cle
the 'Shape' is copied to all points
shapes are rotated randomly, plus or minus 'Angle' maximum
'Shape In Brep (ShapeIn)' is used to cull shapes that aren't within the circle
'Fast Loop' begins using 'MCX' (Multiple Curves Intersection)
first shape is added to 'D1' output and shapes intersecting it are culled
results minus first shape are passed to 'D0' of 'FastLoopEnd'
loop repeats until 'D0' list is empty
'D1' results are scaled down slightly (0.75) to leave more space around them
'Explode' results and return only the curved part, ignoring the base line that closes the shape
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:01pm on March 17, 2017
avid--this software is a pleasure to use, and David, you have done an amazing job. I also want to acknowledge it takes a lot of work to edit the software, and I understand that it can take a while before any changes are made.
Okay so here are some ideas:
Subcurve - just like subsurface, but based on 1-dimensional intervals
Map Values to Interval - a single component that could take a list of values, an interval, and would scale the list of values to match the input interval.
A Dispatch component that could dispatch according to a list of output indices. Instead of just True/False, you could output things based on a pattern using 0/1/2/3/4, etc. This component would be the inverse of Weave.
A text object parameter and data type, with some basic ways to edit it.
More string manipulation operations, allowing for easy editing with string subintervals, and character counts, and basic text formatting (line return, etc.).
I really really really wish the List Item component had a default index value of "0". That is what I input into it 80% of the time.
That's all for now. If any of these ideas are already adequately addressed, please let me know. Thanks.
…
ellation tool of GeomGym in Grasshopper.
The design looks for a new brick topology which is in the shape of two generative elements of Weaire-Phelan structure; dodecahedron and tetrakaidecahedron. An innovative approach is taken by applying varying types of solutions and details to the new brick elements.
There are other good examples and winners which are worth looking into. Our sheets can be downloaded from here.
All comments appreciated.
We would like to thank Jon Mirtschin and anyone who contributed to this tool.
Xue Ai and Serdar Aydin…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
at 0.85m above the floor.
I copy paste from the Appendix E:Rights to Light of the book "Paul Littlefair, Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, A good practice, BRE Press, p.60" which is the primary guide for evaluating the impact of new construction to the Rights to Light of the existing adjustment buildings:
"The accepted way of calculating the loss of light is to compute the sky factor at a series of points on the working plane. In dwellings, the working plane height is usually taken to be 0.85 m (two feet nine inches). The sky factor is the ratio of the illuminance directly received from a uniform sky at the point indoors, to the illuminance outdoors under an unobstructed hemisphere of this sky. No allowance is made for glass losses or light blocked by glazed bars and (usually) window frames; nor is reflected light included, either from interior surfaces or obstructions outside. Thus the sky factor is not the same as the CIE daylight factor (see Appendix C). The sky factor is often calculated using a Waldram diagram, but this is a different Waldram diagram to Figure B1 in Appendix B, which should not be used for this purpose."
Thought couldn't find the specific Waldram diagram for this case from the references, I assume contemporary analytical tools should exist to calculate it.
I used your Vertical Sky Component process and culled the mesh faces lower than 0.2% but I believe because of they type of the radiance analysis as you have explained it before (stochastic method) it doesn't create one continuous edge, as you can see in the attached image.
Thanks,
Dimitris…
button to generate such complicated and unruled geometry. Seriously, if you don't understand a geometry, how can you solve the structural needs and the bloody fabrication. Giant fast prototyping machines doesn't exist!
In a era where ressources and energy is getting scarce, I don't understand this trend of fancy no sence look like organic buildings. They just look organic in our human perception. Nature builds things with define physical and biochemicals rules, and this is why when they grow, they look like that. You should study Frei Otto publication from the 80's.. the IL publications. They were using physical models to generate physical structures that would be build in the physical world. Computers and softwares are dangerous as we distach from reality.
We put all this effort to generate these fancy forms, but no brain is put in structural optimization, energy efficiency (for instance in relation with the sun, or other natural elements)
IT technology goes faster than the time we have to reflect about it. (not talking about the technics).
As Frei Otto told me personally in our last discussion (talking about philosophy and architecture): " We have to define the OPEN QUESTIONS. Once these questions will be defined, you'll get answers".
I think we are getting to a question here: " How to use this technology to solve problems in Architecture?" Before that " What are the real problems in architecture?"
Maybe David should make a component for that? For instance, a button that could solve the loging and infrastructure problems for these millions of people living in the slums of Mumbai...
What about that Krish Raj?…
igner called Christophe Barreau.
http://www.christophe-barreau.fr/
We design sail catamarans from 40' to 80' and occasionally some other stuff.
One may know it's a quite uncertain activity so I find myself tacking upwind on other seas from time to time, such as product design and jewelry. I also have side projects with mates regarding hi-fi or RC planes.
As for "static" architecture I had a couple experiences working on large "complex" buildings. Sadly French architects are not very familiar with BIM, parametric or even precise 3d modeling so I've been hired to introduce GH in the workflow.
I'm an un-authorized rhino trainer, sorry to say, but I just love teaching and meeting new faces, although I'm not as devoted as Danny ;)
I've been using GH both for modeling and analysis for about three years now and I'll daresay I became pretty good at it... I'm not a geek at all but it's just so useful, and it's really worth it sometimes €€€!…
ke 20 samples per day, 50 days out of the year for 1000 samples) from each panel and calculate the % of occlusion. Allow that % to be the % "open" of each panel. Design the opening in each panel to be something cool and proportional. Profit.
You could even break it down by a finite number of available panel types(say 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% open) and create an efficient production. All of these things can be paramterized to allow for more samples or more panel types as needed or based on your calculation limits.
The only exception would be proper environmental analysis, say, if you were trying to reduce solar gain in summer and allow for it in winter. You would want to split this calculation between when you need to be gaining heat and where you want to be shading. Then extrapolate the percentage between the two. You may even need a gradient of heat gain through fall/spring. The possibilities depend on how much you know about the mechanical requirements of the area/building.
That would be my approach. If I have more time tonight I will try and put something together on this as its been something I'd like to have in my back pocket....
Edit: You would also need to analyze the angle of incidence as it could have an effect on the amount of solar gain.....…
pproach of estimating wind loads using design codes such as ASCE7-05.
B) Hiring a wind expert to construct a physical model and and calculate wind pressures measured directly from a wind tunnel test.
A) will allow you to derive a site specific wind design pressure based on the height of the building, surface roughness, site location etc. Typically you then multiply this pressure by an appropriate co-efficent in the code for a given building shape.
The other atypical method it to use numerical approaches such as CFD. This approach is not yet accepted due to nuances such as of surface roughness.
Building deflection is again subjective. Doing a modal analysis and getting an idea of the frequency is better. You can increase the frequency by playing about with the building stiffness.
You need to modify the stiffness of the building to get the deflection down. i.e. play about with geometry, add extra members with stiffness, reduce weight, use material with higher elastic modulus etc
If you are getting a 7m deflection for a 400m building then I can right away that is way too soft. That is equivalent to 400m/7m or H/57. You want to be at least H/500 to H/1000 so aim for 80 to 40 mm.
Your wind load seems reasonable at 87 psf for that height of building
…