he time to work with it.
the project is about facade strips which turns along height. the top angle is
parallel to the facade and the bottom is max. 90 degrees twisted, but the strips
should turn diffrently to achieve more dinamic look.
first i have tried to achieve this by calculating distance between the rotation angle from points of the grid and a single point.
then i have tried to ad some more effecting points and used the distance to the divided surface (the circles are just to control the area of effection):
i manually lofted it.
the result is a bit annoying becouse the points that effect the angle are always visible:
i have triend to solve this by drawing a line and divided it to recieve points along the bottom of the geometry. the result is not working properly:
Anyway,
there must be a better/smoother way to achieve this. i would like to effect the twist of the surfaces by distance to a spline, but im just lost. can you help me please?
the problems im encountering:
0- distance spline to grid to effect the angle
1- list of x/y coordinates and angle of rotation for each point of the grid
2- export points to excel
3- lofting lines in one direction only (x1, x2, x3...)
4- reduce the list data to 2 decimal (0,00)
5- maybe angle from radian to degrees
thx…
have some spare time please fill in my 3D Printing Open Survey - If you could make almost anything, what would it be ? Updated results are publicly available after completing questionnaire (Please press "Wyślij" - Send button and "Wyniki ankiety" - Results button at the end). This survey will be used to evaluate demand for 3d printing services globally. It consist of 30 questions about: - open-source 3d printers - future of additive manufacturing - 3d printing services - ecology in 3d printing - copyright issues and 3d printing Three example questions: 2. Which of the following 3d printing applications is the most interesting? * - Things personalization - Printing food - Attempts to print structures resembles in functioning living tissues or blood vessels - Creating impossible or difficult to create by using conventional technology things - Printing rooms or buildings on earth/moon - Printing chemical compounds (for example drugs) - Using in renewable energy sources - Printing parts and/or mechanical vehicles 3 . Have you ever heard about cheap DIY 3D Printers (for example RepRap, PrintrBot, MakiBox A6) ? * DIY - Do It Yourself - Yes - No 4 . When 3D Printers will become one of the typical household appliances ? * - After 5 years - After 10 years - After 15 years - After 20 years or later - Never - I don't know Feel free to ask questions!…
e some questions.
I want to loop with a foreach loop trough a list of points do i have to make a list before or is it possible to use them coming in from a noed i set the access to list?
Also i dont understand why no plane is created. How do i need to feed the points in?
And why is c# expecting open parens in line 88 and 86?
Hope its not to much at once, probably i should try a few less steps to get the problems solved one by one, just hoped it would be easier and sometimes just a parentesis is missing or some format stuff, so maybe it is not so much i really cant say.
If anybody has the time and feels he wants to help it would be nice on the other hand i understand cause of the amount of chaotic questions.
Regards!…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
ium will convene for a full day at the main auditorium of the DAM Deutsches Architekturmuseum (German Architecture Museum) in Frankfurt, Germany.
It will offer a comprehensive overview of the new architectural possibilities that are enabled by cutting-edge digital technologies in wood construction through the works and built projects of four leading design research groups in Europe.
ETH Zürich, Gramazio Kohler Research
Prof. Matthias Kohler
IBOIS EPFL Lausanne, Laboratory for Timber Construction
Prof. Yves Weinand
Design & Make Hooke Park, Architectural Association London
Programme Director Martin Self
ICD University of Stuttgart, Institute for Computational Design
Prof. Achim Menges
Introduction and Moderation by Prof. Axel Kilian (Princeton University)
Roundtable Discussion with Prof. Johan Bettum (SAC Staedelschule Frankfurt)
The architecture and engineering chamber of Hessen accredited the symposium with 5 CES. The symposium and all presentations will be held in English. Coffee and lunch is included with the tickets.
Please visit www.advancingwoodarchitecture.com for tickets and more information.…
Added by Oliver David at 4:33am on February 17, 2015
l piece of architecture - a contemporary version of Plato's cave. The cave was the symbol for visual knowledge as unreliable and deceptive as opposed to the highest form of knowledge: the eternal forms in heaven or the Platonic solids. As empirical knowledge turned out as essential as math in the discovery of the world, we want to rethink the cave as a revaluation or an upgrade of the visual and the accidental. So we looked for ways of combining the freeform of the cave with the rigidly defined geometry of the Platonic solids. First idea was to make a sort of 3D tiling system with fragments of the solids that would combine into a flexible skin.
This is the most efficient system i've found out yet - thanks to a suggestion from Corneel Cannaerts, also a member here. By using spacefilling regular honeycomb structures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_uniform_honeycomb) and connecting it to some freeform surface I achieved what I have in mind. (in fact, i suspect the skins you can produce with uniform honeycombs are the only possible solutions for 3D tilings with regular 2d polygons, but i'm not sure).
I've attached the 3dm file with the solids, the ghx with the code and some explanation, and one sketchup image to give you a quick idea of the concept.
…
each surface.
I then used loft on the curves to create a surface, the result is shown below.
From this I ask:
Is any way to improve on this method and create a single surface?
How can I refine the set of curves created by the surface morph, so that they work correctly with loft?
Are there better ways to create a single surface from multiple surfaces within Grasshopper?
Thanks in advance!
Ben…
ake a modest notice about the two new Ladybug components, one of which creates a 3d terrain shading mask and another one which visualizes and exports horizon angles. A terrain shading mask is essentially a diagram which maps the silhouette of the surrounding terrain (hills, valleys, mountains, tree tops...) around the chosen location, and account for the shading losses from the terrain. It can be used as a context_ input in mountainous or higher latitude regions for any kind of sun related analysis: sunlight hours analysis, solar radiation analysis, view analysis, photovoltaics/solar water heating sunpath shading...
My home town is an example of the shading caused by the terrain. Here is how it looks from the tallest building in the town:
And the created terrain shading mask:
A mask for any land location up to 60 degrees North can be created:
There will also be a support for a few major cities above this limit.
Both Terrain shading mask and Horizon angles components can be downloaded from here. An example .gh file can be found in here.
Component will prompt the user to download and copy certain files in order to be able to run.
It was created with assistance from Dr. Bojan Savric. Support on various issues was further given by: Dr. Graham Dawson, Dr. Alec Bennett, Dr. Ulrich Deuschle, Andrew T. Young, LiMinlu, Jonathan de Ferranti, Michal Migurski, Christopher Crosby, Even Rouault, Tamas Szekeres, Izabela Spasic, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Dragan Milenkovic, Chen Weiqing, Menno Deij-van Rijswijk and gis.stackexchange.com community.
I hope somebody might find the components useful.…
h Shading--DC to AC derate Factor--Photovoltaics Module, can calculate the ACenergy of different pv arrays by Galapagos. The process can evaluate the self shading from the input analysisGeometry and surrounding shading from the input context.
2. PV SWH Systemsize, can also do that, but there would be no second type of self shading for the chosen minimalSpacingPeriod_ criteria.
3. TOF outputs optimal angle and azimuth.
So my question is, if I choose to make a curved roof to form a best pv array with best ACenergy, whether should I only choose the first above, the second PV SWH Systemsize can only deal with the angled or flat surface, not the curved? What's the relationship between TOF and PV SWH Systemsize?
Also, I'll do my best to make a parametric model as soon as possible and upload it to you, so we can make the discussion more detailed.
Best regards.…
face, the larger the number of modules and system size, there for the higher annual energy generation.baseSurface_ - this input exists only for "PV SWH system size" component. It's purpose is to represent a mounting plane on which the PV modules will be put onto. The dark blue colored roof in the photo below is that mounting surface in this case:
So the size of area of the baseSurface_ is not important but its plane.
2) It is important. It basically sets the initial losses of the system.
If that is the soiling value you have, then yes, you need to add it to the DC to AC derate factor component, and then plug its output to "DCtoACderateFactor_" input. I did that in the attached definition below.
3) The north vector/numeric value is not propagated due to possible independent usage of components.I plugged the 0 value to all three component's which have "north_" input. You can change it to what ever value you need.
Please let me know if I didn't answer completely to your questions, or if you have more of them.…