ceros.
Public concerné /
Architectes et designers, utilisateurs de Rhino souhaitant paramétrer Rhinocéros à l’aide de Grasshopper,
programme associant des composants et une structure de graphe interagissants avec le modèle Rhino.
Une bonne connaissance de Rhinocéros est nécessaire. La langue de la formation est le français.
Structure et Objectif de la formation /
La formation se déroule sur 3 jours : les 2 premières journées sont consacrées aux « fondamentaux » de
Grasshopper avec en préambule une introduction au design et à l’architecture paramétrique et leurs impacts
dans la conception, la création et la construction.
La troisième journée sous forme d’atelier est dédiée à l’étude de cas concrets proposés par les stagiaires, qui,
quelques jours avant la formation, pourront envoyer leurs projets par mail à - info AT rhinoforyou DOT com -
Les stagiaires, après la formation, pourront rester en contact avec les formateurs de HDA par le biais du
blog complexitys.com et le twitter @HDA_Paris. La durée de cette formation permettra d’atteindre une
autonomie et une bonne compréhension basée sur des exemples concrets.
Programme ind icatif des notions traitéES pendan t la formation /
Introduction à la conception Paramétrique . Rhinoscript, Grasshopper: différences et similarités . Interface
graphique de Grasshopper . Objets, Données, Listes . Opérateurs scalaires : La mathématique de
Grasshopper . Gestions des données : la logique de Grasshopper . Vecteurs, Points, Lignes, Surfaces : La
géométrie de Grasshopper . Listes, Arbres, Branches . Le dessin paramétrique: exercices divers et exemples
. Références, Bibliographie, Support de cours . Ateliers d’architecture et design paramétrique (3ème jour) .
Moda lité de la formation /
Venir avec un PC portable équipé de Rhinocéros version 4.0 SR 7 et de la dernière version du plug-in
Grasshopper (téléchargeable sur www.grasshopper3d.com).
Le coût du stage de 3 jours est de 1050 € HT par personne.
Réserver votre place dès que possible car les places sont limitées à 10 participants maximum.
Inscriptions et renseignements: Jacques Hababou, info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Pour en savoir plus sur l’architecture paramétrique: www.complexitys.com…
Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper.
.
I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali.
.
Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni.
. Argomenti trattati:
- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler
- Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC
.
Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale.
.
Ulteriori info e programma completo su: www.arturotedeschi.com e su www.samilolab.it…
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…
ceros.
Public concerné /
Architectes et designers, utilisateurs de Rhino souhaitant paramétrer Rhinocéros à l’aide de Grasshopper, programme
associant des composants et une structure de graphe interagissants avec le modèle Rhino.
Une bonne connaissance de Rhinocéros est nécessaire. La langue de la formation est le français.
Structure et Objectif de la formation /
La formation se déroule sur 3 jours : les 2 premières journées sont consacrées aux « fondamentaux » de Grasshopper
avec en préambule une introduction au design et à l’architecture paramétrique et leurs impacts dans la conception, la
création et la construction.
La troisième journée sous forme d’atelier est dédiée à l’étude de cas concrets proposés par les stagiaires, qui, quelques
jours avant la formation, pourront envoyer leurs projets par mail à info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Les stagiaires, après la formation, pourront rester en contact avec les formateurs de HDA par le biais du blog
complexitys.com et le twitter @HDA_Paris. La durée de cette formation permettra d’atteindre une autonomie et une
bonne compréhension basée sur des exemples concrets.
3 Formules possibles /
3 jours ( Initiation+Atelier ) : du lundi 20 septembre au mercredi 22 septembre
2 jours ( Initiation ) : lundi 20 et mardi 21 septembre
1 jour ( Atelier ) : mercredi 22 septembre
Programme ind icatif des notions traitéES pendan t la formation /
Introduction à la conception Paramétrique . Rhinoscript, Grasshopper: différences et similarités . Interface
graphique de Grasshopper . Objets, Données, Listes . Opérateurs scalaires : La mathématique de
Grasshopper . Gestions des données : la logique de Grasshopper . Vecteurs, Points, Lignes, Surfaces : La
géométrie de Grasshopper . Listes, Arbres, Branches . Le dessin paramétrique: exercices divers et exemples
. Références, Bibliographie, Support de cours . Ateliers d’architecture et design paramétrique (3ème jour) .
Moda lité de la formation /
Venir avec un PC portable équipé de Rhinocéros version 4.0 SR 7 et de la dernière version du plug-in
Grasshopper (téléchargeable sur www.grasshopper3d.com).
Le coût du stage est de 350 € HT/jour par personne.
Réserver votre place dès que possible car les places sont limitées à 10 participants maximum.
Inscriptions et renseignements: Jacques Hababou, info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Pour en savoir plus sur l’architecture paramétrique: www.complexitys.com…
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
Meeting Agenda:
1) Discuss what the group would like to learn this term through our regular scheduled meetings. Topics include the priority and sequence of Grasshopper exercises we would like to explore during the winter term from http://www.digitaltoolbox.info/grasshopper_basic.html and Processing tutorials from the Processing Handbook I received from MIT.
2) Watch the Matt Storus Church Machine video and have a discussion about parametric and generative tools in design.
If you have a chance, please read the following article by Tim Love called Between Mission Statement and Parametric Model at:
http://places.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=10757
3) Discuss a possible design build project over the following winter and spring terms using the skill set this group is developing. Conversation led by Chris Nielson (please see comments below for a brief backstory)
4) Discuss possible applied research and design work for the National Conference on the Beginning Design Student paper, Machine Craft and the Contemporary Designer: exploring parameters and variables through making physical artifacts. I wrote the attached abstract and submitted it for the conference the past fall and it was accepted. To continue with the research I need to assemble a team of students that will help explore the principles I set forth by making physical objects with the cnc router. In exchange for helping with the research I will show participants how to use the cnc router, how to author machine code and provide you with the cnc controller interface software necessary to simulate machine movements. Not to mention, your work will be sited in the research paper I present at the conference at UNC Charlotte in March. More tomorrow night, of course.
Thank you for your interest and I hope to see you there.
Sincerely,
Erik Hegre
Chris Nielson Reply by Eugene Parametric Society on January 7, 2010 at 12:02pm
All,
In response to Erik, who requested that I describe my intentions in a design-build project and to the article posted (definitely required reading for this group) I propose that we begin development of a project that spans the realm of "sustainable social" architecture and parametric design. The particulars of such a design do need to be made concrete, and it will be important to define the goals of such a project.
Therefore, I would suggest that this serve as a forum for the next few weeks for those interested in producing a built project. I agree with Nico that it may not be feasible to create the built piece, whatever it may be, this term; however we should have the groundwork and a plan in place by the end of the next 10 weeks.
Either way, I would ask that everyone who is interested to please provide as many concepts to this forum to begin a discussion. If you are indeed interested, please submit goals that this project could achieve (energy, socially, aesthetically, economically, related) and perhaps what you envision the project to physically be (shading device, public bench, water catchment, interactive thermal contraption, etc . . . )
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Cheers,
Christopher…
anymore but here it is in french :
« au fondement du design génératif ne se posent pas des questions formelles, mais la reconnaissance de phénomènes[1] ».
[1] Julia Laub, Hartmut Bohnacker, Benedikt Groß , Claudius Lazzeroni.- Design Génératif : Concevoir Programmer Visualiser – Éditions PYRAMID, 2e semestre 2010, Paris. p.5
titre original « Generative gestaltung », Hermann Schmidt Mainz, 2009.
This mean you design a process rather than just one final object. In this way, grasshopper is generative.
But as you mentionned, it's often strongly linked with emergence, and therefore, with simulation. For some academic writing, I was (i'm still on it) trying to define the difference and complementarity between parametric (as animation) and agent like system (as simulation or emergence).
In my view, Animation refers to the variation of a reference element to fit in a certain context (non standard connexion node in a beam network for example), this use is well exemplified by DigitalProject's "PowerCopy" or any grasshopper geometry defined on a reference surface that follows the reference variation. So parametric via animation would be the "distribution of difference"
Simulation refers to circle packing, dynamic relaxation, agent based modelling, etc. The resolution of a global problem at a local scale. Emerging design via simulation would be the "distibution of complexity"
With these definition, grasshopper enters in the animation (and so in the parametric) definition and not so much in the simulation (and generative design as an emergence tool) but kangaroo would be more about simulation than animation.
my interest in the topic came from these lines by Roland Snook :
« Parametric models are structured hierarchically, however, having direct cascading, causal relationships –an obvious impediment to this description of generative design [designing process rather than artifact]. The parameters within these models -the ubiquitous sliders in software programs epitomize- confine the model to a known set of limits. So while parametric models enable a distribution of difference, this is not the difference that emerges from intensive processes, but rather a directly described, top-down, smooth gradient operating within a predefined range. Here, all possibility is already given within the starting condition[1] ».
[1] Roland Snook.- Volatile Formation, in ‘Reclaim Resi[lience]stance // ……R²’ Log°25, summer 2012, edité par AnyCorporation and MIT Press, pp.56-62
…
Added by Sylvain Usai at 3:28pm on September 6, 2013
r graphics get saved as 24x24 pixel images before they are put into the grasshopper application, which means the icons look like crap when you zoom in. This is the aforementioned problem that needs to be addressed in GH2. There have historically been two approaches to this issue:
Provide pixel images with several sizes.
Render vector graphics directly.
Option 1 is common for apps that do not have variable levels of zoom, such as Windows Explorer. When explorer shows file icons it either shows them in 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, 96x96, or these days, various HUGE sizes. As a result *.ico files allow you put in different images for all these target sizes. Since Grasshopper has variable zoom levels, this is not an ideal solution. Also, it requires a lot more work per icon.
Option 2 is becoming more and more popular as increased graphics speed now allows for the real-time rendering of vector graphics. Yet, you still need a renderer that knows how to draw vector geometry crisply at low sizes. All vector renderers I know just interpolate the geometry linearly and if a line happens to end up 'between pixels' it's just fuzzy.
I don't have hard and fast rules for the icons, but I try to adhere to at least these:
Keep a border of 2 pixels free around the icon content. So basically only use the inner 20x20 pixels rather than the 24x24 you're allowed. This is needed because the drop shadow needs to go there.
Only draw silhouette edges around shapes, not inner creases. Typically a 1-pixel line will do. I prefer to use a dark version of the fill colour rather than black for edges.
Loose curves can be drawn in 1 or 2 pixel thicknesses, depending on how important the curve is.
Try to avoid text in your icons (not always possible).
Stick to 1 colour family per icon, preferably per icon family. You can add highlights with another colour if you must, but too many hues make an icon hard to read (for the example the [Voronoi] icon, it has red, green and blue and it's a bit of a mess, on the other hand [Colour Wheel] has the full spectrum and seems to work quite well...).
Very roughly speaking, if there's both black and red geometry in an icon, it means the red is component input and the black is component output.
Drop shadows are pixel effects, applied to the 24x24 image. They have a blurring radius of 2 pixels, a horizontal offset of 1 pixel to the right, a vertical offset of 1 pixel to the bottom and they are 65% black.
When you use high contrast shapes (for example black edges on a light background) the anti-aliasing provided by vector renderers such as Xara or Illustrator won't be enough to make it look smooth. I'd recommend avoiding high contrast if at all possible, but if not possible then draw a 1-pixel line around the dark bits in 95% transparent black. This effectively extends the anti-aliasing range from 1.5 to 2.5 pixels and it helps make things looks smoother.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…