y to heaven (or hell) is full of pain,frustration and tears. In plain English: if you are not totally committed (and willing to pay the heavy price) ... well ... what about forgetting all that freaky stuff? (the best option, trust me)
Note: 99% of beginners dream to learn programing in order to make geometry. But the truth is that this is the least (and rather the most insignificant) that you can achieve especially when working in teams with lot's of CAD/MCAD apps (and verticals) in the practice of tomorrow (bad news: tomorrow is already yesterday).
Anyway: How to go to Hell in just 123 easy steps
Step 1: get the cookiesThe bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).The bible PlanC: C# 5.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favoriteThe reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334The candidates:C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)C# Language (Jones)Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)...
Step 122: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 123: Open computer > burn computer > computers are a bad thing (not to mention the Skynet trivial thingy).May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.
…
ore simplest way, for example i need to declare min distance (minDist) like huge number to avoid overlapping values. may be find way do not use second loop in script at all . In the neoarchaic's script has line 99 (j = pts.ClosestIndex(pt)) but i have no idea how to do it in C#.
2. In a file i prepared GH+Hoopsnake and GH+Anemone solution for this script . Can i use the same principle in C# (shipt list with wrap values )? This solution I need for studying list operations in C#.
Thank you for helping .
ps..My script:
int num = x.Count; double minDist,dist; int minI = 0; int i = 0;
Point3d pt; List<Point3d> z = new List<Point3d>();
while (i < num) { i++; z.Add(x[minI]); pt = x[minI]; minDist = 1000000000000; x.RemoveAt(minI);
for (int n = 0; n < x.Count; n++){
dist = x[n].DistanceTo(pt);
if ( dist < minDist) { minI = n; minDist = dist; } } } A = z;
…
oxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints. The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables: (1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!…
Boxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints.
The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables:
(1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!
…
re is my problem... I need to arrange Boxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints.
The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables:
(1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!
…
ey eventually recover and you can continue to working normally. This however is not very practical...
(Additional information: We have a virtualized Windows SPS environment, might this be the problem? Locally - on my hard drive - it works fine.)
Futhermore we've discovered the following bug/feature:
We export a cluster and reference it back into our .gh file, then copy the .ghcluster file to a different location and rename the copy (without opening or changing it), then also reference the copied version back into the .gh file. Now Grasshopper shows two clusters with two different file paths, but claims that they both are the same ("this cluster occurs twice in this document"). If I double click one of them, make a change and save, both clusters get changed, even though they are separate .ghcluster files.
This would follow the logic that David laid out in this entry (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/clusters09), that GH identifies a cluster not by its file name or location but by its internal ID.
An addition we would very much appreciate for the next GH update, would be the option to right click a referenced cluster and then not only be able to "update" it but to also to "relink" it to a new or different source.
Right now you have to rename or delete the .ghcluster file in order to relink a cluster via the update option. You can also overwrite the old cluster und update. However, sometimes we want to keep the old version or disentangle one of a clusters many instances and relink just one, with out loosing its various inputs and outputs by referencing the new version and reconnecting it.
Thanks, BB.…
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
rection: there's no visible demand. Explanation: a lot of AEC oriented people (Smart Geo daydreamers) they think - potentially - about GH but they are rejecting it for more than obvious reasons: our job is 1% about the smart thing and 99% about the structured aspect of the smart (or stupid thing).
Back to that "hangar" : The primary role of this GH definition provided herein (and hopefully some future updates) is NOT to outline some academic solution (via some abstract collection of pipes/lines/points/surfaces) ...but to place in 3d space - properly structured - all the real-life (hmm, he he) bits that can compose the actual project. Of course if the bits could be parametrically driven assemblies ...well...you get the gist of the message.
All in all: I think that Engineers who are GH skeptics could see GH with a totally new perspective if, say, a collection of similar examples/test cases could be available for demo/evaluation/whatever > Ah! at last : this appears to be a real thing > what software did it? > say it again - Grass Components you said? > what sort of name is this? ... etc etc etc.
But since a similar development is quite expensive (and requires a team of several gurus), maybe this is rather a future potential task for the GH/Rhino people if they think that the AEC market segment could be beneficial for their products. Combine a similar capability with tools like yours and/or Evolute (planar quads are "a-la-mode" these days).
PS: forget trivial stuff > what about Stefanie? (plan B : better something than nothing)…
e case pictured already: don't bother how this truss is made and never mind that the def attached looks like an "add-on" (no components) - because it could be (so don't get stuck on that, it's irrelevant). In fact since the critical part (the 99% of the whole) if only doable with code ... it makes sense to do the rest with code as well (but that's my personal preference anyway, he he). Note: Balls are excluded from the demo.
You can toggle what "class" of struts is gonna being made with these booleans:
You can vary the sliders and if the code thinks that you make a valid input ... it obeys, he he.
But the big questions are:
1. Can you work with this in some interactive way? I mean vary any slider and ... wait ... for some change. Although the MERO components here are created ONCE and then placed around (minus obviously the tubes) ... they are placed as copies of the "donor" object (not instance definitions) creating a vast "pool" of "unnecessary" data.
2. What happens if you bake these little thingies? What file size you get? Is it OK?
But the bad news are that as I said ... this is ... NOT a task for a novice ... nor you can handle this get-a-truss-and-make-a-MERO-thing goal with half-measures: either you should do it properly ... or abandon ship.
NOTE: Load R file first (nothing is internalized).
Moral: even if this was made with components ... it wouldn't serve much.
best, Peter…
he concept, moving on to decision making and continuing with digital and generative design tools TO GET THE BEST SOLUTION for each problem.
WHY? The world is complex and ever-changing and we need to be able to handle the volume of information we receive and, of course, to find and choose the best solution. Therefore, we direct our ATTENTION TO THE CAUSE, and not only on the effects/solutions.
We will learn from NATURE, the only “company” that has not gone bankrupt in over 4000M years, and it’s GENERATIVE SOLUTIONS.
> OBJECTIVES <
The participants will work in multidisciplinary groups (ex. architect + designer + business manager + constructor + communication specialist etc.) applying knowledge management tools, different approaches and nature-based optimization methods.
Listed objectives:
1. Improving the generative way of TURNING AN IDEA INTO A PROJECT through problem-solving thinking
2. Discovering nature’s ways of shaping evolutionary solutions
3. Getting out from our comfort zone and working together with other professionals in groups in order to achieve better solutions: Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
4. Learning to use technology to manage information in the decision making process
& surviving the whole week
> ATTENDANCE & COSTS <
> Early bird – until 17th March 2013
Lecture – 15 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 100 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
> Late bird – until 6th April 2013
Lecture – 25 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 120 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
…