l at each point intersection, less 14. align holes to common angle between each 2 points of intersection (so ovals align with curve)5. copy 4. 360/60 about center circle (creates 6 curves rotated thru 360)6. it appears there a 3 more sets of curves that need to be taken care in the same way as 1 thru 4 (see colander pic)6. project the oval patterns onto, 1/2 a sphere somewhat larger that the surface circle, to avoid extreme oval distortion.7. needs some Boolean subtraction of holes from sphere surface
Does this simple road map have some merit?
…
ine will require a points and normal vectors. Give ArrPolar the same parameters used to position the diamonds, but use a point instead of a gem object. This will give you your points. The normals are just a vectors from origin to the points.
4. I added components to the attached file that includes a VB fillet routine. (I don't recall where I found it.) You have to play with the 2 Boolean values depending on the 2 surfaces you feed the routine. Also, be aware that Rhino does not handle filleted surfaces well when they come from Grasshopper. To fix this you have to invoke the Rhino command _DivideALongCreases - otherwise your filleted surfaces will have corners in them.
…
the use of digital technologies as architectural design tools. The workshop " Computer Aided Design: parametric design and digital fabrication " aims to do some introductory teaching in the use of some of these tools.
The workshop will focus on the use of computational models of parametric behavior for generating architectural forms. The generative capacity of these models it will be tested in the development of designs defined by repetitive non-standard components, based on the parametric control of its variations and series differentiations. This process will be developed by the use of a three-dimensional modeling software - Rhinoceros, associated with an application for visual programming - Grasshopper.
The last day of the workshop is dedicated to the use of digital manufacturing tools in architecture. Part of the work will take place at the facilities of the Institute of Design of Guimarães (IDEGUI) providing for the use of their laboratories and manufacturing CNC machines (computer numerically controlled).
At the end of the workshop, it is intended the students to understand that the use of digital technologies in architecture can overcome representational functions, and their integration in the design conception, analysis and construction enriches the methodology of project development.
Terms & Participants
The workshop will take place at the School of Architecture of the University of Minho (Campus Azurém, Guimarães) and the Institute of Design of Guimarães (Couros, Guimarães).
The workshop is pointed at students who attend the 3rd year and 4th year from MiArq, EAUM.
The maximum acceptance is 20 students and a minimum of 10 students.
Deadline for entries is April 11 and must be performed by eaum.pac@gmail.com.
Program summary :
Day 23 April 14 -20h
Introduction to 3D modeling in Rhinoceros. Regular geometries, ruled surfaces and NURBS surfaces.
Day 30 April 14 -20h
Parametric design in architecture. Introduction to methods of visual programming.
May 1, 9 -13h 14 -18h
Development of a design idea by the use visual programming processes in Grasshopper.
May 2, 9 -13h 14 -18h
Introduction to methods of digital fabrication. Manufacture physical models of the proposals made.
It is expected that this meeting will take place in the IDEGUI labs.
team:
Bruno Figueiredo ( Lecturer, EAUM )
Paulo Sousa ( PhD candidate , EAUM )
Nuno Cruz ( Invited Lecturer , EAUM )
Cláudia Alvares ( 5th year MiArq student , EAUM )
Javier Bono ( 4th year MiArq student, EAUM )
João Amaro ( 5th year MiArq student, EAUM )…
triangles around a vertex make an angle of 360°, but the variation or defect from this angle is exactly what enables a polyhedral surface to form a discrete version of double curvature.
In fact there is a precise relationship between the Gaussian curvature of a smooth surface, and the angle defects of its polyhedral version - the curvature can be regarded as concentrated at the vertices. As you refine the division into more and more smaller faces, getting closer to smoothness, the angle defects at each of the vertices get smaller, but their total remains the same. So as long as you have a finite number of triangles, they can get closer to all being equilateral, with 360° around each vertex, but never quite get there.
For example, in the case of a closed surface without handles, the angle defects will always sum to 720° (this is Descartes' theorem, and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem generalizes this to a relationship between the integral of Gaussian curvature and the topology of a surface).
A regular icosahedron is a special case, where the angle defect is divided into whole multiples of 60° - so one triangle short of a full circle at each of the 12 vertices - but for most numbers of faces there will be no such neat division.
This being said, if you accept that what you want will not be achievable exactly, and allow some level of error from your conditions (such as not having the triangles touch exactly, or some amount of size/angle variation), then there are ways of finding an approximation.
In Kangaroo you can constrain points to a surface then use a combination of mutual attraction or repulsion and spring forces to relax points towards an even distribution. I'll post an example soon.
There are also some extra equalization functions coming in the new version that will help with this.…
Added by Daniel Piker at 3:09am on December 12, 2010
for OcTree like AABB to figure out if all functions work correctly by comparing them with GH components.
I also used Stopwatch method form System.Diagnostics to measure the execution time for judging the performance.(As I mentioned before I'm using my own Vectro3 class, do i need to convert Vector3d to my Vector3)
Building AABB is taking 160 ms conversion 200 ms so in total is more ore less 360 ms.Why whole component need almost 12 sec to be executed??
Thanks in advanced.…
viors that aren't the sum of its parts... but as the project progressed, my understanding of the idea emergence has changed... The universe doesn't produce something out of the blue, everything is part of a series of events, its the minute deviance in the details and the reading that cause the system to tip from its usual behavior or appear random, emergence in true sense ( or strong emergence as they call it) is just apparent...
The next question that came to my mind was if the universe is a series of cause and effects, then does it produce emergent (new) rules of interactions of particles/ agents... it turns out no, as the universe evolves new rules do form, but then again, they are derived rules, not something out of the blue... they evolve from the current to produce new...
One thing is for certain, emergent systems produce structure and functionality from bottom up, they are capable of achieving very complex behaviors by interactions of simple rules at bottom level...
Coming to the spatial rules to produce emergent systems, one example is the circulation in my system, which resolves itself providing various exit routes for any organization.
There are 3 agents namely personal spaces, combine spaces, open spaces
These are the rules (very simplified)
Two personal spaces share one common wall
Newborn Personal space will share at least one wall with the parent
A Combined space hold up to 3 personalized spaces only
At least one side of combined space is connected to an open space
Every open space have at least 2 open spaces connected to it to provide entrance and exit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkKMImNOATM
The result produced is this simulation, where red and blue are the personalized and combined spaces while yellow are the open spaces... Things to observe here is the circulation being resolved and the creation of wide open spaces, which was never intended or expected from the code... and it is not a coincidence, no matter how times and in how many different ways it is simulated, the circulation resolution and the wide spaces are prominent, so it is part of the system behavior
…
izing strength/spring stiffness and even the unit of your 3DM file setting.
sometimes the same pattern that can be planarized in one file would stop working once something else is modified. and sometimes the force can't even planarize one single cell.
I think you can find some idea from the following post:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/planar-polygons-by-using-kangaroo
'Reply by Daniel Piker on December 17, 2013 at 10:25am
Making the faces of a polygonal mesh planar is not always possible without dramatically changing the shape of either the polygons or the surface.
When the target surface has only positive Gaussian curvature it makes things somewhat easier, but the surface in your file also has regions of negative Gaussian curvature.
To approximate a surface of negative curvature with a discrete mesh, we need the angles around some of the vertices to sum to less than 360°. This is impossible to do in a mesh with 3 hexagons around each vertex without making some of these hexagons non-convex.
There are a few possible approaches, but I would say how to automatically cover an arbitrary surface with nicely shaped planar hexagons is still an unsolved problem.'
I have uploaded some test files for you to look at. …
to do once I figured out how you use only a small portion of each of my generated curves to make the 360 degree Loft surface. I had a huge AHA! moment when I realized the complete Loft surface really only needs a small portion of the generated curves rotated around to form a closed (except for top & bottom) surface. That is a major new insight for me and I appreciate you pointing it out.
I also tweaked the Twist angle parameter a bit so the resulting positive and negative Twist surfaces, when combined, yielded a result that was closer to my original shape. This is when I discovered something very interesting.
When I baked/exported the result using just one of the 2 twisted surfaces I got an STL file that had no errors, that 3D Builder was able to simplify from a 37 MB file to a 3 MB file, and that sliced A-OK. But, when I combined the left and right twisted surfaces, I was back with my same set of problems: the exported STL file had many errors, could not be fixed, and did not slice properly.
I went back to my original layout that uses the complete set of generated curves to create the Loft surface and found I got exactly the same results - using only one twisted surface worked fine, but nothing worked when the left and right twisted surfaces were combined. By nothing I mean I tried all the standard methods (GH Join and Sunion, Rhino Solid/Union, Join, etc.) What I think this means is that the Loft surface behaves the same, and apparently is the same, regardless if it is generated by rotating strips or by using complete closed curves.
Furthermore, I am guessing the problems with the combined/exported STL file made from both left and right twisted surfaces has to do with overlapping/coincident parts of each one - like the top & bottom planar surfaces and some of the wiggly parts.
If I am correct about this then it suggests to me that there is some sort of glitch in Rhino's STL Export function. This is surprising to me since I though an STL file only paid attention to the external shape of thngs,and did not know or care about any inside stuff. Of course this is all conjecture on my part, but at least for now seems it will be impossible for me to actually print the double-twisted geometry.…
Added by Birk Binnard at 3:52pm on September 23, 2016