p;biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&tbnid=UQXK-STjeJrGhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/sinusoidal-facade&docid=XRgBzjBowOStWM&imgurl=http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2768634805?profile=original&w=1805&h=727&ei=itp3UbHLCvDs0gWy-oGQCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:80&iact=rc&dur=487&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=340&start=0&ndsp=28&tx=217&ty=36
But somehow, it doesn't seem to work when i do the same.. does anyone know why?
Regards, Rutger…
in reality gives meshes out instead. There also seems to be an issue in the component, as in instead of giving the shadow region ( mesh) it is giving a mesh spanning the entire site. however if I just use 2 blocks out of the 28 blocks I am getting accurate result. please help.…
at your original list of numbers, if I am to go through and check manually to see what I should be getting out, I think you should only get a few outputs (which is why I was confused by all the outputs at the end of the definition.
For example, just as an example I started with X1 as 279 (item index 11). When I did the math, the only indexes that I got were 15,28, and 33.
This is because:
since 279 is positive, look for next number that is at least 180 less or 360 more than X1.
the value of 78 (item index 15) is the first value to satisfy this requirement.
Then, since 78 is smaller than 279, we are looking for the next value at least 180 more or 360 less than 78.
The value 272 (item index 28) is that next value.
Then since 272 is larger than 78, we are looking for the next value at least 180 less or 360 more than 272.
The value 52 (item index 33) is the next value.
So the definition should output the following:
indexes 15, 28, 33.
Does that make sense?…
Added by Brian Harms at 4:20pm on December 10, 2011
iders that control the total amount ( U&V) and the branches are formed by picking i.e the U and the points will then be the number on the V slider...
I realize that this question may have been asked before, but I cannot solve it with the path mapper and it seems so easy
M…
another comma separated txt file. I know how to import points (function Import coordinates), but I dont know how to connect them by lines if the only information I have about lines is the list of point numbers which should be connected. The txt file with point coordinates looks like:
-18,-36,-1000-18,-34,-19.728-18,-32,-17.603-18,-30,-15.372-18,-28,-13.121
...
And the txt file with line connections looks like:
1,22,33,44,55,6
...
Which means that I want to connect point 1 with point 2, point 2 with point 3 etc...
Both txt files are attached, thank you for the answer...…
byte-accuracy red, green, blue channels) = 27 bytes. More likely 28 bytes as colours are probably stored as 32-bit integers, allowing for an unused alpha channel.
28 * 800,000 equals roughly 22 megabytes, which is way down from 9 gigabytes. That's a 400 fold memory overhead, which is pretty hefty.
Grasshopper stores points as instances of classes, so on 64-bit systems it actually takes 64+64+3*8 = 152 bytes per point*, which adds up to 122MB, still way less than 9GB. It would be interesting to know where all the memory goes...
* Grasshopper points also store reference data, in case they come from the Rhino document. This data will not exist, but even so it will require 64-bits of storage.…
Added by David Rutten at 4:13pm on December 11, 2014
e
7. True
8. True <-- this one
9. True
10. False
11. True
12. False
13. True
14. True <-- this one
15. True
16. False
17. True
18. False
19. True
20. True <-- this one
21. True
22. False
23. True
24. False
25. True
26. True <-- this one
27. True
28. False
29. True
30. False
31. True
32. True <-- this one
33. True
Any idea how I can solve this?
Thanks!…
vas
Closing and creating a new file (memory resets when this is done) @4:00, 5:57, 6:53
System slow down and crashes @ 8:16 (takes 5 minutes to end the process - perhaps not the most entertaining movie to watch until the end - a good point to turn the kettle on)…
es, and these sum up to ~7100. I shall see if I can post a screenshot of everything.
I have no idea how to script that, sorry. But maybe could be a more optimized workflow - just feed one object B at a time, maybe that makes the math behind it more relaxed.
I should emphasize that it is not about 'fault' in the operation, and rather a very slow calculation - the difference does eventually get calculated with no errors whatsoever, the only problem is the unbelievably inefficient, or unproductive time it takes to do so. I think the problem could be the proportion of the objects, one very large, and one very small (28 / 6 / .1cm vs. .05cm), maybe that does something funky to the bounding box calls, I have no idea. And one other thing I suspect is the number of faces in the object, as I progress to let's say 700 cuts, I have then created 700*4 new faces in the object. I don't know if this is indeed something of concern. …
Added by DumDaDaDum at 7:03am on September 29, 2011