inner As Curve() = section.ToNurbsCurve().Offset(normal, pc, -plate, 1e-3, 1e-4, Rhino.Geometry.CurveOffsetCornerStyle.Sharp)
the error message is:
"
{0}0. Error: Het oplossen van de overbelasting is mislukt omdat dit aantal argumenten door geen enkele toegankelijke Offset wordt geaccepteerd. (line 104)
"
this is the VBA script:
"Option Strict OffOption Explicit On'Import SDK and Framework namespacesImports RhinoImports Rhino.GeometryImports Rhino.CollectionsImports GrasshopperImports Grasshopper.KernelImports Grasshopper.Kernel.DataImports Grasshopper.Kernel.TypesImports GH_IOImports GH_IO.SerializationImports SystemImports System.IOImports System.XmlImports System.DataImports System.DrawingImports System.ReflectionImports System.CollectionsImports System.Windows.FormsImports Microsoft.VisualBasicImports System.Collections.GenericImports System.Runtime.InteropServices'Code generated by Grasshopper(R) (except for RunScript() content and Additional content)'Copyright (C) 2011 - Robert McNeel & Associates<System.Runtime.CompilerServices.CompilerGenerated()> _Public Class Script_Instance Implements IGH_ScriptInstance#Region "Members" ''' <summary>List of error messages. Do not modify this list directly.</summary> Private __err As New List(Of String) ''' <summary>List of print messages. Do not modify this list directly, use the Print() and Reflect() functions instead.</summary> Private __out As New List(Of String) ''' <summary>Represents the current Rhino document.</summary> Private doc As RhinoDoc = RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc ''' <summary>Represents the Script component which maintains this script.</summary> Public owner As Grasshopper.Kernel.IGH_ActiveObject#End Region#Region "Utility functions" ''' <summary>Print a String to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component.</summary> ''' <param name="text">String to print.</param> Private Sub Print(ByVal text As String) __out.Add(text) End Sub ''' <summary>Print a formatted String to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component.</summary> ''' <param name="format">String format.</param> ''' <param name="args">Formatting parameters.</param> Private Sub Print(ByVal format As String, ByVal ParamArray args As Object()) __out.Add(String.Format(format, args)) End Sub ''' <summary>Print useful information about an object instance to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component. </summary> ''' <param name="obj">Object instance to parse.</param> Private Sub Reflect(ByVal obj As Object) __out.Add(GH_ScriptComponentUtilities.ReflectType_VB(obj)) End Sub ''' <summary>Print the signatures of all the overloads of a specific method to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component. </summary> ''' <param name="obj">Object instance to parse.</param> Private Sub Reflect(ByVal obj As Object, ByVal method_name As String) __out.Add(GH_ScriptComponentUtilities.ReflectType_VB(obj, method_name)) End Sub#End Region ''' <summary> ''' This procedure contains the user code. Input parameters are provided as ByVal arguments, ''' Output parameter are ByRef arguments. You don't have to assign output parameters, ''' they will be null by default. ''' </summary> Private Sub RunScript(ByVal p0 As Point3d, ByVal p1 As Point3d, ByVal p2 As Point3d, ByVal pc As Point3d, ByVal plate As Double, ByVal itt As Integer, ByVal dev As Double, ByRef crvout As Object, ByRef crvin As Object, ByRef sec As Object, ByRef opp As Object, ByRef div As Object, ByRef pt4 As Object) 'your code goes here… opp = "test01" Dim section As New Polyline(5) section.Add(p0) section.Add(p1) section.Add(p2) section.Add(pc) section.Add(p0) Dim normal As Vector3d = vector3d.CrossProduct((p1 - p0), (p2 - p0)) Dim area As Double Dim chicken_int As Int32 = 0 Dim XX As Double Dim YY As Double Do chicken_int += 1 If (chicken_int > itt) Then Exit Do 'Compute the section offset Dim inner As Curve() = section.ToNurbsCurve().Offset(normal, pc, -plate, 1e-3, 1e-4, Rhino.Geometry.CurveOffsetCornerStyle.Sharp) Dim edges As New CurveList(inner) edges.Add(section.ToNurbsCurve()) crvin = edges Dim sections As Brep() = Brep.CreatePlanarBreps(edges) If (sections Is Nothing) Then Exit Do opp = "test02" 'Compute the centroid of the current section Dim am As AreaMassProperties = AreaMassProperties.Compute(sections(0)) Dim ct As Point3d = am.Centroid XX = am.CentroidCoordinatesMomentsOfInertia.X YY = am.CentroidCoordinatesMomentsOfInertia.Y area = am.Area Dim dx As Vector3d = pc - ct 'Compute the error of the current centroid Dim dl As Double = dx.Length div = dl 'Update output values crvout = section crvin = inner sec = sections(0) opp = area If (dl < dev) Then Exit Do 'Adjust outline with a boosting factor. section(3) += dx * 4 Loop pt4 = section(3) crvout = section End Sub '<Custom additional code> '</Custom additional code> End Class
"…
sophy though, I have a rudimentary grasp of the Ancient Greeks and modern schools of thought such as Existentialism and Pragmatism, but there is certainly no depth in my understanding. However here the same rule applies. You can quote philosophy all you want, but unless you understand that which you're channelling you can be -at best- accidentally correct.
According to you, these are all vital characteristics:
Aesthetic judgement
Intuition about spatial effectiveness
Knowledge of construction materials & assembly systems
Consideration of performance-driven design properties
Mad synthesizing skillz
[1] and [2] are pretty much worthless, especially when we're dealing with students. Aesthetic judgement is not something that can be wrong or right. You can hone your aesthetic skills but you cannot cultivate better tastes. Intuition is also problematic. It's basically a stand-in for argumentation. Instead of saying "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of wind/sound/human perception/human psychology/light/shadow/etc. etc" is a far stronger statement than "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of my feelings". Who are you to be trusted? If you have a long and distinguished career backing you up, maybe your opinions carry some weight, but until that point you'd better be prepared to justify your decisions with cold hard logic and data.
[3] is certainly important for certain jobs in construction, but it can be argued that implementation details are not necessarily central to a design. One can design a good computer interface without having to be able to program, and certainly without being familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of a particular programming language. Conversely, one can design an excellent space without knowing exactly how strong certain atomic bonds are. If what you design is physically impossible, then obviously something has to change, but it doesn't mean that the design as an abstract idea was bad. Of course on the other hand one can argue that designing impossible things is not doing anyone any favours. I'm not exactly certain where I stand on this issue, probably comfortably in the middle; YES, students need to learn about what can be build in the physical world, but NO that is not part of design training.
I'm not quite sure what [4] means.
[5] is true for a lot of professions, not just Architects. I would concede that architects probably have more to take into account than most designers and that it is indeed an important skill to have.
I would say that -especially for students, who have little experience- an incredibly important skill to be able to ask yourself "why am I doing this?" about pretty much every decision you make. Basically you need to get very comfortable applying the Socratic method to everything you do.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 11:03am on August 14, 2013
ctor. I do not dispose of any IGH_Goo instances, mostly because I have no idea when an instance is truly no longer needed. If any of your fields need to be disposed, you may have to implement a destructor, but I have no experience with this.
2) should I pass those classes to other parameters by DA(0, MotherClass.Duplicate?) or it is already there by GH_Goo ?
IGH_Goo is not duplicated by default. If you use DA.GetData() and ask for IGH_Goo types, you'll get a reference to the same instance as exists. Thus, if you take in an instance of your type, modify and output it, you should duplicate it yourself. But you only need to do this if you change the state of an instance.
MyGooType data = null;
if (!DA.GetData(0, ref data)) return;
data = data.Duplicate() as MyGooType;
data.Property = newValue;
DA.SetData(0, data);
3) should I create ChildClass and MotherClass in SolveInstance, or create it once as a component's field and then change theirs properties and pass it to DA (as duplicate ?)....
It's almost always better to use variables with the lowest possible scope. So method variables are preferred to class variables, class variables are preferred to static variables.
4) if I create those classes in SolveInstance, is it necessary to Dispose them there ?
NO! Do not dispose of instances that are passed on to output parameters. Disposing objects typically makes them invalid, so if you share instances with anyone else, you should not dispose them or the other code may well crash. However I don't think your types need to be disposable so this is a moot point now.
In general, if you're dealing with disposable types, and the instances aren't shared, then you dispose them as quickly as possible. But if they are shared it's a lot more complicated.
5) finally - maybe it would be better if MotherClass inherits the ChildClass ?
Maybe. Not necessarily. Depends on the classes. …
Added by David Rutten at 12:08pm on December 31, 2014
e point in each pair that has the lowest Z value (then later the highest Z)... The problem is the intersections are not returned sorted by Z, sometimes the lower point is first in the list, sometimes last. So I need to sort those pairs of points by Z value.I noticed the sort points component does not have any inputs for sort criteria... RhinoScript SortPoints allows you to sort by:
blnOrder
Optional. Number. The component sort order, where:
Value
Component Sort Order
0 (default)
X, Y, Z
1
X, Z, Y
2
Y, X, Z
3
Y, Z, X
4
Z, X, Y
5
Z, Y, X
Will we get something like this in GH? For now I think I can manage to analyze the Z for each and re-order the points, but a more comprehensive point sorting tool might be nice... no? Or did I miss something obvious? --Thx, --Mitch…
case for sure (started by Giorgio a couple of days before). Ive got involved because I exploit ways to "relax" shapes on nurbs (say patterns created by Lunchbox or "manually) without using any kind of mesh (more explanations soon).
Here's 5 test cases (SDK appears that doesn't have some "thicken surface" thing ... thus the algo that finds the "whole" shapes is rather naive) VS 2 Kangaroo "methods" and the why bother (he he) option as well.
If the goal is to "fit" these shapes within the nurbs ... does it work so far? No I'm afraid (appears that "springs" used are not the proper ones - or [Kangaroo1 option] the lines that pull should been originated from valance 2 points only)
Tricky points:
1. Internalize appears having a variety of serious issues (see Input inside definition) - Load Rhino file first (but even so ...).
2. Pull to surface is deactivated - this is not the issue here (and it's very slow).
3. Since Starling/WB alter the "curves - points" related order
the issue here (Pull points to curves) is to correspond apples to apples:
and that's what Anemone does:
From chaos :
to order:
this means that prior activating Kangaroo you should double click to the Anemone start component in order to "sort" properly the curves.
But .. fact is that results are pathetic:
more soon
best, Peter…
option, after downloading check if .ghuser files are blocked (right click -> "Properties" and select "Unblock"). Then paste them in File->Special Folders->User Object Folder. You can download the example files from here. They act in similar way, Ladybug Photovoltaics components do: we pick a surface, and get an answer to a question: "How much thermal energy, for a certain number of persons can my roof, building facade... generate if I would populate them with Solar Water Heating collectors"? This information can then be used to cover domestic hot water, space heating or space cooling loads:
Components enable setting specific details of the system, or using simplified ones. They cover analysis of domestic hot water load, final performance of the SWH system, its embodied energy, energy value, consumption, emissions... And finding optimal system and storage size. By Dr. Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic, with invaluable support of Dr. Willian Beckman, Dr. Jason M. Keith, Jeff Maguire, Nicolas DiOrio, Niraj Palsule, Sargon George Ishaya and Craig Christensen. Hope you will enjoy using the components! References: 1) Calculation of delivered energy: Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, John Wiley and Sons, J. Duffie, W. Beckman, 4th ed., 2013. Technical Manual for the SAM Solar Water Heating Model, NREL, N. DiOrio, C. Christensen, J. Burch, A. Dobos, 2014. A simplified method for optimal design of solar water heating systems based on life-cycle energy analysis, Renewable Energy journal, Yan, Wang, Ma, Shi, Vol 74, Feb 2015
2) Domestic hot water load: Modeling patterns of hot water use in households, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Lutz, Liu, McMahon, Dunham, Shown, McGrue; Nov 1996. ASHRAE 2003 Applications Handbook (SI), Chapter 49, Service water heating
3) Mains water temperature Residential alternative calculation method reference manual, California energy commission, June 2013. Development of an Energy Savings Benchmark for All Residential End-Uses, NREL, August 2004. Solar water heating project analysis chapter, Minister of Natural Resources Canada, 2004.
4) Pipe diameters and pump power: Planning & Installing Solar Thermal Systems, Earthscan, 2nd edition
5) Sun postion and POA irradiance, the same as for Ladybug Photovoltaics (Michalsky (1988), diffuse irradiance by Perez (1990), ground reflected irradiance by Liu, Jordan (1963))
6) Optimal system and storage tank size: A simplified method for optimal design of solar water heating systems based on life-cycle energy analysis, Renewable Energy journal, Yan, Wang, Ma, Shi, Vol 74, Feb 2015.…
h tubes are redundant so surfaces overlap instead of interpenetrate, so it is not a good system.
Cocoon is the best answer these days unless you can get Exowire/Exoskelton to work. If you want more control over shape, feed your uncapped tubes into Cocoon as meta-surfaces and delete any and all of the inner meshes to just keep the outer single closed one, but this is just duplicate-culled lines used as meta-lines:
Turn down the CS input to 0.005 for this result, from 0.02 used for faster preview. In fact bake the lines and only test Cocoon on a few of them in order to get the result you want before doing the whole thing.
Whole thing at 0.005 cell size takes 5 minutes for Cocoon and 2 minutes for refinement to a smooth and even mesh.
Actually, seems like 0.005 is way too fine, giving a 600MB STL file.
So, 0.01 cell size at less than a minute total:
159MB STL which is still a bit too big for places like Shapeways. Wow. OK then 0.02 cell size, but I have to increase diameter or my two smoothing steps in refine collapse things too much, an in fact I set it to no smoothing, getting more volume and a reasonable 46MB STL file:
Alas, now it's more frail and overly organic rather than mechanical. Increasing diameter just merges it into perforated plates too much. File size is simply an issue with this complexity level, so different 3D printing services will have different file size limits.
Exowire/Exoskeleton would work but your original mesh hasn't been MeshMachine remeshed to be regular, so short segments ruin it. Here is just a corner:
I think that's why more wires fails, at least. Pretty temperamental component.
Switching to MeshMachine is needed, I guess, instead of Cocoon refine, to remesh away so many small triangles along the boring tubes. Crucial for good remeshing was to set Flip to 0 or I failed to get a rough enough mesh.
It's an adaptive mesh so I can retain good detail while roughing out the tubes.
MeshMachine is terribly slow for this whole thing, like 6 minutes, and blows up for this overly rough setting, 20 steps, so less rough, ugh, I'm out of time. I think free Autocad Meshmixer is the way to make a better smaller mesh, after a refined output from Cocoon. MeshMachine is just too slow to tweak and when it blows up, creating massive triangles jutting out, it hangs too when you change settings.
Starting with a Cocoon refined mesh certainly helped Meshmixer. Using triangle budget lets me have full control. Here is 150K triangles instead of 200K:
STL file size down to 40MB. I think Shapeways is 70 or 100MB limit? So it can be even finer. Here is the Cocoon output versus the Meshmixer reduction:
To use Meshmixer, turn on View > Show Wireframe, Command-S to select all and use Edit > Reduce from the palette that appears.
Cocoon can end up making a few inner meshes where things get weird in your uneven original mesh with small holes so fish out the main mesh by adding a List Item node.
The best strategy for Cocoon is indeed to make an overly fine STL so you avoid any need to tweak forever in Grasshopper, but then you can achieve a smaller mesh file size while preserving shape instead of things turning all smearly organic in Grasshopper.…
l coarse mesh
Subdividing this mesh into strips of thin quads
Relaxing/Planarizing this mesh
Splitting and Unrolling
In this post I deal with the first 2 of these stages.
You can download the example definition here:
developable_strips_tutorial.gh
Drawing the initial mesh
To begin with we need a simple quad mesh. This can be modelled manually in Rhino, and only needs to use enough quads to give the topology and very rough form. No need to worry too much about the exact geometry or dimensions at this point, as we will refine and alter it as we go.
One very important thing that we do need to bear in mind though is that all internal vertices must have even valence (I covered this a bit in the earlier post here).
So for example, this is bad:
(because the highlighted vertex is surrounded by 5 faces)
While this is good (and can still be relaxed to the same shape):
(the top and bottom vertices have valence 8, and the vertices between the arms have valence 4)
With a little practice it should be possible to convert any mesh into one that meets this condition.
The reasons why we need this condition should become more clear in the later steps.
First subdivision
This is where we choose how many strips we want our final model to have, by applying a few rounds of subdivision using the Refine component (you could also use Weaverbird here):
Sorting the face directions
While quad meshes do not carry the same information about u/v directions as a NURBS surface, the individual faces do have a sort of direction given by their vertex ordering. However, these face directions are usually not consistently arranged, especially after subdivision.
The Kangaroo MeshDirection component attempts* to orient all the faces in a mesh so that they match with their neighbours.
For example, before sorting, if we draw a line from the midpoint of the first edge of each face to the midpt of its opposite edge, we might get something like this:
Whereas after sorting, we should get something like this:
*note that I say it attempts to orient the faces consistently. In some cases no valid solution exists, for instance if 3 or 5 faces meet around a vertex, hence the requirement mentioned at the start for even valence vertices.
Directional Subdivision
Now that we have consistent face directions across the mesh, we can apply further subdivision, but this time in one direction only. So we go from roughly square quads to thin rectangles. The idea is that as we apply higher levels of this directional subdivision, the final relaxed result goes towards something semi-discrete. A NURBS surface is fully continuous, and a mesh is fully discrete (made up of separate facets), while this strip model will be smooth in one direction and faceted in the other.
Go to part 2 for the next step of the process
…