ee. That said these things (masterminded by a certain David R) are not bad at all ... but if you write code that is "supposedly" transferable (kinda) to other CAD apps ... well ... I would strongly recommend the other classic nested C# collections.
2. The HLP method is one out of many: for instance for a better approximation of the required fitted plane we can use the divide Curve method etc etc.
3. GH components use (in most of cases) methods exposed in Rhino SDK > get the thingy and start digging into the rabbit hole. Of course David did some other components as well that use "less" classic SDK methods (if at all).
4. HLP is a classic approach to count the beans in nurbs curves. Of course I could use PolyCurves and recursive explosion blah, blah ... but here we are not after segments (at least at present time). On the other hand if that was a Faceted Dome (planar Polylines) ... well getting the nodes that way it could be an overkill (this means business for V2).
5. Mastermind some plane orientation policies in order to finish(?) the @$%@$ thing. For instance: Given Plane plane, define a Plane.WorldXY at plane.Origin and section these 2 > then get the cross product (sectionVector, plane.ZAxis) for the new orientedPlane Y axis etc etc (this presupposes that any plane Z axis points "outwards": use Dot Product and a center point as apex etc etc).…
ime runs out, of unexplored planets. These masters of gravity risk their lives for the adrenaline, dodging gigantic rocks that could hit their ships crashing into planets and no hope that they can be rescued.
Requires Kangaroo and Human (and in full with Firefly).
Goal of the game
You have four minutes to get six stars and reach the goal. Or die trying.
If a satellite hits you, you will leave fired.
The game has three types of control
1 Using the keyboard (requires Firefly). 2 With an external device such as a smartphone or tablet (requires Firefly and TouchOSC app). 3 Using the mouse, from the grasshopper interface.
Download files
Gh, 3dm, touchosc and textures.
Video
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/video/space-riders…
ss) .
Anyway...since you look to me like a nice fella, and you are after tensile membranes ...er... I have good, bad and ugly news:
Good news: I do hope that you are a Bushido type of Architect-to-be: Obeying the Code no matter the cost (i.e. (a) Less is More, (b) Form follows Function, (c) Always serve Modesty and fight Vanity).
Bad news: Whist the component bloodshed continues (I asked some assistance from the best C# guru in my practice)...
... I reckon that this IS not the way to outline the module fixing brackets (and/or any membrane related SS 316L stuff : mini masts, tensioners blah blah).
This is:
Ugly news: But inviting real-life components like the above to the parametric chaos (and killing any argument against the so called parametric/smart thing) requires other things far and away from what Rhino/GH are designed to do (at least at present time). But we can fake things a bit (we are professional liars by trade, don't you think so?): I'll reform that chaotic pasta first and then I'll provide you with some real-life multi adjustable custom components (the variation situation that you are attempting to emulate with the attractor) suitable for the job (alas: Rhino can't understand what nested parametric driven feature modeling is) ... and that could bring your teacher(s) into a certain crisis: what are these things and how's possible being created with a parametric app? (but then again I bet that they never heard about CATIA - not to mention spending 15 years with that ugly thing, he he).
Moral: Have faith to the Code.
…
nd me to kill him but give him my regards anyway) is still around in BirdAir Italy ... talk with him.
3. Hope that you understand that designing the "details" means some decent MCAD app + FEA + this + that. "Fusing" this with some abstract graphic editor like GH ... is ... er ... impossible (in real-life, you know, he he ). Generative Components on the other hand may qualify but requires a lot of time in order to fully master it (approx 2-4 years).
4. FormFinder ... well ... that's utterly Academic but on the other hand ... (good luck).
http://www.formfinder.at/main/software/team/
5. http://tecno.upc.edu/cotens/software.htm
6. This is the second best (after the BirdAir internal stuff) but costs an arm and a leg
http://www.ndnsoftware.com/
7. This is a !%$!%$ in the !%$%!$:
http://www.sofistik.com/no_cache/loesungen/fem/leichte-tragwerke/
My realistic (low cost) advise:
use K1/2 (especially if you are after "parametric" exploitation(s)) ... and then diversify tasks: stuff for the structural department, stuff for whom claims that he can(?) design the "details" ... whilst be in a constant contact with the membrane provider (and in fact: the contractor for doing the real thing as well)
…
y to heaven (or hell) is full of pain,frustration and tears. In plain English: if you are not totally committed (and willing to pay the heavy price) ... well ... what about forgetting all that freaky stuff? (the best option, trust me)
Note: 99% of beginners dream to learn programing in order to make geometry. But the truth is that this is the least (and rather the most insignificant) that you can achieve especially when working in teams with lot's of CAD/MCAD apps (and verticals) in the practice of tomorrow (bad news: tomorrow is already yesterday).
Anyway: How to go to Hell in just 123 easy steps
Step 1: get the cookiesThe bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).The bible PlanC: C# 5.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favoriteThe reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334The candidates:C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)C# Language (Jones)Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)...
Step 122: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 123: Open computer > burn computer > computers are a bad thing (not to mention the Skynet trivial thingy).May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.
…
se enseñan los principios de modelado básico y orgánico en Rhinoceros. En Grasshopper se estudian los principios de Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $5,000.00
Pagos diferidos $5,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
De lunes a viernes de 10 am a 18 pm
Del 23 al 27 de julio de 2012
DURACION: 40 HORAS
SESIONES: 5 DE 8 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
Incluye material para corte digital.…
ave the bytes available, they also need to be adjacent. All 4 frikkin trillion of them (assuming you need a million 1000x1000 pixel tiles). That's just not going to happen.
It could be that Photoshop has very clever memory management that allows it to store image data in non-consecutive chunks, but .NET does not allow this.
In fact this can be a real problem with much smaller images as well. In 32-bit Windows you're allowed 2GB of memory per application (sometimes 3). If Rhino+Grasshopper are already using up 1.5GB it's not like you can fit in an extra 0.5GB image before running into problems. Memory is almost never used in a consecutive fashion.
Rhino uses a clever memory manager (not the default Windows one) that results in less memory fragmentation and Grasshopper uses the .NET memory allocator and garbage collector which is capable of defragmenting memory usage. But even with these two optimizations memory fragmentation will occur (and the longer Rhino runs the worse it will get) making it less and less likely that you'll be able to find large consecutive areas of free memory.
The Grasshopper hi-res image exporter creates image tiles of 1000x1000 pixels and saves these files immediately. So it never requires more than 4MB while running. Once it's done making the images, it will start a different application that will stitch these images together. That's what the GrasshopperImageStitcher.exe in your screenshot is. Since this is a new app, it has 2GB of absolutely pristine memory to play with so it's a lot longer before it runs into problems. And when it does run into memory problems it won't bring down Rhino with it.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
t ... have a close look on these weird "slots" in the base mount plate - allow the struts to "follow" some base "auto" arrangement (up to a point).
2. After various ... er ... hmm... "communications" with a variety of apps.(some of them are not for public eyes) ...here's a concept demo about what could be done and fool the academics (that's the bit that I like the most)
In plain English (work in GH):
1. Create some wires that represent the struts and PAY attention on their limits of adjustability.
2. Create a nurbs curve through the points indicated with "balls" in the demo. Patch the nurbs.
3. Trim the nurbs surface with some "indicative" profiles OR use Kangaroo by applying a minimum possible relax state (if the latter add the rhomboid cables as well - they deform by pulling the membrane downwards).
4. Optionally put the real things in place (quite GPU taxing that one - do some Viz control).
best, Peter
…
r.
Jon has already done some very interesting stuff with regard decomposing matters using IFC schema (I'm not a strong admirer of any schema policy mind - for a variety of reasons).
Now the chaotic case:
1. This is deliberately fuzzy, faulty and chaotic in order to indicate the need (at least IMHO) for a next step with regard handling and visualizing (on a per individual data item basis, not on a per branch basis) data trees.
2. Why this Tree Manager future thing could boost GH up to an unseen level? Exploit the PDF attached - use Saved views and/or the Model Tree "decomposer" (file is greatly reduced in detail - only 1 out of 5 floors shown, no envelope stuff, stripped out of everything actually etc etc etc). Among a variety of things observe that there's transformations that are "selectively" applied whilst various components remain intact (in other words: invite existed "static" objects into the smart chaos) - this means that we need a far better control VS the series (of various type of data) that outline the solution of similar things.
3. What could/should do such a "visual" Tree Manager? Could he function within the existed "one Canvas for all things" environment? Do we need N "sub-canvas" (kinda the Views in any CAD app these days) to handle and visualize complex tree operations? Do we need control on a per data item basis? Do we need a re-mapper of a totally different kind? Do we need a Bake Manager? Do we need a Scenario (parameter combos stored etc) Manager?
Let's the debate begin
Best, Peter
…