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…
it within the same smart umbrella? Or put it differently: is it worthy to exploit/consider/evaluate GH methods and development orientations that could "approximate" Utopia?
Let's split the case into segments:
The parametric part thing (although critical) is complex and rather beyond the scope of GH. Affects Rhino far more than GH. That said Microstation has 3 levels for doing this (but forget Microstation and/or Gen Comp).
So for a start we can focus in GH acting as a "composer" in 3D place of all the required (hopefully real) parts for the job. Parts must be nested AND readable as such by an external AEC app.
I'll post here (soon I do hope) all the parts that are required for assembling this. I mean individual static "blocks" that we assume (wrongly) that remain static: I mean we presuppose that the whole GH geometry is fixed (thus this is really a smart sketch of some sort) and no further changes are on schedule (that MAY affect parts).
That said I prefer an incomplete Utopia (one thing that "does" it all, or it thinks that does it) than a myriad of individual apps that take input one from the other and promise the Holly Grail (and/or delivering it). The core reason that I use Microstation as my basic platform is exactly that (obviously with a certain price to pay: bugs, shortcomings, wrong concepts in places etc etc etc).
Best, Peter
…
error:
Command: GrasshopperAn error occured during GHA assembly loading: Path: C:\Users\NYCCTfab\AppData\Roaming\Grasshopper\Libraries\Firefly_Build 1.0067\Firefly Installation\Firefly_X.gha Exception System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Message: Could not load file or assembly 'C_sawapan_media, Version=1.0.4590.16200, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.
The file C_sawapan_media.dll is present in the same Components folder as the other *.dll and *.gha files, and all files have been Unblocked (a Rhino 5 issue).
I'm using Grasshopper 0.9.0014 and Rhino 5.0 64bit (5.1.20927.2215, 09/27/2012) on Windows 7 Pro SP1 64bit.
Please advise and thank you for your time.
Best,
Brian…
Added by Brian Ringley at 12:43pm on January 28, 2013
and Grasshopper installed, or Rhino 6. 2-Install GHPython from here (Rhino 5 only). 3-Select and drag all the userObjects (downloaded here) onto your Grasshopper canvas. 4-Restart Rhino Grasshopper.
Check out our example files to get yourself familiar with typical SkinDesigner workflows. Also SkinDesigner Tutorials will be posted in this YouTube playlist as they become available.
You should also feel free to post any questions, feature requests, or bug reports to the SkinDesigner Grasshopper Group as discussions. Finally, SkinDesigner is an open source project and all of the project’s source code is visible on SkinDesigner’s Github site as well as within the Grasshopper components (by double-clicking on them).
…
You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017
UI - obvious if you recall who's developing MODO):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Fd2jOgus4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYwpyZNJcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK3Q9BQSK4w
A small "bit" coming directly from the US movie industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syZdi08_Sco&list=PLIHQjWXPloi_Q...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPj_Ey2IT9E
2. Trad AEC BIM apps (AECOSim - my favorite, Revit - no thanks, Allplan - no thanks) use RPC cells for similar tasks (an RPC cell is in fact a "DataTree" of images). In the past I did several figure animations (I'm not doing this any more: boring to the max):
http://help.archvision.com/products/bentley-microstation/getting-st...
3. Maya of course does everything (it's a unique amalgam of mesh and nurbs tools), but is totally unsuitable for AEC work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVViMQHjjMw
So, assuming that you are in the AEC bandwagon, your options are:
a. AECOSim as the total "umbrella" for AEC matters.
b. MODO as the most innovative app out there.
c. Quest3D as the best VR app out there.…
ut of low to mid-range 11.6" Windows 8 touchscreen laptops. I currently use an Asus Vivobook at home, which I occasionally use for Rhino (mainly testing GH defs and writing Python components). It performs better than I would have expected and using the touchscreen for navigating 3D space works surprisingly well!…
s for some solution "as it is" no matter the cost? (that's an extra stupid approach, very old fashioned). Do you use EvoluteTools Pro and/or Kangaroo for "optimization" ?
2. What is the FEA/FIM stuff in use? Do you expect "from/back" interactions? (If this is not doable ... increase this or that etc etc).
3. Do you validate real-life components with FEA/FIM? By what means you design these components? - present and/or future (inside Rhino?). This makes things "interesting" in a variety of ways (we need to extensively talk about that - Skype). The problem is that Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modeling app and thus ... a "certain" bottleneck arrives in no time: In the CATIA world you design ("MANUALLY") a parametric history driven component that "complies" to his parent "directives" (say: the Topology) and/or "imposes" his rules to his parent. This is what we call top<>bottom design approach (would become a standard across the AEC industry pretty soon: in around 123 years give or take some). This is far and beyond from what Rhino can do - but we DO make real-life things don't we?
4. Are all these things under a BIM umbrella ? What BIM? What type of details (blue prints) you deliver? (or you just make the thing?).
5. By what means cost is restricting/encouraging the solution? By what means you get feedback from component(s) cost that is outsourced? (i.e. outside your company). Do you monitor all things via some RDBMS? (that's Data Base).
6. What are the long term plans for dealing with such solutions? Using what apps (even in theory for the moment).…
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…
this, you'll have no horizontal force at the roller, but you will have it at the pinned support. If you wouldn't, then the structure will be displaced.
Usually, in 2 dimensional structures, if you want to know if an articulated structure is isostatic (as opposed to hyperstatic, which is what you have right now) is to use the following formula:
b+c-2·n=0;
b being the number of bars, c the number of constraints you have and n the number of nodes. In your case: b=19, c=3 (displacements constrained in X, Z at your pinned support and only constrained in Z at your roller support) and n=11, so: 19+3-2·11=0.
I recommend you to download the app SW Truss, as it's very useful to check your results instantly.…