try at the perpendicular planes.
All the data lists seem to be properly matched up and the points seem be listed in the correct order, but the script is working only if the polyline is not closed and I am trying to wrap all the way around. Also, in either case the corners are not working.
Hopefully someone knows how to get past this. I've posted the script below and the screenshots hopefully explain where the problem lies.
Thanks for any help!
Derin
…
Added by Derin Yilmaz at 7:10pm on November 30, 2014
I want to use them all in my presentation but I also want to tweak their size and some text, so I go and bake it for AI. For some reason component bakes only 2 diagram and returns error:
1. Solution exception:index out of range: 0
As you can see direct radiation wan not baked, please check the component or let me know if I screwed something up.
I updated LB the day before yesterday.
…
eight, but it seems that i cant seem to make it work.
As I understand the component below has to create the a panel type per row (or storey), or am I misunderstanding the function of it. If yes how can I specify the panel type per floor? Should the surface that I am applying the panels be divided as well?
On a side note, is it also possible to specify panel type per orientation (north,east, etc)?
…
roperties drop box menu (on the right) choose "Material".
3) Choose "Basic" from the radio buttons below
4) Check "Texture"'s checkbox
5) Define your texture "Map file". In your case, use "Carrots small.jpg" file.
…
d it still works. but if I duble it again (about 500 tiles) crashes.
with the new version is the same but at the third attempt it tells me that i don't have enough memory.
so the question now is: can I generate a lower resolution image? or, even better, can I select just an area of the viewport to export in order to leave the same resolution and then blend them manualy?
thank you very much for your support!!…
accept untrimmed surfaces, only Open Brep, but sometimes, seemingly out of the blue, the Open Brep changes into Untrimmed Surfaces and vice versa. I've already checked the unit tolerance in Rhino, that made no difference. Any ideas about where I could be going wrong?
--
Second issue is that some of the geometries should 'curl' outside their grid boundaries. I need to be able to play with the grid size while the geometry maintains its position.
Also, the first set of these geometries (bottom of image) should translate as a flat surface. But the points 1 and 3 tend to stick to the 2nd Grid - creating openings on the side. How could I fix that?
--
Third issue is that the geometries seem to be a little 'squished' at their plane normal (right until where the 2nd Grid offsets). I tried adding a number slider between the [z-vector] in the ptCoordinates and the [translation vector] in the Move component.. but that isn't working. Ideally I wouldn't need to control the offset distance, the shapes would retain proportion automatically. Any ideas?
Thanks so much in advance! :)
…
square units. Then you have an integral number of fragments on each side. This means that if all fragments need to have the same surface area, you can only have the following possibilities for side A:
1 fragment = 100 square units
2 fragments = 50 square units each
3 fragments = 33⅓ square units each
4 fragments = 25 square units each
5 fragments = 20 " "
6 fragments = 16⅔ " "
etc.
For side B, the numbers are mostly different
1 fragment = 300 unit²
2 fragments = 150 unit²
3 fragments = 100 unit²
4 fragments = 75 unit²
For side C they are different still. Unless you join fragments across on both sides of the edges of the box, I very much doubt you'll be able to pull this off.
The solution I attached will create fragments as identical as possible, but it's a very boring outcome...
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
anually update the definition for the changes to have an effect. Also, it's not very user friendly to change data using commands (you can add them to the toolbar).
I recently did a definition that required custom attribute data per object. Since objects could vary in number it was easier to have the data attached to the object rather than in a spreadsheet. I only needed 3 or 4 values per object, so i just added them to the name of the object in the form of "a;3;500". I have the object properties window open all the time so this way it's easy to quickly change the values.
It would be great if rhino's GUI allowed to add and change custom attribute data easily. Cinema 4D does this very well. I think David was working on a plugin that did this but i doubt it's still in development.…
Added by Vicente Soler at 4:10pm on October 12, 2009
mple problem.
Imagine you're dividing a space (100m²) into two rooms, one of which (room A) should be 60m², the other (room B) 40m². Now it follows that the sum of both rooms must always add up to 100m². And if you make one room smaller by 5m², the other one gets bigger by 5m².
The simplest expression that would convert room areas into a fitness value is, I think:
Abs(A - 40) + Abs(B - 60)
or, in English, the sum total of the discrepancies between the actual areas and the desired areas.
If the rooms are both 50m² we get a fitness of:
Abs(50-40) + Abs(50-60) = 20
If room A equals 10m² and room B equals 90m², we get:
Abs(10-40) + Abs(90-60) = 60
If both rooms are exactly right, we get:
Abs(40-40) + Abs(60-60) = 0
So the point here is to minimize fitness, and once the fitness has reached zero we know we're home free.
But this is a very straightforward case. What if we're trying to optimize a problem, while knowing there's no way on Earth we'll be able to solve all constraints? This is after all what Evolutionary solvers are good at. So what if the problem is not as clear cut?
This time try to imagine we want every room to be 50m², but all the rooms are too small. Let's write down three cases like before:
(Room A = 30m², Room B = 40m²)
Abs(30 - 50) + Abs(40 - 50) = 30
(Room A = 35m², Room B = 35m²)
Abs(35 - 50) + Abs(35 - 50) = 30
(Room A = 25m², Room B = 45m²)
Abs(25 - 50) + Abs(45 - 50) = 30
Holy Crap! They're all the same! Well this is no good, it's like three bald men fighting over a comb. Even though all solutions fail to meet constraints, they certainly shouldn't all be equally fit. Let's assume for the time being we'd rather have both rooms fail to meet demands in equal amounts instead of one room being ok-ish and the other being way off. How can we add this assumption to the fitness function?
Basically we need to exaggerate large departures from the ideal and trivialize small departures. Our naive fitness function was linear, our new and improved fitness function must be non-linear. The simplest non-linear function is the parabola (x²). So let's see where that gets us.
Abs(30 - 50)² + Abs(40 - 50)² = 500
Abs(35 - 50)² + Abs(35 - 50)² = 450
Abs(25 - 50)² + Abs(45 - 50)² = 650
Phew... The case where both room fail to meet demands equally has the lowest value (and thus the highest fitness) whereas the most extreme discrepancy has the highest value (and thus the lowest fitness).
This approach is called Least Squares fitting and it's one of the most common fitting algorithms in statistics.
Whether you decide to weigh your competing factors equally or differently, and whether you decide to treat deviations linearly or non-linearly is entirely up to you. It requires you have a decent understanding of the problem at hand and also a decent understanding of the mathematical behaviour of the fitness function.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 6:16am on February 25, 2011