an almost planar tissue (your case) can cause a variety of issues up to the undo able state (metal parts/components grow in size as well for no reason). See forces estimated by FF below.
2. Therefor I strongly suggest to consider Plan B (a) mastermind a secondary "anchor" capability in order to achieve a far more stable system (b) use a mount design that can support this (and comply with the attractor concept of yours). Here's a variable mount custom system (mostly machined AND not cast) that is suitable for the scope (Rhino reads the stp file OK .... but makes a colossally big file - thus I attach here the original).
3. On first sight lot's of things in this system appear "odd". For instance: is it stable? Why these double cables are used? How far can be adjusted? (that's a classic case for feature driven parametric design - not doable with Rhino).
4. This concept (strut axis exported only) is tested in FORMFINDER and some other far more complex membrane apps that I use quite often (not RhinoMembrane). Here's is what FF tells us about:
Observe a different kind of "stress" when this is converted to radial type:
5. If you insert the stp file to the Rhino file provided (exactly as exported from FORMFINDER - no mods of mine of any kind) you'll see what goes where (and why). That way the usage of double cables is rather obvious (and a lot other things - for instance the way that the struts achieve "equilibrium", see the slots in the base mount plate.
6. If this approach is worth considering your definition requires some serious rethinking (far more simpler/manageable with the drawback that the real parts they are "static" they can adjust only as far this particular solution allows them to do - controlling them parametrically is clearly impossible with the current state of R/GH capabilities).`
All in all: this case works because the cables push the anchor points downwards and the struts push them upwards.
more in a while
…
taTree.
2. Since GH is acyclic by design we can't pick individually (without code, that is) our "picks" for the iceberg ... thus we need a global policy applied to ALL grid points at once.
3. This is what the next part does: it picks randomly some iceberg stuff and modifies their Z by a random value. If the Z is always "above" the grid or not it depends upon the domain of values to operate. Seed means "roll the bones again" (meaning another collection).
4. So we have the modified points Data Tree (that are steady - acting as the tips of the iceberg). Let's call them Anchors.
5. If we subtract set 4 from 1 we have the points prone to vary according some manipulation. Kangaroo does that manipulation (this is the best add-on that GH has to offer by 1M miles made by a very clever fella).
6. But if we instruct Kangaroo to do the job... he makes chaos since the points in 4 are not sufficient: we need perimeter steady points that act as Anchors as well. So we manage some logic to pick a variable set of perimeter points and we "merge" 4 and 6 and we have the final set of Anchors on hand - whilst all the rest are points willing to change.
7. Kangaroo is a physics engine meaning that the only thing that understands is ... er ... points and their relation (the "line" connecting them, that is). Kinda like a CPU that understands 0 and 1 and nothing else.
8. So we provide Kangaroo info about all the lines involved: how "stiff" they are and what is the expected/desired final length.
9. By double clicking the Kangaroo component ... the "simulation" starts running (in some kind of "loops") and goes towards an "equilibrium" where all our desires are satisfied - or the solution's entropy is the minimum possible (well up to some level, he he). Kangaroo displays a small control dialog that allows you to halt the process or reset it (meaning: start again).
10. If the instructions are "good"/"proper" the "loops" (iterations) are relatively few: if K does 1M "loops" ... this means that your instructions are silly or not well thought.
After stopping Kangaroo ... we have (hopefully) a "well" distorted collection of points (and their equivalent mesh) to proceed further via components usually found in the WB add-on
PS: If all the above sound Greek to you ... it's because I'm Greek, he he.
Moral: Get the gist of Kangaroo ASAP - worth spending some time I recon. If you do that and you need examples (other than the ones available at download time) ... well I have more than 300 (from simple to ultra paranoid).…
reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…
d of interpenetrating surfaces somewhere:
Now all links (except a possible single ball on the very end of odd numbered ball series) are four balls long, including the jostled ones. Without that step, those items simply don't appear in the output, leaving way too big of gaps to ignore, eventually leaving huge gaps at later stages of segment doubling:
So if I turn the jostling multiplication factor way down it should work imperceptibly:
Ta-dah! The jostling strategy WORKS! Granted, only in this special case where I know I'm dealing with adjacent pairs of worms along a curve, not generic objects arranged in space by some artist.
Now I just need to wrap the multiple Python script components I'm stringing together into one script.
How long does the full 2400 balls take, finally? It took 12 Python scripts that merge pairs, to achieve this breakdown: 2400 -> 1200 -> 600 -> 300 -> 150 -> 75 -> 38 -> 19 -> 9 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1. Time was 2 minutes 50 seconds, so there is some extra struggle for 2X as many balls as 1200 that took 1 minute 20 seconds, but only ten more seconds.
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 9:06pm on February 17, 2016
hacia donde crecerán las venas, y tenemos otro conjunto de puntos 'N' que son los que forman el patrón de venas.
1. Por cada 's' perteneciente a S, buscamos el 'n' perteneciente a N más cercano. Ese 'n' va a "moverse".
2. Por cada 'n' que se mueve, hacemos un vector dirigido a todos los 's' hacia los que se mueve.
3. Calculamos el vector medio de todos los vectores del paso 2, movemos 'n' con ese vector y lo añadimos a V.
4. Si algún 's' está muy cerca de algún 'n', ese 's' se elimina.
5. Se repite el proceso.
Esto es para formar venaciones abiertas sin autocrecimiento (como la siguiente imagen, hecho con Visual Basic).
Para las cerradas (las reticuladas que forman algo como células, como en la imagen tuya), el paso 1 y 4 son distintos y no sabría decirte cómo hacerlo. En ese pdf explica un método usando delaunay pero es muy lento, además gh no tiene ese algoritmo en 3d (entonces solo se podría hacer este patrón en 2d), por lo que estoy buscando otras vías, solo he logrado llegar a esto:
Es más complicado de lo que parece.
No obstante, si te conformas con menos, hay muchas formas de crear raíces y patrones similares, con SortestWalk, Anemone, etc... Hay ejemplos en este foro.
Si realmente quieres conseguir ese patrón, deberías aprender a programar porque para añadir distintos radios a las venas es necesario que las venas tengan topología y eso se complica demasiado desde gh. Nervous System para su "Hyphae" usó C++ con la librería CGAL, que es una muy poderosa librería de algoritmos de 3d.
…
d work exactly as the physical model. In the model, we have a curved surface which can be analysed into squares. These squares are filled with two kind of units which are connected with each other and create a grid that follows this curved surface.
We have managed to analyse this curved surface into a planar surface consisted of squares and we painted the squares with colours to represent the kind of unit that "fills" each square. So, now in rhino I have managed to build the curved surface that I want it to be filled with the two types of units.
I also have the planar surface built in Gh with the squares split into two lists, each one for each kind of unit. Because these units are mambranes, I used kangaroo to make them act like mambranes.
I hope I described the problem clearly. The point is to keep the dimensions of the units
the same and make it work in Kangaroo. Do you have anything in mind that I should look up or any advice ? Thank you in advance and i m sorry for the extended description.
*Pic 1: the curved surfaces that has to be filled with the units
*Pic 2: The binary system that shows which square is occupied by which unit
Blue=2 , Red=1, White= Blank
*Pic 3: unit 1
*Pic 4: unit 2
*Pic 5: a point of view of the physical model (not the final curve at the surface)
…
e.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Outdoor_Microclimate_Map
Thank you very much in advance!
1. why the underground zone representing the ground is defined as a plenum zone? By default, an office zone program is assigned. Will this affect the outside surface temperature of the ground plenum zone and affect, in turn, the outdoor microclimate map calculation?
2. I assume the construction GroundMaterial composed of five layers of 200mm concrete materials as assigned to the ground plenum zone is to assimilate a ground surface composed of thick concrete. But why this construction is assigned to this zone using both the Set EP Zone Construction and Set EP Zone Underground Construction components? Will the surfaces of this zone automatically recognized as underground surfaces based on their positions in relation to the default xy plane?
3. why a brep is connected to the input node distFromFloorOrSrf on the Indoor View Factor Calculator component which is expecting a number according to its annotation?
4. why the outdoor comfort analysis recipe is used for the indoor comfort analysis component?
5. why the OutdoorComfResult and DegFromNeutralResult are 2 csv files with PPD and PMV values if PMV/PPD thermal comfort model is only applicable to indoor air-conditioned space?
…
in App store.
2. Modelo now supports VR! check out this video:
3. We've added a specular option in the rendering settings. So now you can have your design rendered a little bit shinny-er.
4. There is also a "filters" option in this panel, with which you can get some interesting image post processing effects. We are expanding this filter library, if you have any suggestions, please let us know.
5. This one is very important and has been requested by our customers for a long time. Now when you upload a model, you can grab the reviews(3d comments, screenshots,sketches) from your previously uploaded model! This works really conveniently if you use Modelo for your design review/presentation, cause you don't have to recreate the same 3d anchor views every time you made some changes to your design.
6. Also, our developer API is almost ready, which means if anyone is interested in developing a grasshopper plugin that works with Modelo, they can!
There are some many other updates and bug fixes happened. I don't want to list all of them here. Definitely stay subscribed with our newsletter. Modelo is thrived to grow into a more comprehensive platform! If you have any good ideas about our platform, please do not hesitate to let me know!
Here is our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCufBShhLtUQepsit9ilI-AA
Cheers
Qi…
Added by Suqi to Modelo at 1:24pm on October 18, 2016
the following image of a hut.
I do not have experience using kangaroo to simulate forces, but I have made a test using multiple random components on a flat surface to fake the effect I'm going for. See image below.
The main issue I'm having is that the original file used for my test surface used box morph and the variable pipe command. Box morph is a bit touchy on a curved surface and it is not as elegant as I would like it to be (ie. I want all the hair diameters to be perfectly circular and uniform in size). Variable pipe also does not align the base of the hair with the existing surface, which means I have to offset the surface and then trim the excess of my pipe.....leading to heavy code and the file crashing.
So I'm trying to rebuild the "hairs" using a new method:
1) Subdivide the surface
2) Find the midpoint of each surface and then create a straight line that is perpendicular
3) Move a point along the on the straight line (between the start and end points) in the z direction, and then create a nurbs curve using this point and the start and end points
4) create a circle at the base of each crv, and then two more circles: one at the point in the middle point (I think I set it to .9) and the end of the curve
5) The problem: Now I am trying to sweep along these three circles and the nurbs curve to create a bent hair/pipe that is flush with the conic surface, but it does not work.
If someone can help that would be amazing. I've included my original surface test file and my new file where I am rebuilding using the sweep command. Below is a drawing of what I'm trying to achieve.
…
as one element.
Thank you
Comment by karamba on October 7, 2014 at 11:27pm
Hello Patricio, divide the beams in such a way that each boundary vertex of the shell becomes an endpoint of a beam segment.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 8, 2014 at 8:30amDelete Comment
Hi Clemens,
I did what you suggested but now assemble element doesn´t work properly. Could you please tell me how to fix it? Thanks in advance, Patricio
8-10-14losa%20cadena.gh
Comment by karamba on October 8, 2014 at 11:59am
Hi Patricio, if you flatten the 'Elem'-input at the 'Assemble'-component the definition works. The triangular shell elements have linear displacement interpolations whereas the beam deflections are exact. In order to get correct results you should refine the shell mesh.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 9, 2014 at 8:35amDelete Comment
Hello, succeeds in creating the mesh to the slab, and built the beam segment, but when I see the deformations are not expected because the beam is deformed as the slab.
Thanks for the help
PS: maybe I'm using the program for a type of structure that is not the most appropriate, as I saw in the examples of other structures. But this type of structure is that students taught
best regards
Patricio
9-10-14%20Example%201.gh
Comment by karamba on October 9, 2014 at 10:46am
You could use the 'Mesh Edges'-component to retrieve the naked edges and turn them into beams - see attached file:91014Example1_cp.gh
Best regards,
Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 15, 2014 at 3:41pmDelete Comment
Dear clemens
I was doing a rough estimate of the deformation, and I can not achieve the same result with Karamba. When I make a rough estimate of the result with Karamba beams and mine are very similar, I think the problem is when I connect the shell, because there are no similar results.
I sent the GH file, and an image of the calculation
The structure is concrete The result I get is 0.58cm
thank youPatricio
15-10-14%20Example.gh
Comment by karamba yesterday
Dear Patricio,
try to increase the number of shell elements. As mentioned in the manual they are linear elements. A mesh that is too coarse leads to a response which is stiffer than the real structure.
Best,
Clemens
…