ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
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!
…
oCommonSDK, I modified a working C# component that does something similar (ReduceMesh, written by Andrew Heumann). Both scripts are attached.
Aside from changing the component name and eliminating the P parameter, I made two modifications to the script:1) changed line 87 from private void RunScript(Mesh M, double P, ref object A) to: private void RunScript(Mesh M, ref object A)2) changed line 93 from: Rhino.RhinoApp.RunScript("_-ReduceMesh _ReductionPercentage " + Convert.ToString(P) + " _Enter", false); to: Rhino.RhinoApp.RunScript("_-MatchMeshEdge " + " _Enter", false);When I run the ReduceMesh component, the mesh object I feed it gets baked, the ReduceMesh command is run, the temporary object is deleted, and the reduced mesh result is returned. (Thanks, Andrew).When I run the MatchMeshEdge component, the mesh object I feed it is baked, the MatchMeshEdge command is run, but the temporary object is not deleted and no result is returned. The runtime error reads: "Sequence contains no elements (line 0)". I have a feeling that the command line string I am handing to RunScript is incomplete. When I enter it manually on the Rhino command line I see that it wants a mesh and three parameters. Of course I can hit Enter to accept the default values, but when you invoke a command through RunScript do you have to supply all parameters regardless? Also, where would I find details on the argument types that the command wants? For example, the last parameter reads "RatchetMode=On" or "RatchetMode=Off". How do I know if the type is Bool or the literal string "On" or "Off"?I am a complete novice at this so any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated! …
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…
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
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
…
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
…
akes the linear regression of the Schroeder integral over 30 dB worth of decay. Whether it is T-15 or T-30, they all seek to estimate the RT, which is always always the time it takes for sound to decay 60 decibels.
The website has benchmarks, for your reference. You can find them under the 'Pachyderm' drop down menu, under 'Benchmarks'.
Your model may well require millions of rays to be accurate. It sounds like a very large space. I'm sorry if that is an unpleasant answer. Sometimes it does help to have a computer with more cores to help with this. I have gotten up to 90% processor usage on a 12 core machine before.
Arthur…