most of the lines in the panels don’t bend/curve when they are paneled (or something like Cage Edited). For my purposes the length & angles can change while the lines must remain straight.
These images show a test tile to be panneled on a ellipsoid. When the tile is mapped to the grid the lines curve, this is an extreme example but notice allot of tiles far from the hemespheres are also bent slightly.
These two questions have me stumped the most for now. What should I look into get a better handle on these problem areas? Maybe I should try recreating the work on a windows machine? or perhaps I should get started with Grasshopper?
Thanks for reading.
Lu…
duttiva, sarà finalizzata alla realizzazione di un modello d'architettura complesso attraverso l'utilizzo di comandi e tecniche avanzate di rappresentazione con i software Rhinoceros e 3dsMax.Durante l'openDAY verranno mostrate le caratteristiche e le potenzialità degli strumenti Nurbs (Rhino) e Mesh (3dsMax) chiarendo i nuovi valori assunti dalla modellazione 3D per il progetto e per il rilievo.Inoltre come conclusione al mini-corso, sarà illustrato il potenziale di V-ray per 3dsMax renderizzando il modello disegnato durante l'incontro e verrà mostrata la potente plug-in Grasshopper del software Rhinoceros, strumento sempre più utilizzato in ambito europeo ed internazionale.
La lezione e la presentazione si terranno presso lo studio IL PEDONE - officine di architettura.
PROGRAMMAZIONE
- Mini-corso integrato di modellazione avanzata con Rhinoceros e 3dsMax;
-Il modello dinamico: il modello digitale come prototipo virtuale per il concept progettuale
[Michele Calvano];
-Nuove tecniche di modellazione parametrica con Grasshopper:
[Michele Calvano];
- Il modello espressivo: la mesh e le sue capacità di strutturare lo spazio architettonico
[Wissam Wahbeh];
- Esempio di rendering con Vray per Max:
[Wissam Wahbeh];
- Offerta formativa 2013 - Corsi e Workshop [Francesca Guadagnoli];
- Question Time per chiarimenti sugli argomenti illustrati.
COMEL' openDAY SARA' APERTO A TUTTI GLI INTERESSATI, COMPLETAMENTE GRATUITO E SARA' REPLICATO IN DUE SESSIONI DI UGUALI CONTENUTI ORGANIZZATE NEI SEGUENTI ORARI:
Sessione [1] 15,00 - 17,00
Sessione [2] 18,00 - 20,00
Per necessità di organizzazione, è importante la prenotazione all'evento utilizzando il form presente in fondo alla pagina, dove nella stringa apposita (Evento), si dovrà specificare il nome dell'evento, la sessione (es. open day sessione 1) e agli altri dati richiesti.
per info contattare la Coordinatrice Didattica Francesca Guadagnoli
cell: 347 7189175 oppure 340 3476330
@: parametricart@gmail.com
Presentazione precedente parametricDAY -14 gennaio 2013http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSdVf6ppATwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzsMPuLfCLQ…
2: https://vimeo.com/107502226
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
1. Chris, Chien Si and I will present Ladybug and Honeybee at IBSA-USA NYC this Thursday (August 21st). The presentation will include some of the latest developments that we are working on. If you are interested to know more about some of the new developments and see some of the workflows and you are around New York then just stop by. If can't attend in person you can still watch the presentation online. Check the links below. (Make sure to register by Wednesday if you are attending in person.)
2. We would like to show some of the works that you have done with Honeybee and Ladybug during the presentation so if there is anything that you think is interesting and can be presented publicly send it to us at thisisladybug@gmail.com or just post it here. Make sure to let us know who do you want us to credit the image.
3. That's it for now. I copy the information about the presentation below and hope to see some of you there. Thanks for your help and support.
Cheers,
Mostapha
IBPSA-USA New York Regional Chapter presents:
Parametric Modeling Tools | Ladybug and Honeybee
Location: Thornton Tomasetti, 44 East 27th street (between Madison and Park)
Date & Time: Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 6:00-7:30 PM.
6:00-6:30 PM Networking
6:30-7:30 PM Ladybug and Honeybee
Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Thornton Tomasetti
Chris Mackey, MIT
Chien Si Harriman, Terabuild
7:30-7:45 PM Q & A
Click here to register**: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6507378565592582402
**Please register at least a day in advance if you wish to attend in person
Descriptions
Ladybug + Honeybee
Ladybug and Honeybee are open source environmental plugins for Grasshopper that help architects and engineers create an environmentally-conscious architectural design.
Ladybug imports standard EnergyPlus Weather files (.EPW) into Grasshopper and provides a variety of 3D interactive graphics to support the decision-making process during the initial stages of design. The plugin also provides further support for designers as they test their initial design options with radiation, sunlight-hour, and shading analyses. Integration with Grasshopper allows for an almost instantaneous feedback and, since the plugin runs within the design environment, the information and analyses are interactive.
Honeybee connects Grasshopper3D to EnergyPlus, Radiance, Daysim and OpenStudio for building energy and daylighting simulation. The Honeybee project intends to make many of the features of these simulation tools available in a parametric way. Just as users have made changes to geometry for years in Grasshopper, now users can parameterize system types, zoning schemes, schedules of operation, daylight sensor placement and controls - all of the “hardcore” simulation parameters that have never been exposed to parametric modeling tools.
https://www.facebook.com/LadyBugforGrasshopper http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug
…
and...how to bake meaningful assembly/component type of structures for the rest of the tedious work required > you know what I mean > the ugly part of our business > documentation drawings, BOM, tech etc etc etc.
For instance, let's focus to the planar glazing support items: absolutely no need to make them it via any smart app since they are plenty of them around in the market (unless you are I.M.Pei and you do that exceptional Pyramid wonder thing).
But...the goal is...hmm...to create some kind of "smart" (kinda, he he) solution where components (the "baked" ones, so to speak) are structured in such a way that further work (via conventional CAD apps) is easily managed. To speak in Rhino dialect: nested Blocks and/or nested Refs. Like having components in GH that could manage nested Block/Ref stuff (but I guess that you can do it rather easily via VB).
Back to that ugly truss: It's obvious that this is a nested collection of "repetitions" (should I call them iterations?) : meaning that a void top node owns a module truss that owns 2 supportive sub-trusses that are made by some pipes that own connecting items that own the planar glazing items etc etc etc.
With regard the "own" thing: Imagine a CAD file that is simply a container/place holder of some individual entities (called Models). These Models can be "linked" to others (in a nested parent/child relation). Links can be external of internal. They can be either References or Cells or Shared Cells. This the way that Microstation classifies/handles "entities" (a bit primitive, mind, but nobody's perfect - for the real thing see CATIA/NX).
Back to that ugly truss: Obviously this structure (actually the assembly/component combo related with the given solution) has to be transfered into classic 2d extractions (say: plans, elevations, sections et all). This is done why a weird thing called Dynamic Views/live markers in Microstation (you define Clip planes in 3d space that manage 2d extraction content in something called Drawing Model that controls other weird things called Sheet Models, all these live linked etc etc).
To make things more spicy...these 2d extractions can been viewed as master detail directives: from where 1:1 classic details are made (that is: you apply more Dynamic Views and live markers and life goes on - red pepper extra strong Russian vodka is a must when you do that type of work).
This is where Rhino is out of his depth (but to be fair: it's not designed for this type of work) and also this is where Microstation has no competition at least for AEC purposes (but to be fair: it is designed for this type of work).
Of course Autodesk...well expect soon the Gen Comp equivalent for Revit...a fact that complicates things (for Bentley) a bit given the Revit mania in the AEC world.
Moral: intelligence is good but it's only the tip of the iceberg. …
we're actually using PET sheets for our flexures. We try to design so that the flexures don't go through more than +/- 30 degrees of deflection. If the angular deflection is kept small, the lifetime can definitely be on the order of 1000000 cycles.
As for the design process (item 2), ideally the designer would be able to use a simple 3D CAD tool to design a model of a robot, and the geometry would be represented by dimensioning the individual parts in the model. Maybe there should be some parametric primitive kinematic building blocks like four bar linkages, box frames, etc. that a user could build up a robot from. But, the key functionality the tool needs to provide is for the designer to be able to visualize how the robot will move when it's fabricated. This could mean observing (or plotting) the motion of a leg, a wing, or a series of body segments. Ideally, then, the tool would generate an unfolding of the design. How this would work is still very vague - maybe the user would assist in the unfolding, maybe there would be an optimization routine that computes optimal unfoldings based on criteria like minimal waste, or fewest pieces (I would *not* constrain the problem to construction from a single monolithic piece as in origami). The biggest problem we have right now, is that our design process is totally divorced from fabrication. Even if we went through the trouble of extruding individual thin plates in Solidworks and creating an assembly for visualizing the kinematics of a mechanism, that particular representation doesn't transfer easily to the fabrication process because it's essentially monolithic.
Item 3: The 2D drawing is simple a drawing done manually in Solidworks. There are different layers for flexure cuts, outline cuts, and potentially any cuts to be made in the plastic flexure layer. Depending on the robot, there may be many separate pieces for different parts and linkages in a single robot. For example, the drawing for a robot containing a fourbar linkage may have the linkage laid out as a physically separate piece consisting of five rigid links connected by four flexure hinges. During assembly, the designer would then fold up that linkage and insert it into the robot wherever it's supposed to go. If you're curious you can see some sample 2D drawings for older designs here: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ronf/Prototype/ under the "Example Structures" heading.
I noticed Kangaroo seems to be a popular choice for physical simulations. I don't really even need to include forces like bending resistance - I'm happy to allow the design tool to approximate flexures as pin joint-type hinges. Once the design is unfolded, the details of how to cut the flexures could be worked out in a post-processing step. I wouldn't expect the tool to be able to realistically simulate the bending of the hinges.
I'm going to have to dig a lot deeper into understanding Grasshopper and Kangaroo. I only just got started with Grasshopper today by following the folding plate tutorial on wa11ace.com.au today. …
heranno la maggior parte delle funzionalità di Rhino, tra cui i comandi più avanzati per la creazione di superfici.
Struttura Le lezioni tratteranno in maniera sistematica argomenti riguardanti l'interfaccia utente, i comandi, la creazione e modifica di curve, superfici e solidi.
Risultati attesi Dopo questo corso l’allievo deve essere in grado di:
• Muoversi agevolmente attraverso l’interfaccia di Rhino.
• Identificare quando è richiesto modellare in maniera free-form o di precisione.
• Creare e modificare curve, superfici e solidi anche di natura complessa.
• Utilizzare ausili di modellazione per la precisione.
• Produzione di facili rendering per la visualizzazione dei modelli di Rhino.
Destinatari Questo corso è rivolto a progettisti e studenti che vogliono imparare in modo efficace i concetti e le caratteristiche del software di modellazione Rhinoceros. Le lezioni saranno esposte da un docente ART qualificato dalla McNeel esperto di modellazione Nurbs.
Prerequisiti Per affrontare il corso sono richieste competenze di Windows, passione e volontà di modellazione; precedenti esperienze di modellazione, anche con altri software, sono utili ma non indispensabili.
Attestato Alla fine del corso verrà rilasciata l’attestato di partecipazione ad un corso qualificato McNeel valido anche per l’ottenimento di crediti formativi universitari.
Luogo Le lezioni si terranno in Via dei Valeri 1 int.9, 00184 ROMA
Pre-iscrizione Per garantire il numero di iscrizioni è necessaria una pre-iscrizione inviando una mail all'indirizzo 4planstudio@gmail.com il cui contenuto deve essere il seguente:
Nome:
Cognome:
Indirizzo di residenza:
mail:
telefono:
La preiscrizione dovrà avvenire entro il 30/11. A seguito di questa procedura verrà inviata dal tutor una mail di conferma con le procedure di iscrizione.
Quota di iscrizione
Il corso prevede le seguenti quote di iscrizione:
studenti: 400 Euro; (sarà necessario presentare in copia la ricevuta di pagamento dell’anno in corso)
non studenti: 470 Euro. Le quote sono considerate iva inclusa.
Info
Per ulteriori informazioni sono a disposizione i seguenti contatti:
Responsabile didattico: arch. Michele Calvano
Info mail: 4planstudio@gmail.com
tel: 340 3476330
…
ts in extreme aliasing effects that carry into the 3D realm as regular steps along what should be smooth surfaces.
On sleeping on it, I realized I hadn't yet tried fast Unary Force on fine quad meshes from the standard Grasshopper meshing system that includes the meshing options component.
Bingo! It's fast now. Workable. I don't need super fine meshing since I'm not running from aliasing. I can still use rather fine local meshes since Unary Force lets Kangaroo do a simple thing just in the Z direction rather than a full 3D force.
After only a minute or so of Kangaroo initialization that slows the interface, each of a dozen needed cycles takes half a second, FOR THE ENTIRE GRAPHIC.
I just set the timer to 1 second so I can move around the interface, and I double click the Windows taskbar timer shut-off to enjoy the result.
WHILE RUNNING VIA TIMER, IF I CHANGE A SPRING/FORCE SETTING IT SUFFERS NO DELAY AT ALL AND JUST ALTERS THE OUTPUT OVER TIME. I can change Unary Force from 20 to 100 and immediately see the bigger areas balloon like crazy:
It's fast enough overall to play with, yet the individual steps are slow enough that it's fun to watch the hysteresis as it overshoots back from 100 to 20 Unary Force, going concave in the middle of bulges then back to more shallow hills.
A force of 1000 is a bit disturbing, I wonder if I can tamp it down with greater spring strength or will that just give me the same result as before?
Looks like it's the same, just the ratio matters. Makes sense I guess. At one point it blew up though. Hitting the reset button...a minute later it blows up again...and just doesn't like huge numbers, so I don't see an advantage playing with bombs. The high mesh strength is pulling the mesh apart.
With low Unary Force and moderate mesh tension, you get flat tops, as if the overall force on the mesh fighting its anchored edge vertices, is enough to displace it, but the surface itself is too stiff to care about local gravity.
Then you have less flat areas as you increase Unary Force:
Weird, there *is* some sort of absolute effects, rather than just relative, between Unary Force and spring stiffness, since now I'm getting flat tops even in the extreme:
Oh, wait, strike that, I may be seeing but a single step with the timer off, subject to hysteresis. With the timer back on...it can sit there a minute...not locked up but just idling...until you see the Display > Widgets > Profiler time start cycling to near half minute numbers...makes you want to hit the reset button...and indeed that locks the interface for another initialization...and yes, it was merely hysteresis, not an equilibrium result. My former flat tops may have been due to that too, due to my use of the Windows taskbar timer disabler. The lesson is that you can obtain different results by using a long timer setting and just stopping it before it equilibrates.
This script is a keeper, fast and fun after the relatively mild Kangaroo initialization period is over.
The uniform mostly quad meshing is all done in Grasshopper too, from any flat surface with holes, especially from images of shapes that are traced with potrace to give surfaces with holes.
Could I switch to hex meshes from triangular meshes to do the same thing with fewer vertices?
Are there other forces I can add to smooth the bulging? Letting things bulge is not so bad if you then just scale down the result in Z afterwards (though perhaps the same result could be had with lesser force):
Also, can this same thing be done with possibly faster Kangaroo 2?…
Added by Nik Willmore at 10:02pm on February 21, 2016
is to reduce the gaps between built environment and digital technologies seamless integrating design and fabrication. Among the benefits: efficient use of production resources, material-specific design concepts, outcome optimization and durability.
Jointly organized by FabLab Poliba and Polytechnic University of Bari, Self Made Architecture 03 aims to help students to develop new skills and tools on 3D Modeling, Advanced Parametric Modeling, Structural and Daylighting Optimization and Digital Fabrication.
The tools we’ll use:
#Rhinoceros3D #Grasshopper3D #Kangaroo #Ladybug #Honeybee #Cura #BigRepOne
The students will be involved in morning lectures and hands-on workshops during the afternoon with a Do-It-Yourself and Do-It-Together approach. They will be asked to work on group projects and take part of the final phase of a temporary architecture installation.
More info:
Days: 2nd July 2018 to 7th July 2018 Location: Italy > Puglia > Bitonto Language: English Students: 27 International students Credits: 2 ECTS Benefits: Fully Fundend Summer School. Free Application for the Summer School, Free Accommodation with B&B and meals included, Free Enrollment to FabLab Poliba Elegibility criteria: students and graduates of architecture, design and engineering.
Apply: www.poliba.it/didattica/sma03 Deadline: 31st May 2018 at 12:00 (noon) Contacts: info@fablabpoliba.org Scientific Coordinator: Prof. Nicola Parisi…