greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
sent a 3D shape without any ambiguity. If the shape you're trying to convey falls outside the scope of existing standards, then it can't be done, but this is a problem of standards, not an intrinsic shortcoming of pencils.
[...] with the computer theoretically acting as a decision maker.
The computer makes no decisions on it's own. It's a fully deterministic machine, meaning that any output is the result of applying a set of rules to some pre-existing data. Humans make the rules. At no point can you blame the computer for coming up with a bad answer, it's always some human who is responsible.
[...] it seems to often be split between Computerization, and Computation.
I'm willing to concede there exist cases that are unambiguously one or the other, but there's a gradient in between these two extremes, they are not separate categories. If I draw a box by specifying the 8 corner points as XYZ coordinates then computation can be said not to be involved. If I draw a box by specifying 2 opposite corners then the computer has to compute the other 6 coordinates and we're already on our way towards the other extreme. If I draw a box by specifying a width, height and a required volume, more computation is needed. If I specify a box by a width, a volume and the requirement is doesn't cast too much shadow on some other shape, more computation is needed. At what point do we say "now it qualifies as computation/solving"?
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
Added by David Rutten at 7:22am on November 28, 2013
hes or surfaces on this: it's the nature/topology of your design that dictates that approach):
This C# only (as usual) collection of scripts works in 2 phases:
Phase A: Gets points in 3d space (NOT internalized in order to alter them manually) and creates a mesh. Depending of your search distance (actually: radius) the mesh is variable. If you bypass phase A (feed the 2nd C# with some other mesh of yours) then the mesh is triangulated automatically.
Phase B: Gets the mesh and creates your "tri-breps" in a DataTree where first dimension branches are indexed as the mesh faces (Note: "tri-breps" are not joined to a closed brep for speed).
PS: An auxiliary 3rd C# gives you an indication about the size of mesh edges in order to enter proper offset (where offset means offset of the tri-mesh edges) values.
PS: If you overdone with values > faces are excluded (and the equivalent tri-breps are NOT created):
PS: if you enter possible/doable offsets > all faces play ball:
best, Peter (Load Rhino file first)
…
hem and mine with some axis more in 3d space):
To tell you the truth you need a lot of other "constrains" for your nodes since they are shaped (I can easily guess the "method" used) by "fusion" and not connected via some ball type (MEANING: that the clearance between adapters should comply to a second constrain AFTER clash matters are addressed: this is one line of code more into that C#).
So ... I'll thy to translate the C# into components (but is 100 times easier to work with code than with these ... er ... mysterious/cryptic GH components, he he).
more soon…
ponents at all (C# , that is). Obviously this is a no-no > the wrong thing to do > back to the drawing board.
In the mean time get these 2 that are related with the issue (but how? I have no idea, he he).
The flatten (get the flying laundry back in a "stationary" state, he he) is challenging because ... if you change some mysterious things it turns ultra paranoid.
The other (intro to 3d grids) has a broad "repertoire" depending on your choices (and it doesn't comply with your grid inputs all the times - blame AI, he he):
…
of stuff. Then it works either with ExoW (black mesh) or IntraLattice (blue mesh).
That said ExoW is tricky: occasionally reports engulfing issues and stops playing the game. For instance in this (diagonal) anchor mode and with some U/V random values:
Whilst IntraLattice appears rather less temperamental:
The other def is more complex and works using the Proximity approach that makes more sense with regard random 3d line graphs (as an exercise: Add a gate and use IntraLattice as Plan B).
best
…
ng the "kaleidocycle" as a facade component, and i need to be able to move it through its entire "rotation" in 3d space to understand where and how it is moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owFczeqqMQ
this is what it is doing, in general. there are 2 sets of 3 hinges, rotated 180 degrees, making up a hexagonal form.
here is a rhino model of the form. i used the trigonometric properties of the isoceles triangle to make this model very accurate (63.333, 53.333, 63.333 angles), and now i need to describe the movement.
It is TOUGH. i think i have it and it just throws me for a loop (no pun intended).
I have a ghx model set up to where it can go through part of the cycle, but the inbetween states are incorrect, and therefore it's not valid, but it shows how something like this could work. The trick is it rotates on multiple axes at different times, and its just very very tricky to figure out what it is rotating around and when.
If anyone has any ideas, or insight, please please let me know. I am working on this in my masters' studies, and I'm pretty screwed if i can't figure this out in grasshopper!
Also, please find attached a research article concerning this form. I haven't been able to apply the geometric findings of theirs, yet. But it shows it can be described mathematically.
THANK YOU!!!!
benjamin
…
ts connectors and slots that allow CNC machining the facets and connectors for assembly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34OvgflJEmI
We developed this construction methodology earlier this year while working on a large scale parametric structure for Midburn, the Israeli Burning Man. While doing so I used grasshopper to generate the facets for the geometry, while a friend on the team (Matan Zohar) wrote a javascript app that translated the mesh into connectors and slots for CNC manufacturing. You can see more about the project here:
http://www.shlomimir.com/triped/
I wrote this component as an exercise in learning rhinoscript and python, with the purpose of bringing the functionality into the grasshopper workflow. It's now to the point where it is working for triangle and square welded meshes while outputting the connectors and slots as an unorganized list.
Questions and To Do List
1. I'm new to object oriented coding and functions, and basically just wrote the whole thing as a series of conditional loops with two dimensional arrays holding the data. Planning on restructuring this better, would love any tips.
2. Right now outputting the connectors and slots on the input mesh itself in 3D, planning on setting this up layed out on one plane to organize for cutting. I was wondering if there are any existing tools for this or if I need to do this manually.
3. Labeling connectors and slots. Is there anyway to output text from python that can be later baked into the rhino for labeling?…
erning how to do that on a sphere.
So I know already all the different approches of how to get a relaxed voronoi pattern on a free-form open surface, but still don't know how to obtain the same elegant effect on a sphere (or an ellipsoid closed surface, whatever), or how to relax the facet dome cells.
Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere the cells of which have been planarized later on, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome.
The trick is to:
1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells) on a sphere
2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on.
Here is what I have by now.(files: matsys spore lamp attempt)
That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design.
Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it's certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation.
1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01)
2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02)
3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03)
The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this:
You can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-releasedgroupUrl=kangaroo&x=1&groupId=2985220%3AGroup%3A120977&id=2985220%3ATopic%3A972434&page=2#comments
Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar...
The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve.
So to sum up:
Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever).
Goal no 2: How to keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later, obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily
Have you got any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?
Cheers, and thanks in advance…
his comes in the form of an HTML page with links to every component, so you will need to view it in your web browser. (I use Chrome and it doesn't seem to be working correctly, but when opened in IE its fine.)
2) Included in each help topic for each component is the Inputs and Outputs descriptions and data types.
3) You supply the data. What you supply and how you supply it is for you to decide. There are umpteen different ways. Are you asking for a list of those ways for each input?
4) Points can either be Rhino objects or 3D co-ordinates. To create a point you can use any of these methods, but it mostly comes down to user preference. I like using Panels as this displays outside of the component.
5) Because of the nature of vectors they represent magnitude and direction but they don't have an independent location, so there is a component that will display vectors in Rhino.
6) The user.
7) There is a Primer on the front page. Here you find the Basics, but because GH is ever evolving in its current beta state you might find things that aren't relevant any more or simply don't work the same. And here is the reason why nobody is writing an update because it could be soon out of date.
8) Importing images by either dragging them from explorer onto the canvas or right click context menu Image...
9) Single line = Single Item of Data. Double line = Multiple items of data on the same Branch. Dashed Double Line = Multiple Data on Multiple Branches.
10) User preference
11) Toolbar management is probably the bane of David's life. Most things are logically placed. For example the Curve Tab, Primitives are any simple curve types that you are creating from scratch. Similarly Splines is for more complex curve types created from scratch. Analysis is where you find components that are finding answers supplied by curves, control points, curvature, parameters, end points etc. Division is a subset of this category but has a group of its own. And Utilities is where you find curve related actions that you want to perform, offsetting, rebuilding projecting, exploding etc.
12) I would image it would have been the Point On Curve component in Curve>Analysis. Why that group? You are not putting a point on a curve you are analysing a curve for the location of a point based on some parameters that you are supplying. For example "what is the mid point?"
I hope this goes some way towards answering you questions. No doubt this will have generated more so don't be afraid to ask, it took me several releases of Explicit History (aka Grasshopper) before I realised what the egg did, it never occurred to me that I could put my objects into Rhino when I was finished. Or the fact that I could use panels to 'see' data outputs.
Al the best,
Danny…
Added by Danny Boyes at 3:48am on December 9, 2010