problem later) to fit more shapes that are otherwise won't fit in.
On the example below horizontal rectangle couldn't fit in but its rotated analog could and thus was placed in.
Later, when placed shapes are used to generate frames, because of this rotation, the position of the starting points changes and because of the approach I use to generate the frames some angle values are attached to the wrong corners, this brakes the frame shape and looks like this (on the left the frame of sick shape and on the right the frame of the healthy shape):
Again, this happens because the angle values are assigned to the specific corners (points) and previously rotated shapes get these all messed up:
Easy fix, don't rotate the shapes, problem is, I've already baked a good number of them for later use. I'd like to avoid regeneration because it takes a lot of time and without rotation I constrict the algorithm even more.
Better fix, use a different approach, this is where I'd like to hear suggestions and kicks in a right direction. Please take a look at my definition. It works but I have a feeling like giving an amputee a job of sweeping the floor.
…
nowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities. The Call for Clusters is now open to proposals which respond in innovative ways to this year's challenge.
Deadline: September 19 2011
More information can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=146
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information.Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities.sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org…
.
Today we have gone live, and the plugin is available on Food4Rhino. You will find an installer package, sample files, and a demo video on getting started:
http://www.food4rhino.com/project/human-ui
Visit the Bitbucket Repo and poke around in the code:
https://bitbucket.org/andheum/humanui
Check out today's coverage in Architect Magazine:
http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/nbbj-releases-human-ui-to-bring-parametric-modeling-to-the-masses_o
Finally join our group and ask any questions or post any comments here:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/human-ui
See below for detailed description!
----------------------------------
Human UI
Primary Development by:
Lead Developer: Andrew Heumann / andheum / @andrewheumann
Product Manager: Marc Syp / marcsyp / @mpsyp
Contributing Developer: Nate Holland / nateholland / @_NateHolland
Gone are the days of faking a user interface by laying out sliders and text panels and hiding wires on the Grasshopper canvas. Human UI interfaces are entirely separate from the Grasshopper canvas and leverage the power of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a graphical subsystem for rendering user interfaces in the Windows environment.
OLD NEW
In other words: Human UI makes your GH definition feel like a Windows app. Create tabbed views, dynamic sliders, pulldown menus, checkboxes, and even 3D viewports and web browsers that look great and make sense to anyone--including designers and clients with no understanding of Grasshopper.
Human UI has been in development at NBBJ for over a year, as part of a larger NBBJ Design Computation initiative to deliver our tools internally as Products -- with fully automated installation, managed dependencies, analytics, documentation, and “magical” user experience. Human UI has been a huge component of the user experience part of this puzzle, and we are excited to share it with the larger Grasshopper community so that others can benefit from it and contribute to its development.
The initial release of Human UI is accompanied by a few simple examples to get you started, but we have developed sophisticated user interfaces with these tools at NBBJ and will slowly be rolling out more advanced examples. We also look forward to opening up the development to the community and seeing what new features and paradigms we can add.
Download the plugin at Food4Rhino and get started building Custom UIs for Grasshopper right away! We are happy to answer any questions or field discussion in the dedicated Grasshopper Group. Please join us!
Join the Grasshopper Group
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/human-ui
Download the plugin + sample files
http://www.food4rhino.com/project/human-ui
Visit the Bitbucket Repo
https://bitbucket.org/andheum/humanui
We look forward to seeing where this project takes you, please share your projects made with Human UI!
Sincerely,
Design Computation Leadership Team, NBBJ
…
creating the structural frame, finding the endpoints, linking these endpoints with curves and afterwards lofting the surfaces between the curves.
The results were quite nice, however, the procedure is very time consuming and inefficient. There is just too much copy-pasting involved.
(see attached file: "Old Attempts.zip" )
Mesh relaxation:
I have later on used Daniel Piker's tutorials on Mesh Relaxation and realized that this might be the way to go.
The link to these online tutorials on wewanttolearn.net is:
https://wewanttolearn.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/mesh-relaxation-kangaroo-tutorial/
His tutorials, however, only deal with mesh boxes which are ideal cubes. He then joins them together in various directions, but it is under 90 degrees angle.
( see attached file: "Daniel Pikers Examples" )
What I would like to achieve:
I want my bridges to go in all directions and angles, not just under 90 degree angle.
Ideally I would like to make a square (polygon) follow a curve (which moves in all axis) at certain number of division points. I would then loft these squares into a mesh and use that shape as a mesh box. I would later use this mesh box and relax it the same way as Daniel Piker used the cubes in his tutorial. The anchor points are only the vertices of the squares which create the lofted mesh box.
( see attached file: "New Attempts" )
As you can see below this procedure works even if the curve is moving in all directions not only along xy axis. There are, however, many problems connected to it.
The problem:
Despite all the effort I cannot seem to come up with a design where I would be able to draw a random curve which would be the guideline for my mesh box and then apply this box to one definition in order to relax the mesh and create the shape that I want. Without this I am again forced into a lot of copy pasting as the final mesh box is made out of several sections.
Also is there any way I could make the final resulting mesh a bit smoother? Increasing the number of mesh faces is probably the only way, right?
Thank you guys so much for any potential help.
All best,
Luka
…
to host the annual parade of Samba Schools during the Carnival festival. For the remaining 361 days of the year it stands empty and desolate as a massive dividing wall within its degraded urban context. Renovated in 2012 and now the future site for the 2016 Olympic marathon finish line and archery events, the Sambadromo is receiving renewed international attention, but it drastically needs to accommodate new types of programme and improve its connection with its surrounding context. AAVS Rio de Janeiro will explore ways to intervene within and transform the Sambadromo, with a potential focus on the VIP and Press Rooms ‘camarotes’, which were originally designed to house classrooms when Carnival was not taking place, and are now the site for over-commercialized, under-designed temporary installations during Carnival, and abandoned throughout the rest of the year. Teaching team:The teaching team will be led by Elena Manferdini, from Atelier Manferdini (www.ateliermanferdini.com), to teach and use advanced digital design and fabrication to generate iterative transformations in the creation of new micro-infrastructures. Computational and fabrication skills: The workshop will teach advanced computational design skills. A series of physical models will be built using digital fabrication techniques, such as laser-cutting and rapid-prototyping, that will be taught during the workshop. No previous digital or fabrication experience is needed. Applications: http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/rio http://rio.aaschool.ac.uk/2015-aa-marathon-runway-sambadromo/ or mail brazilvisitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk…
stems, wonderful)
- Michael Hansel, Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design
(a series of early articles and essays)
- Anne Save de Beaureceuil and Franklin Lee,
Articulated Ground Mediating Environment and Culture
(Students work from the AA where parametric design is linked with environmental and social strategies)
- Richard Hawkins, The Blind Watchaker
(Evolution re-created and "proved" through the computer to be linked with Galapagos)
- Janine M. Benyus, Biomimicry
(didn't read it yet but apparently really good, anyone?)
- Frei Otto: Finding Form
(a classic)
- Deleuze & Guattari: Rhizome
(another classic)
…
noji@gmail.com>) was my student, came to build the design in 1:1 scale. One AA teacher helped her with the Bend curve and used Kangarro. I simplified the script, if you need to see my project umbrella(http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/umbrella-porject?xg_source=activity) made to study the script. Contact her that will have updated information. My email: artagent@yahoo.com
…
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the
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…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011