ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
hope this number will grow in future. Currently available features are:
1) Creation of 2d or 3d context for any kind of building related analysis: automatically generate the 2d/3d surrounding buildings for the location where you would like to perform visibility, solar radiation, cfd or any other type of analysis. You need some other plugin for the last three, like Ladybug. It only creates the context=surroundings! The "automatic generation" process also includes creation of the local topography (terrain) along with buildings.
2) Identification of certain 2d or 3d elements in the created context. For example: selection of all hotels, parks, hospitals, restaurants, residential buildings etc.
3) Performing direct terrain analysis (hillshading, slope, ruggedness, roughness, water flow...)
4) Creation of terrain shading masks and horizon files for further solar and photovoltaics analysis.
Gismo will be very grateful if he could get any suggestions, improvements, bug reports and testing in the following period. In case you are willing to provide any of these, the requirements, installation steps and .gh example files can be found here, here and here.
Thank you in advance !!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 9:10am on January 29, 2017
onstrates the following:
1. The definition's functionality employing HumanUI for the custom user interface.
2. Color based segmentation in manual and auto modes.
3. The evaluation of the definition's ability to handle different point cloud data sets.
This definition performs color based segmentation in two modes.
A manual mode, that implements the Delta-E CIE 2000 color difference formula, for targeted feature detection. An auto mode, that employs a simple RGB Color Range algorithm for quicker preliminary results.
RGB to XYZ to CIELab conversion and Delta-E scripts were based on Colormine's project code from github. Results have been compared and verified with the results of http://colormine.org/color-converter and http://colormine.org/delta-e-calculator/Cie2000.
Each stored class is charted and can be accessed through the UI, as shown at 2:30, where Delta-E CIE 2000, in CieLab color space, output results were found to be in perceptive conformity with human eyes, far superior to the preliminary RGB implementation.
Initial definition versions could process highly subsampled clouds in acceptable timings. Further research showed that employing the multithread processing of Volvox components, bundling the Delta E formula with the RGB to CIE lab color conversion script, per color segmentation calculations for a one million points point cloud would go down from 23 (c# script component) and 8 (vb script component) seconds to approx. 1 second (volvox script cloud component), thus allowing the segmentation of less subsampled point clouds.
I would like to thank Heumann A. and Zwierzycki M. who provided direct support with HumanUI and Volvox. Also Grasshopper3d forum users Maher S. and Segeren P., who contributed with Rhino viewport manipulation scripts.
More on Volvox:
http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=ecaade2016_171&sort=DEFAULT&search=ecaade%20volvox&hits=2629
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/volvox
http://duraark.eu/
HumanUI:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human-ui?page=1&ufh=&etx=
ColorMine:
https://github.com/THEjoezack/ColorMine…
ns about them.
It's a direction for Kangaroo I very much intend to continue developing - and I am still getting to grips with the possibilities and experimenting with how different optimization and fairing forces work in combination with one another, so I would value your input and experience.
For those interested in some background reading material -
[1] http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mmeyer/Research/FairMesh/implicitFairing.pdf
[2] http://mesh.brown.edu/taubin/pdfs/taubin-eg00star.pdf
[3] http://www.pmp-book.org/download/slides/Smoothing.pdf
[4] http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs468-05-fall/slides/daniel_willmore_flow_fall_05.pdf
[5] http://www.evolute.at/technology/scientific-publications.html
[6] http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~bobenko/recentpapers.html
[7] http://spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/pseudo-physical-materials/
[8] http://www.evolute.at/technology/scientific-publications/34.html
[9] http://www.evolute.at/software/forum/topic.html?id=18
At the moment the Laplacian smoothing is uniformly weighted, which tends to even out the edge lengths as well as smoothing the form, which is sometimes desirable, and sometimes not. It also tends to significantly shrink meshes when the edges are not fixed.
I plan to try some of the other weighting possibilities, such as Fujiwara or cotangent weighting (see [1] and [3]), as well as other fairing approaches, such as Taubin smoothing [2], Willmore flow[4], and so on. This also has applications in the simulation of bending of thin shells.
Planar quad panels are often desirable, but I'm finding that planarization forces alone are sometimes unstable, or cause undesirable crumpling, so need to be combined with some sort of fairing/smoothing, but the different types have quite different effects, and the balance is sometimes tricky.
There's also the whole issue of meshes which are circular (I posted a demo of circularization on the examples page), or conical (this one still isn't working quite right yet), and their relationship with principal curvature grids and placement of irregular vertices, all of which is rather different when the whole form is up for change, rather than having a fixed target surface [7].
I'm also trying to get to grips with ways of making surfaces of planar hexagons, which need to become concave in regions of negative Gaussian curvature (see this discussion)
and I hope to release soon a component for calculating CP meshes, as described in [8], which I think could have many exciting construction implications.
While there are a number of well developed smoothing algorithms, their main area of application so far seems to be in processing and improving 3D scan data, so using them in design in this way is somewhat new territory. There can be structural, fabrication or performance reasons for certain types of smoothness, but of course the aesthetic reasons are also often important, and I think there are some interesting discussions to be had here about the aesthetics of smoothness.
Anyway, that's enough rambling from me, hopefully something there triggers some discussion - I'm really keen to hear about how all of you envision these tools might be used and developed.
…
ally to describe a process of repeating objects in a self-similar way. Simply stated, the definition of a recursive function includes the function itself. Fractals are among the canonical examples of recursion in mathematics and programming. A loop can simply be a way to apply the same operation to a list of elements, but it is an iterative loop if the results from one step are used in the calculation of the next step. In design research controlling recursion becomes a new strategy to define new forms and spaces.
BRIEF
In this workshop we will be exploring iterative strategies through parametric design. Main tool for the course will be grasshopper3d and its add-on Anemone. Anemone is a simple but effective plug-in for Grasshopper that enables for loops in a simple and linear way. We will explore several strategies such iterative growth, L systems, fractals, recursive subdivisions and more. Our course will focus on how those methods can affect three-dimensional geometries, generating unexpected conformations.
TOPICS
intro to rhinointro to grasshopperadvanced grasshopperdata managementintro to loopscellular automatal-systemsagent based modelling
SCHEDULE
Day 1 / friday 16:00Tour Green Fab LabBasics of 3D modeling in RhinocerosBasics of GrasshopperOpen Lecture by Jan Pernecky, founder of rese arch
Day 2 / saturday 10 am- 18 pmRecursive iterative methodsAdvanced Topics of looping
Day 3 / sunday 10 am – 18 pmRecursive iterative methodsFinal presentation session
REQUIREMENTS
The workshop is open to all participants, no previous knowledge of Rhinoceros and Grasshopper is required (although an introductory knowledge is welcome). Participants should bring their own laptop with a pre-installed software. The software package needed has no additional cost for the participant (Rhino can be downloaded as evaluation version, Grasshopper and plugins are free). These softwares are subject to frequent updates, so a download link to the version used in the workshop will be sent to the participants a few days before the workshop.…
Added by Aldo Sollazzo at 11:10am on October 6, 2015
this was about some boring building I wouldn't respond ... but here we are talking sardines.
Here's my take on that matter:
1. The 4 C# first create/use a nurbs, then define some random planes (and transformations) and then (a) either they place some humble stripes or ... er ... (b) sardines as instance definitions (NOTE: Load Rhino file first).
2. All important decisions are the ones in yellow groups.
3. You control what you get via this (priority on stripes or sardines? that's the 1M Q):
4. If you decide for sardines (the right thing to do) then you must ENABLE the Sardiniser(C)(tm)(US patent pending) as follows:
5. The vodkaFactor on that Sardiniser C# adds some spice in the sardine placement (it does that by altering the priority on the "composite" transformation in use: first randomly rotate then planeToPlane .... or the other thing?).
6. Only the finest Da Morgada sardines are used in this definition:
7. Spot the WARNING in the filter related with what sardine to choose > do it wrong and no hard disk on your workstation > no risk no fun > sorry Amigos, he he.
8. 1M question for you all: why placing sardines (it's real-time you know) is WAY faster than creating these humble stripes?
9. Although the sardines are placed in real time as regards your CPU ... the critical factor is your GPU (display mode: rendered).
10.Still WIP (dancing sardines in the next update).
have some sardine fun, best, Lord of SardineLand…
r ideal surface so they add up where lots of points or lines cluster and create rather unintuitive bulges form a 3D modeler's perspective, here done with Millipede's Geometry Wrapper:
I've learned to do marching tetrahedra or cubes in Python to create the surface as needed from a implicit ( f(x,y,z) = 0 ) mathematical equation based on raw trigonometry but am not yet sure how to define an equation for Rhino user created input items like this or find a way to make marching cubes accept such input let alone one that doesn't treat each geometry item as an electric charge with so little decay.
This would afford an old school "organic" modeling paradigm that T-Splines replaced, but the T-Spines pipe command can't do nearby lines right either, which just makes overlapping junk. Metaballs and lines are not as elegant in that there is a real "dumb clay" aspect to the result that affords little natural structure beyond just smoothing, but still, if it works at all that beats T-Splines, and then I can feed the crude mesh result into Kangaroo MeshMachine to afford surface tension relaxation that will add elegant form to it.
I need both quick hacks and some help on how to deeply approach the mathematics of the required isosurface, now that I can think in Python better than ever.
I got a hint the other day here, about using a different power of fall-off but am not sure how to do the overall task mathematically:
"and just as with point based potentials, one can use different power laws for the distance, function, resulting it different amounts of rounding at the junctions. Below is with a 1/d^3 law for comparision with the above 1/d" - Daniel Piker
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/meshes?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A1324050
He also included this link about bulging:
http://paulbourke.net/geometry/implicitsurf/
Am I supposed to create an actual implicit equation for my assigned points and lines and use that with marching cubes to surface it? If so, how do I define that equation, at all, and then how to control bulging too?
…
s, the participants will focus on the key advantages of Grasshopper’s capabilities through a range of design challenges in order to aid designers in both their drafting tasks and modelling capabilities.
The workshop covers many concepts such as Object Attributes/Parameters, Data Types, Data Structures, and Designing with Algorithms. Specifically, this course will focus on understanding both Lists and Data Trees, as well as the best practices for integrating Grasshopper into your Professional Design Workflow. The workshop offers guided curriculum and continuous support, based on in-depth and professional learning experiences.
Workshop outcomes:Teach the participants how to:-
+ be proficient in parametric logics learning the key benefits of parametric techniques in architecture design workflow (when to use it & how to use it)+ Correctly communicate with different 3D and BIM packages in order to keep the geometry clean and light while preserving all NURBS information.+ Develop architecture design based on mathematical equations to create non-standard free form building skin.+ Create a pattern that changes dynamically based on specific inputs which can be applied over the building façade, interior walls or ceiling or even floor pattern.+ Automate and Optimize design variables to achieve the optimum solution for the design problem.
Program Outline:
DAY 1:-Introduction to Parametric Design -Introduction to Grasshopper & Rhino (technical tools).
DAY 2:-Exploring the parametric workflow. -Setup the design algorithm & generating a list of data.
DAY 3:-Introducing the new ways of generating parametric curves and surfaces.-Parametric form generation in-dept
DAY 4:-Introducing Data Tree logic and parametric transformations.-Creating Associative techniques – Attractors (points, curves and vectors).
DAY 5:-Working with advanced form generation with dynamic pattern.-Parametric optimization based on environmental analysis -featuring the Performance-Driven Design possibilities
DURATION:6 – 8 hours per day [50 - 60 hours Total]Every Saturday [9.00 Am : 1.00 Pm & 2.30 Pm : 6.00 Pm]
PREREQUISITES:No need of any specific knowledge of Rhinoceros or Grasshopper.
REGISTRATION:In order to register, you will need to fill the Registration Form .https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PckdW1hrWs9fJAHWBZlVsuhH8K0PfDuMWIpXHT_4FYw/viewform
REGISTRATION DEADLINE:23th October 2014.…
Added by ayman wagdy at 7:48am on October 19, 2014
we're actually using PET sheets for our flexures. We try to design so that the flexures don't go through more than +/- 30 degrees of deflection. If the angular deflection is kept small, the lifetime can definitely be on the order of 1000000 cycles.
As for the design process (item 2), ideally the designer would be able to use a simple 3D CAD tool to design a model of a robot, and the geometry would be represented by dimensioning the individual parts in the model. Maybe there should be some parametric primitive kinematic building blocks like four bar linkages, box frames, etc. that a user could build up a robot from. But, the key functionality the tool needs to provide is for the designer to be able to visualize how the robot will move when it's fabricated. This could mean observing (or plotting) the motion of a leg, a wing, or a series of body segments. Ideally, then, the tool would generate an unfolding of the design. How this would work is still very vague - maybe the user would assist in the unfolding, maybe there would be an optimization routine that computes optimal unfoldings based on criteria like minimal waste, or fewest pieces (I would *not* constrain the problem to construction from a single monolithic piece as in origami). The biggest problem we have right now, is that our design process is totally divorced from fabrication. Even if we went through the trouble of extruding individual thin plates in Solidworks and creating an assembly for visualizing the kinematics of a mechanism, that particular representation doesn't transfer easily to the fabrication process because it's essentially monolithic.
Item 3: The 2D drawing is simple a drawing done manually in Solidworks. There are different layers for flexure cuts, outline cuts, and potentially any cuts to be made in the plastic flexure layer. Depending on the robot, there may be many separate pieces for different parts and linkages in a single robot. For example, the drawing for a robot containing a fourbar linkage may have the linkage laid out as a physically separate piece consisting of five rigid links connected by four flexure hinges. During assembly, the designer would then fold up that linkage and insert it into the robot wherever it's supposed to go. If you're curious you can see some sample 2D drawings for older designs here: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ronf/Prototype/ under the "Example Structures" heading.
I noticed Kangaroo seems to be a popular choice for physical simulations. I don't really even need to include forces like bending resistance - I'm happy to allow the design tool to approximate flexures as pin joint-type hinges. Once the design is unfolded, the details of how to cut the flexures could be worked out in a post-processing step. I wouldn't expect the tool to be able to realistically simulate the bending of the hinges.
I'm going to have to dig a lot deeper into understanding Grasshopper and Kangaroo. I only just got started with Grasshopper today by following the folding plate tutorial on wa11ace.com.au today. …