f my list.I don't understand why, but I guess I must be too young user ^^In the original list, i have a path {0;0;0;4} with two index and after the random node, {0;0;0;4} has 88 index.Items are not correct?I would have a comparable structure has the right list on my jpg (photomontage...)How I can do that?Thank you in advance
…
ecember 2017 from 18:30 until 20:30. We will have presentations from Heatherwick Studio and AKT II.
Please visit the following page for more details and registration: http://simplyrhino.co.uk/events/upcoming-events/grasshopper-uk-ugm-2017
Heatherwick studio will present two projects covering the topic of designing, making and collaborating through computational tools. Heatherwick’s Geometry and Computational Design team will go through the computational processes behind design and making in the studio concentrating on two projects, Vessel in New York with a focus on driving the geometry and Al Fayah Park in Abu Dhabi with a focus on Form Finding and working with collaborative tools.
AKT II's presentation will explore a series of examples where this new approach was experimented, tested and improved, the Al Fayah Park in collaboration with Heatherwick studio and the 2016 Serpentine Pavilion with BIG, and more.
We're looking forward to seeing you all again!
Many thanks,
Paul and Arthur
…
es has guided me in a - what I once thought - specific path within architecture, but recent discoveries (like the Grasshopper-community etc.) have learned me that the field of digital and parametric architecture is so-to-speak alive and kicking. This is also the main subject I would like to write my thesis about. It is however mainly the subject and defining its boundaries – what do I really want to explore and research? – which is the most difficult factor at this time.
A concrete idea is non-existant, and my current visions will probably be redirected when I have a first meeting with the promotors in February. Moreover there is the knowledge that it is impossible to make a thesis at the institute in Antwerp on no matter what subject in the world of digital architecture. Understandably too, it’s a small world and does not always result in realised projects, but in impressive imagery. At this moment however, I am thinking of two possible research fields to focus on.
In a first option the focus might lie on how digital design tools can be used to bring a certain aspect of interactivity to building facades. Such interactivity can occur both in the design phase and throughout the use of the building. The first scenario, in which the interactivity occurs when designing, I would focus on how the designer can shape a building’s outer perspective in function of environmental parameters: obstacles, elements that block sunlight from entering the building, visually important landmarks, etc. It should be noted however that focus will mostly lie on the design element, and less on the energy-efficiency and sustainability. Tools that will be researched would include Grasshopper, Rhino Scripting, Processing and ParaCloud.
A second possible approach could be categorized under both Swarm Intelligence and Generative Design and might study how the aforementioned digital techniques might be implemented in the new urbanism. We notably see more (innovative) interventions in which the design and planning is heavily influenced by movement patterns and morphogenetic parameters and functions. Based on the outcome of these scripted techniques, designers tend to work towards a proposal which answers a certain urbanistic issue.
All additional insights, guidelines, tips, comments are more than welcome in order to help me define the scope of my thesis subject. I must admit I am pretty new to this digital design world (it is not actively promoted at my home university, but it is promoted at the university where I am studying for one year now) and thus have limited experience at the time of writing.
Please also feel free to check out the blog post concerning this topic, which is a little more elaborate: http://nielswouters.be/thesis-digital-design-english/
Thanks for all your help!
…
and enhancing its intrinsic qualities.
The program of the workshop consists of an intense exploration of Günther Domenig’s Steinhaus (situated at Ossiachersee in Carinthia, Austria) and it’s visible and hidden properties. By the use of mapping strategies these properties can be isolated and will be implemented as a temporary installation.
Each participant will investigate certain spatial aspects using methods of mapping.
In a series of tutorials on various techniques, strategies will be developed to translate and structure the collected information into a unified spatial concept. Participants will work amongst groups to propose the result of their investigations with a site specific installation which will be digitally materialized on site.
Complementary program:
lecture by Stefan Rutzinger & Kristina Schinegger, soma
guided tour and lecture about Steinhaus and Günther Domenig by Christian Halm
presentation by Clemens Preisinger, karamba
Closing event and presentation
250€ early bird registration (until June 14th) | 300€ (until June 28)
More information at www.semf.cc
Email us at info@SeMF.cc…
geode. The faceting system also references the original use of triangulation for mapping three dimensional landscapes.
My question responds to the need to control the edges lengths and angles within the triangles to make the process of construction possible. We are hoping to keep the edges under 28 inches and the minimum angle more than 15 degrees. What would be your suggestion in grasshopper?
Our process for getting the facet was also... the long way.
1. draw curves based on three dimension measurements of interior
2. networks surface the four curves
3. mesh surface
4. triangulate mesh
5. reduce polygons
6. splitmeshedge where necessary to make quadrilaterals triangles once more
Any suggestions?…
Added by Amanda Gann at 8:57pm on December 4, 2013
even (0, 2, 4) then that means the point either never hit it, or went in and out again, meaning it's outside. If it hits an odd number of times, then it must have come from within originally.
The method implements this approach using the mesh bounding box, and then striking a polyline from your test point along a vector that is defined by the upper right corner of the bounding box + a vector of (100,100,100). In the case of your failing points, this is a result of their striking an edge very precisely, which gets counted as 2 hits instead of 1 (as it should be getting captured) and passing false:
Your best bet is probably to roll your own implementation, that tests for multiple vectors:
private void RunScript(List<Point3d> P, Mesh M, ref object A, ref object B, ref object C) {
BoundingBox bb = M.GetBoundingBox(false);
List<bool> inside = new List<bool>();
for (int i = 0; i < P.Count; i++) {
Polyline a = new Polyline(); Polyline b = new Polyline();
a.Add(P[i]); b.Add(P[i]);
a.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 100, 100)); b.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 150, 150));
int[] fa; int[] fb;
Point3d[] xa = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(a), out fa); Point3d[] xb = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(b), out fb);
inside.Add(xa.Length % 2 == 1 || xb.Length % 2 == 1);
checkA.AddRange(xa, new GH_Path(i)); checkB.AddRange(xb, new GH_Path(i));
}
A = inside;
}
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 10:20am on October 10, 2017
till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
oo culm and the web is mad of bamboo slats connected to the culms on either side of the attachment points. To make things clearer (extracted from the above paper):
The authors of the paper did a numerical beam-model in ANSYS to see if they could replicate their theoretical results, and it is fairly correct (some differences due to the non-linear behavior of the semi-ring joints that they use, they remain of an order of 5-10% difference in maximum deflection).
My problem is that I am not able to obtain the same deflection values that the authors did (11.4 mm for a total service load of 7.063 kN applied punctually on the upper chord where the truss elements meet, or even replicate the load/deflection curve). Using an orthotropic material, with the engineering constants taken from (ResearchGate - A bamboo Beam-Column Connection Capable to Transmit Moment), my model is too flexible and I get a maximum deflection of 24.28 mm. I tried other orthotropic mechanical characterizations from other sources (Kathry & Mishra, 2012, Finite element analysis of bamboo and joints using steel members under various loading conditions for design study and Chand , Shukla & Sharma, 2008, Analysis of Mechanical Behaviour of Bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus) by Using FEM), to no avail.
Of course, the problem could be with the material properties I inputted but I am trying to contact the research team to see directly with them. In the meantime, I am looking to make sure the model itself is not flawed.
It also seems to me that gravity was not accounted for in the numerical of the paper, but it seemed to much of an oversight to be possible (still, the deflection curve of their paper goes through 0).
There are several points I am not quite sure about: after all I am still fairly new to Karamba3D and may still have some things to learn about the inner mechanics of the plugin.
The very first is: should I put eccentricities of the slat-elements of the truss in the definition of their cross-section (directly with the Cross Section box) or as an offset of the beam element (with the ModifyElem box)? I tried both approaches and they seem to yield similar results (max. deflection change by 0.65mm in my latest model).
Second is: is it good practice to subdivide the beam elements in more than one element (and connecting the pieces rigidly) in order to get better results? I imagine some meshing or subdivision is performed when the analysis is run but there is no way of visualizing it (that I found in any case). Subdividing the chord elements seems to give smoother deformation results (though I did not check stress I have to admit). My issue on this topic is that the subdivision of the slat-elements of the web is problematic. On the screenshot below, where the elements are divided in two, lets take the example of node 18. It seems to me that all elements of the diagonal element (28, 29, 34 & 35) are all rigidly connected to the node 18. 28 & 29 are not connected together, independently from 34 & 35. The added rigidity may not be a bad thing for my model, but it is not correct I think? Is there a way of solving the problem?
Element tags:
Node tags:
And here is my GH file (clean enough hopefully): verification-model-V04.gh
Thank you all in advance for any insight (even on the inner logics of Karamba)!
…