ceros. Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $4,000.00
Pagos diferidos $4,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
Martes y Jueves de 7 a 10 PM
Del 15 de Mayo al 14 de junio
DURACION: 30 HORAS
SESIONES: 10 DE 3 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
$4,000.00…
ese are some examples.
https://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/blog/?p=3983
https://mathematics.culturalspot.org/asset-viewer/10-000-circles-1/YgHExQHhZyL5_Q?exhibitId=QAJCFieRlsF8Lw
Thanks for the insight.
Shynn…
p;biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&tbnid=UQXK-STjeJrGhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/sinusoidal-facade&docid=XRgBzjBowOStWM&imgurl=http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2768634805?profile=original&w=1805&h=727&ei=itp3UbHLCvDs0gWy-oGQCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:80&iact=rc&dur=487&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=340&start=0&ndsp=28&tx=217&ty=36
But somehow, it doesn't seem to work when i do the same.. does anyone know why?
Regards, Rutger…
ot give any changes in which Grasshopper matches data. Is the reason for this because I am trying to match points with different number of branches? Take a look:
[img]http://imageshack.us/f/706/datamatching.jpg[/img] First list of points has following branches - A: {0;0;0;0;0;0;0} {0;0;0;0;0;1;0} {0;0;0;0;0;2;0} {0;0;0;0;0;3;0} and second list of points B: {0;0;0;0;0;0} {0;0;0;0;0;1} {0;0;0;0;0;2} What I want is to remove that last branch in list A: {0;0;0;0;0;3;0} I though I will succeed to do that, by using the Shortest list alhorythm, but as I said, nothing changes, when I switch from Longest list algorithm to Shortest list algorithm. Is the problem in different level of branches - A list has 6 subranches, and list B has 5? How can I solve this? Thank you for the help. P.S. I am apologizing for not being able to attach the files, and images. Something is wrong with my PC.…
vas
Closing and creating a new file (memory resets when this is done) @4:00, 5:57, 6:53
System slow down and crashes @ 8:16 (takes 5 minutes to end the process - perhaps not the most entertaining movie to watch until the end - a good point to turn the kettle on)…
kangaroo-benchmarking-1) several people tested the same code on their machines and reported the results. This test was with a Kangaroo script (timing only the computation, not Rhino or Grasshopper display), but I imagine the results would be pretty similar with other types of .net scripts.
The i7 processors (in particular the Devil's Canyon generation) performed significantly better than the Xeons, (though I don't think anyone testing was on a very recent Xeon, would be interesting to see how they compare).…
on that same PC or maybe even Dynamo. Or manual installation of 2.7.5 version. Once you installed either of these they somehow "interfered" with IronPython 2.7.0.
For some reason the strptime function you posted in your first post fails to work on IronPython 2.7.5. I do not know why is that so, I need to ask IronPython support.Still in case I get the answer: Gismo is at the moment targeted towards Rhino 5, and I won't be making it work on Rhino WIP until Rhino 6 is released. So it may be that I can not solve your issue, unless you either use a different PC, or uninstall Rhino WIP and Dynamo (I understand that this is highly unlikely).I deeply apologize for this kind of inconvenience.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 9:57am on February 7, 2017
pen Brep"; I didn't know it worked on flat surfaces. And I think it's only fair to include in your benchmark the considerable time 'SUnion' takes in this example: 21.9 seconds for 121 rings and likely much more with 400 or 1,000+ rings.
Then I noticed the pattern doesn't match. Checked the circles and they are the same. The distance between them, however, is different: 7 instead of 6. When I change that value to 6, the Python fails badly. All the holes and gaps are gone, which destroys the pattern:
I can't do the "two phase" approach on an 11 X 11 grid, but I can do 6 X 6 and 2 X 2 to get a 12 X 12 grid (40 'SUnion' operations) in 28 seconds total. That beats your benchmark of ~37 seconds for an 11 X 11 grid, if you include the 'SUnion' in your code.
…
triangulate my mesh faces thus i was getting 7 points per polygon. 7 outputs needed. It works with 7 outputs even if 3 of them are not being used.
Problem solved!
Thanks so much for your help!
…