s before here: http://spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/pseudo-physical-materials/)
If we want to design repetitive structures, we might want to be able to assign periodic boundary conditions to some structure to enforce translation symmetry. For instance, a long row of connected arches or vaults, which we want to be identical for ease of fabrication.
We could simulate this by adding many identical vaults in a row, and as we added more, the ones near the middle would get closer and closer to being identical. But they would never quite reach the point of being truly identical, even as we added hundreds of copies, and this would be very inefficient for large simulations:
One way around this is to take some points on one side of our structure, and lock them to some points on the other side of the structure using the new TranslationLock component:As far as the physics engine is concerned, each pair of points linked in this way is then actually just one point. It is as though the space itself has been wrapped around to join one side with the other.
Anyone who has played the game Portal will be familiar with a version of this concept (or for the older ones among you - asteroids).
Translation locks can be applied in any direction, and combined with any of the other forces. However, a few things to bear in mind:
-Be careful not to double up forces unintentionally. For instance, if you are adding a gravity load to the nodes of a catenary arch, and you want an equal load on every point, add only half the load to the locked particles, because when joined together these get combined (or equivalently you could add the full load to just one particle of the pair).
Similarly for springs - if you are smoothing a periodic tensile mesh using springs, be careful not to add the forces of the boundary springs twice.
-If you are using this for structural form-finding, remember that space we inhabit in the real world doesn't have these periodic boundary conditions (at least not on everyday scales!), so when you build it you will need to provide appropriate balancing forces at the ends.
-For forces which act on more than 2 particles, such as bending or Laplacian smoothing, you need to lock an appropriate number of particles on one side to those on the other side. Sometimes this may require adding 'ghost vertices'.
For example, here we model a periodic elastica curve:
This is achieved by applying a translation lock to the pairs shown by the red and blue arrows.
(note that the particle at the end of the blue arrow is 1 segment beyond the end of the curve)
One possible use of this tool would be the form-finding of periodic minimal surfaces (following the example of the great Surface Evolver by Ken Brakke). His site has many more great examples of these:
Generating these surfaces in a way that they remain minimal across the boundary would be very difficult without this periodic constraint.
Perhaps more interesting from a design perspective is the possibility to move beyond pure mathematical surfaces, and generate more free-form repeating units, but still preserving continuity across the boundaries, something like the work of Erwin Hauer:
…
GH, same as using sweep2 command in Rhino.
The one on the right is what I got so far (the output smooth our the kink of the original rails). Basically I am just following the methods provided by sdk sample: http://wiki.mcneel.com/developer/sdksamples/sweep2 .
The following is the function I copy and use directly from the SDK sample. By using this function, I can generate the sweep surface at right. But I want to have is the one in the middle with the kink edges. Can anyone show me how and where to modify he settings? I guess some sweep arguments need to be changed? I have try couples, such m_simplify, m_bSimpleSweep, m_bSameHeight, m_rebuild_count... but still cannot find a right combination for this function to output the sweep surface I want. Any suggestions or helps are very appreciated. Thanks for your help and time on this.
'Sweep2 function'----------------
Sub Sweep2( ByVal Rail1 As IOnCurve, _
ByVal Rail2 As IOnCurve, _
ByVal sCurves As List(Of IOnCurve), _
ByRef Sweep2_Breps As List(Of OnBrep))
'Define a new class that contains sweep2 arguments
Dim args As New MArgsRhinoSweep2
'Set the 2 rails
Dim Edge1 As New MRhinoPolyEdge
Dim Edge2 As New MRhinoPolyEdge
Edge1.Append(Rail1.DuplicateCurve())
Edge2.Append(Rail2.DuplicateCurve())
'Add rails to sweep arguments
args.m_rail_curves(0) = Edge1
args.m_rail_curves(1) = Edge2
args.m_bClosed = False
Dim section_curves As New List(Of OnCurve)
'Loop through sections to set parameters
For Each Section As IOnCurve In sCurves
Dim sCurve As OnCurve = Section.DuplicateCurve()
section_curves.Add(sCurve)
Dim t0 As Double = 0
If Not Edge1.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtStart(), t0) Then
If Not Edge1.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtEnd(), t0) Then
Dim s As Double = 0
sCurve.GetNormalizedArcLengthPoint(0.5, s)
Edge1.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAt(s), t0)
End If
End If
args.m_rail_params(0).Append(t0)
Dim t1 As Double = 0
If Not Edge2.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtStart(), t1) Then
If Not Edge2.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtEnd(), t1) Then
Dim s As Double = 0
sCurve.GetNormalizedArcLengthPoint(0.5, s)
Edge2.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAt(s), t1)
End If
End If
args.m_rail_params(1).Append(t1)
Next
'Set shapes
args.m_shape_curves = section_curves.ToArray
'Set the rest of parameters
args.m_simplify = 0
args.m_bSimpleSweep = False
args.m_bSameHeight = False
args.m_rebuild_count = -1 'Sample point count for rebuilding shapes
args.m_refit_tolerance = RMA.Rhino.RhUtil.RhinoApp.ActiveDoc.AbsoluteTolerance()
args.m_sweep_tolerance = RMA.Rhino.RhUtil.RhinoApp.ActiveDoc.AbsoluteTolerance()
args.m_angle_tolerance = RMA.Rhino.RhUtil.RhinoApp.ActiveDoc.AngleToleranceRadians()
Dim sBreps() As OnBrep = Nothing
If (RhUtil.RhinoSweep2(args, sBreps)) Then
For Each b As OnBrep In sBreps
Sweep2_Breps.Add(b)
Next
End If
Return
End Sub
…
looked at autodesk simulation cfd 2015 and was optimistic because it had an export plugin from revit, which i use anyway for material takeoffs and etc, but found that it did not take solar radiation into account. This was a downer because I have heard that solar radiation could effect indoor airflow - convection - as much as 50 percent at a time.
Then I searched again and found that Hyperworks, a software by altair technology can be coupled with a radiation software. So I went through the trouble of obtaining an educational license of Hyperworks. However, though some email exchange I have found that the coupling is a one-way. The radiation analysis software was used, I think, for understanding the solar loading for a SOM project called church of light.
The support guy said : "Unfortunately our coupling with Hyperworks is really a one way coupling. We can accept H coefficients from their software in RadTherm, but they will not read in our wall temps. That said, it still can be a useful coupling in the sense that you can run the analysis in Hyperworks, send H coefficients to RadTherm, and run the analysis to better understand radiation and conduction. Most importantly, that analysis can be done for longer transient analysis, but will require much less compute time and resources."
Not only did I not understand what he means by the H coefficients, my wanting to get a CFD understanding coupled with solar radiation was again, unsatisfied. In the mean while I had to finish a presentation so I haven't had the time to try to get some result on the natural ventilation. I would probably need to look into how their solutions work before I can understand if their software would "do the job"
Thank you for letting me know about your work on this. I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed, but it does not show up in grasshopper.
You pointed out that "The component (and the corresponding equation) is mostly meant for cases where you have zones with windows that are NOT connected by an air wall (or a larger airflow network)." I wondered if you are suggesting it would be a code violation for zones to be connected by an air wall for fire safety reasons. It would be a violation I guess, like not putting an fiber insulation or some kind of smoke stop between Spandrel panels and the edge of a floor plate would be a code violation for a typical office building.
There is a project by kevin daly architects where you can see a section drawing with what seems like a cfd analysis (could be an illustration)
it was my initial visualization/simulation goals were for a facade design I am working on
1) an average air velocity across a zone at noon, for example, if a passive design strategy like this was used. for this I am guessing cfd is not entirely necessary. probably means that it could be used earlier in a design process, too. This would be more about user comfort.
2) at a later phase, like in detailing facade components, if airflow is indeed as expected for a zone that is connected to an air wall / chimney like feature (and to see if there is a proper mixing of air)
3) and a projection of energy savings, of course.
After seeing a video of simulation cfd I was optimistic, but like I said sim cfd does not take account of solar loading. I think I would probably go ahead start with one zone with sim cfd first, try three zones stacked on top of each other, then try hyperworks and try to factor in solar radiation.
For analyzing multiple zones on different levels, being able to add a chimney would be especially useful, I think. Having said that, I don't have a lot of experience of using honeybee except for the daylight component so it would take some time for me to understand the components.
I hope some of the information here is useful for you. after all, both sim cfd and hyperworks are commercial softwares and somewhat different than the e plus project you are working on, I guess but still trying to address a similar problem.
so.. in cased you missed it I was asking I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed and placed in the user object foler, but it does not show up in grasshopper. what could be the reason?
…
into curves, and so I would like to use within Grasshopper.
I would really appreciate if anyone well versed in RhinoScript/VB.Net Syntax would be kind enough to help out.
Thank you for reading this.
' ConvertTextToGeometry.rvb -- September 2008
' If this code works, it was written by Dale Fugier.
' If not, I don't know who wrote it. ' Works with Rhino 4.0.
Option Explicit
Sub ConvertTextToGeometry
' Declare local variables
Dim obj_list, obj, saved_plane, cmd
Dim font, height, plane, style, text, bold, italic
' Select annotation objects
obj_list = Rhino.GetObjects("Select text to convert to geometry", 512, True, True)
If Not IsArray(obj_list) Then Exit Sub
' For speed, turn of screen redrawing
Call Rhino.EnableRedraw(False)
' Save the current construction plane
saved_plane = Rhino.ViewCPlane()
' Process each selected object
For Each obj In obj_list
' Weed out just the text objects
If Rhino.IsText(obj) Then
' Acquire the text parameters
font = "<single_stroke_font_name>"
height = Rhino.TextObjectHeight(obj)
plane = Rhino.TextObjectPlane(obj)
style = Rhino.TextObjectStyle(obj)
text = Rhino.TextObjectText(obj)
If (style And 1) Then
bold = "_Yes"
Else
bold = "_No"
End If
If (style And 2) Then
italic = "_Yes"
Else
italic = "_No"
End If
' Set the current construction plane
Call Rhino.ViewCPlane(, plane)
' Add a new text object (geometry)
cmd = "_-TextObject "
cmd = cmd & "_GroupOutput=_Yes "
cmd = cmd & "_FontName=" & font & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Italic=" & italic & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Bold=" & bold & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Height=" & CStr(height) & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Output=_Curves "
cmd = cmd & "_AllowOpenCurves=_Yes "
cmd = cmd & Chr(34) & text & Chr(34) & " "
cmd = cmd & "0"
Call Rhino.Command(cmd, 0)
' Delete the original object
Call Rhino.DeleteObject(obj)
End If
Next
' Restore the saved construction plane
Call Rhino.ViewCPlane(, saved_plane)
' Enable screen redrawing
Call Rhino.EnableRedraw(True)
End Sub
…
lowing error:
Has anyone encountered this error before or know what I might have done incorrectly?
The error is thrown 6 times (once for every input and output param registered?), and then Grasshopper works normally. The plugin is shown as available in the toolbox, but can't be used without throwing the above error.
Any ideas on how to fix it?
At the moment my code is the following:
using System; using System.Drawing; using Grasshopper.Kernel; using Rhino.Geometry; namespace GridShellGrasshopperPlugin { public class GridShellComponent : GH_Component { public GridShellComponent() : base("Grid Shell", "gridShell", "Applies a grid shell to a surface", "Surface", "Util"){} protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) { Surface refSurf = default(Surface); if(!DA.GetData(0, ref refSurf)) return; Point3d start = default(Point3d); if(!DA.GetData(1, ref start)) return; Point3d end = default(Point3d); if(!DA.GetData(2, ref end)) return; DA.SetData(0, null); DA.SetData(1, 33.0); DA.SetData(2, null); } protected override void RegisterOutputParams(GH_OutputParamManager pManager) { pManager.Register_LineParam("Curve On Surface", "GeoCurve", "Curve on surface between two points"); pManager.Register_DoubleParam("Line length", "length", "Length of line on surface"); pManager.Register_GenericParam("Intersection points", "points", "Points of intersection"); } protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_InputParamManager pManager) { pManager.Register_SurfaceParam("Reference Surface", "refSurf", "Reference surface on which to form the grid shell", GH_ParamAccess.item); pManager.Register_PointParam("Start point", "startPoint", "Start point of the first line"); pManager.Register_PointParam("End point", "endPoint", "End point of the line"); } public override void CreateAttributes() { } public override Guid ComponentGuid { get { return new Guid("11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111"); } } protected override Bitmap Icon { get { return base.Icon; } } } }
I'm using Rhino 4.0 SR9, dated 9th March 2011, and Grasshopper 0.8.0013, dated 5th July 2011.…
and networking about the emerging practice of digital parametrics within the AEC community.The event will come in three parts, a Workshop (28th-31st March), a public Shop Talk (1 April), and a public Symposium andReception (2 April). These events follow the highly successful previous SG events in Barcelona 2010, San Francisco 2009, Munich 2008, New York 2007, Cambridge/London, UK 2006 and multiple preceding events.
Click here for more info...
The SmartGeometry 2011 Workshop will take place at CITA http://cita.karch.dk/This year's Challenge is entitled:BUILDING THE INVISIBLEInforming Digital Design with Real World Data
THE PREMISEVast streams of data offer a rich resource for designers. By incorporating external information into our design processes the autonomy of the design is challenged. User data, energy calculations, embedded sensing, material and structural simulation, human behaviour and perception, particle flows and force fields allows design to be situated and responsive. From the simulation of megacities to the solid modelling of material systems, design has the potential to be informed by the real. Design sits not separate from is environment but inhabits an ecological system, open, dynamic and interdependent, diverse, partially self-organising, adaptive, and fragile. Across scale and within time we now have the chance to instil architecture with an immanent intelligence creating new relationships between the user, the built and its ecosphere.THE OPPORTUNITYSystems theorists suggest that data is only a raw material. It can be differentiated from information, knowledge and wisdom. Understanding is multi-levelled: understanding of relations, understanding of patterns, understanding of principles. As digital designers our challenge is in harnessing the power of computation to assist us in informing our design process. Computers help us collect, manage and analyse the environment and inform us about an abundance of data. Our challenge is to use these inputs in a meaningful way to help us make better informed design decisions.THE AIMSG 2011 explores how the incorporation of real world data challenges existing design thinking. The SG 2011 workshop aim is to create physical prototypes of design systems to be exhibited in the SG2011 exhibition.
...more info to follow...
The SmartGeometry Group is a not-for-profit educational organization dedicated to the use of computational tools in architecture and engineering. SG brings professionals, academics, and industry together to explore the next generation of digital design. SG Workshops are non-platform specific, believing it is the methodology, not the tool, that matters.
…
Added by Shane Burger at 3:02pm on November 29, 2010
ger work.
Be aware, this release breaks file-forwards compatibility. You will not be able to open gh and ghx files saved with 0.8.0050 on previous versions, though of course you should be able to open old files without problems. If this is not the case, please yell loudly.
If you're having trouble loading Grasshopper, note that you must have the latest Microsoft C++ Runtimes installed on your machine. They can be downloaded from the microsoft website.
The new release can be downloaded from the usual location.
Here's a list of changes, additions and fixes since 0.8.0013:
File format forwards compatibility has been broken. You will not be able to open files saved with 0.8.0050 on earlier versions.
This release contains many breaking changes and GHA libraries compiled for older version may not work anymore.
Grasshopper Binary files (*.gh) are now saved as compressed data.
Grasshopper Binary files (*.gh) are now the default format.
Support for ancient versions of the Text Panel (still called Post-It from back then) has been removed.
Support for ancient versions of the Path Mapper (still called Path Lexer from back then) has been removed.
Placeholders for ancient versions of the Graph Mapper have been removed.
Gradient input parameters now show state tag icons (Reversed, Flatten etc.).
Geometry Cache name changes are now updated on every key press.
Geometry Cache name changes can now be cancelled with Escape.
Geometry Cache name changes can now be undone.
Mesh|Mesh intersection component now uses a different algorithm. The old behaviour is still available from the component menu.
Warning and Error balloons are now drawn as part of a Canvas Widget and will no longer show up in the Hi-Res image export.
Galapagos now accepts multiple fitness values. The true fitness will be the average of the collection.
Galapagos wires are drawn much fainter when the Galapagos object is unselected.
Medium fast redraw mode in Galapagos now immediately redraws instead of at the end of each generation.
Redesigned all Grasshopper file format icons and added larger size icons for high-dpi explorer views.
Redesigned the Most Recently Used files menu, it should now display much quicker.
Compass widget has been rewritten in an attempt to increase display performance.
Added preferences section for Compass widget.
Added preferences section for Align widget.
Added preferences section for Default Preview colours.
Added preferences section for Document Preview colours.
Added preferences section for the Most Recently Used files menu.
The Area component now accepts Breps, Meshes and Planar Closed Curves.
The Area Centroid component now accepts Breps, Meshes and Planar Closed Curves.
The Volume component now accepts Breps and Meshes.
The Volume Centroid component now accepts Breps and Meshes.
Added Merge Faces component (Surface.Util panel).
Added a Mesh Smooth component (Mesh.Util panel).
Added a Curve Seam component (Curve.Util panel).
Added Interpolate Curve With Tangents component (Curve.Spline dropdown).
Added GrasshopperFolders command to open Settings, Components and UserObject folders without loading the core plugin.
The window that reports on certain Loading Errors now has a Copy button.
Added Simplify post-process filter to parameters (in addition to Reverse, Flatten and Graft).
Parameter post processes (Reverse, Flatten, Graft & Simplify) can now also be assigned to output parameters.
Version History window now has formatting (not happy with this, I'm working on something better).
The Process Info window is gone.
Main menu has been redesigned.
Canvas toolbar has been redesigned.
Canvas context menu has been replaced by a Radial Menu.
Canvas now has a radial menu which will pop up on Middle Mouse Button clicks.
It's possible to switch between Radial and Legacy menus in the Preferences (Interface.Canvas section).
'Save As Copy' feature has been replaced by 'Save Backup' which is a GUI-less save including date+time stamp.
Added a 'Show in Folder' item to the File menu.
AutoSave settings are no longer available from the File menu, you now need to use the Preferences.
Selection shifts now also modify the view so you can use Ctrl+Left and Ctrl+Right to navigate up and downstream.
Mesh Edge display can now be toggled with Ctrl+M.
Preview modes now have shortcuts (Ctrl+1 = no preview, Ctrl+2 = wireframe, Ctrl+3 = shaded).
Solution States now have a default name.
Data Viewer window now responds to all required events.
Data Viewer window can now handle input and output parameters as well.
Canvas Navigation pane can now be dragged using the icon in the upper left corner.
The Persistent Data Editor has been redesigned.
It's now possible to select multiple items in the Persistent Data Editor list and edit their properties.
It's now possible to drag multiple items at the same time in the Persistent Data Editor list.
Item addition to the Persistent Data Editor is much improved.
The Persistent Data Editor is now non-modal.
The Canvas would remain black upon maximizing the Rhino window, this is fixed.
Sliders would cause multiple updates under certain conditions, this is fixed.
Digit Scrollers would cause multiple updates under certain conditions, this is fixed.
Pipes were inside out. This is fixed.
The curve component would not adjust invalid nurbs degrees, this is fixed.
Curves referencing Brep edges failed to load, this is fixed.
Points referencing Brep edges failed to load, this is fixed.
Referenced dlls in the VB/C# components sometimes resulted in invalid imports statements, this is fixed.
Pasting geometry in Rhino would cause a recompute of the Grasshopper solution, this is fixed.
Importing a file into the Rhino document would cause a recompute of the Grasshopper solution, this is fixed.
Galapagos would trigger superfluous solutions, this is fixed.
Mesh Solid Difference had a wrong name and description, this is fixed.
Several menu items were not greyed out despite not being usable, this is fixed.
The position and size of the Grasshopper window failed to get stored on Rhino shutdown, this is fixed.
The Persistent Data Editor would crash on parameters that did not support data proxies, this is fixed.
I'll add some additional information regarding some of the new UI features in subsequent posts.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…