ng/702/30
EDIT: DK2 works, not with positional tracking yet (14/09/15)
Source is here:
https://github.com/provolot/RhinoRift
Steps:
1) Download these files (also attached below):
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/oculus-grasshopper_v0.4.ghx
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/OpenTrackRiftGrasshopperUDP.ini
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/oculus-grasshopper-test_v0.1.3dm
2) Download OpenTrack - http://ananke.laggy.pk/opentrack/, and setup/install. Once installed, double-click to open.
3) In OpenTrack, load the 'OpenTrackRiftGrasshopperUDP.ini' profile. Click the 'Start' button and move your Rift around - make sure that it looks like the Yaw/Pitch/Roll data is being sent. TX/TY/TZ will all be 0, as Oculus doesn't have absolute positioning data.
4) In Rhino, open the test 3dm. You'll notice that there are two viewports - called 'LeftEye' and 'RightEye'. These have been placed to mimic where the screens should be for the Oculus Rift --- but only when Rhino is in fullscreen mode, with the command 'Fullscreen'. The placement needs to be tweaked, but should work.
If you want to use your own model, you can load your own .3dm file in Rhino, then you can right-click on the viewport name, and go to Viewport Layout > Read from File. If you then load my test file, Rhino should open my two viewports, sized correctly, onto your model.
The placement of these viewports need to be tweaked; if you find a better viewport layout, upload an empty Rhino file with your viewports, and we can share eye-layout 'templates'!
5) In Grasshopper, open the .ghx definition. Everything that is multiple-grouped is a value that can be changed. Two things here:
- IPD: Set this and convert it to the proper units for your model.
- Left/right viewport names. In this case, leave this as-is, since you're using my example file.
6) Turn on the Grasshopper Timer, if it isn't on already.
7) In the GH definition, toggle 'SyncEyes' to be True. Then, in the left viewport, try orbiting around with the mouse. The 'RightEye' viewport should move around as well, pretty much simultaneously.
8) In OpenTrack, click 'Start', then toggle 'ReadUDP' to be True. You should see the 'OpenTrackInfo' panel fill with data that's constantly changing.
9) Move around the landscape with your camera, and when you set on a starting view that's ideal, click the triangle of the Data Dam component to 'store' the data.
10) Finally, toggle 'OculusMove' to be true. If all works correctly, both viewports should move based on the Rift's movement.
Let me know if you have any problems!
Cheers,
Dan…
Added by Dan Taeyoung at 11:47pm on December 10, 2013
s with Rhino & Grasshopper and Cinema 4d(rendering).
I found this two good laptops!
Hp Elitebook Windows® 7 Professional autentico 64Processor Intel® Core™ i7-720QM (1,60 GHz, 6 MB L3 di cache)8 GB di SDRAM DDR3 a 1333 MHzSATA II da 500 GB a 7200 rpmScheda grafica NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M con 1 GB di memoria video dedicata GDDR3
Price 2.200 Euro
SONY VPCF12S1EWindows® 7 Professional autentico 64Processore Intel® Core™ i7-740QM8 GB di SDRAM DDR3 a 1333 MHzSerial ATA da 500 GB a 7200 rpmScheda grafica NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M con 1 GB di memoria video dedicata GDDR3Price 1.400 Euro
Looking at the price, I would buy the second one…but I would ask you one thing....Considering that using Grasshopper I will create really complex works, using a GeForce instead a Quadro processor could it be a problem??…
u can still find some wonky behaviour in GH related to datatrees. My experience is that new users quite quickly get the hang of it once they learn that a tree is in fact not a tree but in the first place set of lists, where the path shows how the pieces of data used to be grouped.
Branch Count checking A component has multiple tree inputs, but has different amount of branches, each having branch count > 2. (While I understand the logic of combining multiple trees, I've not once encounted once that combining a component with e.g. an input of 2 branches and an input of 4 branches to give any kind of sensible output.
Desired behaviour: If a component has branches (each being > 2 path count), the component should throw a warning. ("Strict branches behaviour?). For example: take an offset component, with 6 branches of curves and 5 branches of offsets. It is extremely likely that this is the result of an error earlier in the definition. This works however without a problem - the last branch is repeated again, and it's later on quite hard to discover something went wrong.
Checking branch Count The most important numeric is the amount of branches, and the amount of items in the tree. It's desired that the hovers show the amount of data and the amount of branches.
Desired behaviour
Trees with paths of different rank Trees that contain {0;0} and {0} and {0;0;1} is usually a sign of trouble of not well merged trees, faulty C# components, or just nasty coding habits.
Trim as undo graft instead of flatten Having the trim in the context menu would provide an easy way to undo a graft. Right now the easiest way for many people is to flatten it, and then start all over again - while just getting rid of the last index keeps the underlying history and makes it easier to write reuseable pieces of code when you prepend datatrees to it.
Component to get branch by index, not by path Would be great. Suppose you have a grid of points, grouped by row. It would help to show: "look, this is in the first path, it's called {0;0;1}, it's got 10 points, these points are the first row".
Analogue to using list item to show what is the first point, second point, and so on.
Semantic path names (maybe far fetched) But what if we can add a short name of each method that was executed to the path list, so it can show:
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 0}{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 1}
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 2}
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 3}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 0}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 1}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 2}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 3}
Make the input/data matching inside components explicit Can we make it even more obvious that a component is not a black box that's executed once, but in fact an iteration machine that tries to make sense of the inputs that's fed to this box?
Show data combination. How data input A relates to data input B and data input C, is currently very implict and is just plain hard to learn., and required the ability to be able to relate the output back to the input. If we can textually or even graphically show what data matching occured inside a component, it would greatly help the understanding (and debugging) of "what's going on here in this component"
A verbose explanation of the data matching in component A
Iteration one: - Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0) - Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Vector 0,0,0)
Iteration two:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 1: (Vector 10,0,0)
Iteration three:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 1: (Vector 20,0,0)
etc.
A verbose explanation of the data matching in component B
Iteration one: - Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0) - Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Vector 0,0,0)
..
Iteration seven:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 7, Position 0: (Vector 0,70,0)
..
Iteration 27:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 7: (Point 80,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 2, Position 0: (Vector 0,20,0)
…
is set up to manipulate strings into an STL file that is quite different from how Grasshopper defines meshes, in that an STL seems to define each face by XYZ points, Grasshopper wants a single list of all vertex points and then has an allied lists of topological connectivity according to vertex number, so for now I just hacked it to spit out points minus so many duplicates it generates for STL:
Right now it has an internal 3D trigonometric function I added input sliders to control, that creates surfaces that look a lot like molecular orbitals.
So how do I make a mesh? I failed to make a single mesh face from each STL face since AddMesh seems to want a list, so I tried making a single list and matching it with a simple ((1,2,3),(4,5,6),(7,8,9)...) array of connectivity but it hasn't worked yet since the STL list of vertices has duplicates that won't work for Grasshopper and removing the duplicates scrambles the connectivity relation.
After some work on this and seeing the output, I figure I could just randomly populate the mathematical function with points instead, unless it really gives a better mesh result than other routines. I'm not sure what to do with it yet, even if I get the mesh figured out.
import rhinoscriptsyntaximport RhinoPOINTS_CONTAINER =[]POINTS = []class Vector: # struct XYZ def __init__(self,x,y,z): self.x=x self.y=y self.z=z def __str__(self): return str(self.x)+" "+str(self.y)+" "+str(self.z) class Gridcell: # struct GRIDCELL def __init__(self,p,n,val): self.p = p # p=[8] self.n = n # n=[8] self.val = val # val=[8] class Triangle: # struct TRIANGLE def __init__(self,p1,p2,p3): self.p = [p1, p2, p3] # vertices # HACK TO GRAB VERTICES FOR PYTHON OUTPUT POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p1.x,p1.y,p1.z) ) POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p2.x,p2.y,p2.z) ) POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p3.x,p3.y,p3.z) )# return a 3d list of values def readdata(f=lambda x,y,z:x*x+y*y+z*z,size=5.0,steps=11): m=int(steps/2) ki = [] for i in range(steps): kj = [] for j in range(steps): kd=[] for k in range(steps): kd.append(f(size*(i-m)/m,size*(j-m)/m,size*(k-m)/m)) kj.append(kd) ki.append(kj) return ki from math import sin,cos,exp,atan2 def lobes(x,y,z): try: theta = atan2(x,y) # sin t = o except: theta = 0 try: phi = atan2(z,y) except: phi = 0 r = x*x+y*y+z*z ct=cos(PARAMETER_A * theta) cp=cos(PARAMETER_B * phi) return ct*ct*cp*cp*exp(-r/10) def main(): data = readdata(lobes,10,40) isolevel = 0.1 #print(data) triangles=[] for i in range(len(data)-1): for j in range(len(data[i])-1): for k in range(len(data[i][j])-1): p=[None]*8 val=[None]*8 #print(i,j,k) p[0]=Vector(i,j,k) val[0] = data[i][j][k] p[1]=Vector(i+1,j,k) val[1] = data[i+1][j][k] p[2]=Vector(i+1,j+1,k) val[2] = data[i+1][j+1][k] p[3]=Vector(i,j+1,k) val[3] = data[i][j+1][k] p[4]=Vector(i,j,k+1) val[4] = data[i][j][k+1] p[5]=Vector(i+1,j,k+1) val[5] = data[i+1][j][k+1] p[6]=Vector(i+1,j+1,k+1) val[6] = data[i+1][j+1][k+1] p[7]=Vector(i,j+1,k+1) val[7] = data[i][j+1][k+1] grid=Gridcell(p,[],val) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,2,3,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,2,6,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,4,6,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,6,1,2)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,6,1,4)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,5,6,1,4)) def t000F(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [] def t0E01(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3])) ] def t0D02(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v0],g.val[v1],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2])) ] def t0C03(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri=Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3])) return [tri,Triangle( tri.p[2], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2]), tri.p[1]) ] def t0B04(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v0],g.val[v2],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v1],g.val[v2],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3])) ] def t0A05(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri = Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3])) return [tri,Triangle( tri.p[0], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2]), tri.p[1]) ] def t0906(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri=Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3])) return [tri, Triangle( tri.p[0], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), tri.p[2]) ] def t0708(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v0],g.val[v3],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v2],g.val[v3],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v1],g.val[v3],g.val[v1])) ] trianglefs = {7:t0708,8:t0708,9:t0906,6:t0906,10:t0A05,5:t0A05,11:t0B04,4:t0B04,12:t0C03,3:t0C03,13:t0D02,2:t0D02,14:t0E01,1:t0E01,0:t000F,15:t000F} def PolygoniseTri(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): triangles = [] # Determine which of the 16 cases we have given which vertices # are above or below the isosurface triindex = 0; if g.val[v0] < iso: triindex |= 1 if g.val[v1] < iso: triindex |= 2 if g.val[v2] < iso: triindex |= 4 if g.val[v3] < iso: triindex |= 8 return trianglefs[triindex](g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3) def VertexInterp(isolevel,p1,p2,valp1,valp2): if abs(isolevel-valp1) < 0.00001 : return(p1); if abs(isolevel-valp2) < 0.00001 : return(p2); if abs(valp1-valp2) < 0.00001 : return(p1); mu = (isolevel - valp1) / (valp2 - valp1) return Vector(p1.x + mu * (p2.x - p1.x), p1.y + mu * (p2.y - p1.y), p1.z + mu * (p2.z - p1.z)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() # GRASSHOPPER PYTHON OUTPUTPOINTS = rhinoscriptsyntax.AddPoints(POINTS_CONTAINER)POINTS = rhinoscriptsyntax.CullDuplicatePoints(POINTS)…
Permalink Reply by Manuel Rodriguez 6 hours ago
Delete
yes!perfect! It has been a good example! The only thing that I would like to change is, that, instead of deform that following the control points on the surface's perimeter, I would like to deform all, with points in the shapes (in the middle of the circle for example). It is because I want, for example, the biggest circle in point 2, and the smaller circle in point 7. So, is it possible to do?
Summing up, is do the same, but changing the control points, putting them on the shapes (circles) instead the perimeter.
Thank you very much Danny and Chris, you are being really useful for me!
Thanks! Manuel
…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…
, but at the lowest level computers only manipulate ones-and-zeros according to exact and unambiguous rules. As a result of this it is actually impossible to generate true random numbers using a computer. Computers use algorithms that create sequences of pseudo random numbers, numbers that appear to be random, but in fact are created by the application of a deterministic algorithm.
One of the major benefits of pseudo random numbers over actual random numbers is that it's easy to reproduce a sequence of numbers. If you generate the first 50 numbers in the pseudo-random sequence with seed=5 they will be exactly the same as when you did it last week. If you want different random numbers, you have to use a different seed. In Grasshopper I thought it important that the same random numbers are always generated, as that minimizes the 'surprise'. However, since the default numbers might not be to your liking, you can always play around with the seed value until you find a pseudo random sequence that suits you.
If you generate 8 random numbers between 1 and 10, you might get a sequence like this:
{5, 8, 2, 4, 2, 7, 3, 10}
The pseudo random number generator guarantees that the spread of the numbers in the sequence is equal everywhere, but only when you generate an infinite amount of numbers. Since every sequence you care to generate in one human lifetime will not be infinite, there will always be some 'clumping' of values. A small stretch along the number line that is somewhat more densely populated by random numbers than the adjacent stretch.
There is also absolutely no guarantee that you won't get the same number more than once. Obviously this is impossible if you were to generate 50 values between 1 and 10 (there are only 10 possible unique numbers), but even if you generate only 2 values between 1 and 10 you might still get the same number twice.
Indeed in my example above the value 2 occurs twice, whereas the value 1 doesn't occur at all. If you want a range of numbers without overlaps, it's better to not use the Random component, but instead generate all the numbers using a Range or Series component and then Jitter the list, thus randomizing the order of the values, but not the values themselves.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
decided to concentrate my effort today on this problem and manage to come up with a solution !
I will explain it if somebody else is looking for a similar solution.
Finally my only problem was to create an alternating true/false list that inverse at certain index, this what I came up with: I have a list of points and random index , the box and sphere represent true and false, and the blue sphere is the node(index) where I want to see an inversion.
In reality, it was pretty simple, I just didn't know the right modules. (In yellow, it's the most important part of the patch)(Sorry for the spelling mistake)
Here is a diagram of what I did: I created a list going to 1 to [number of lines], here it's 1 to 10, I had node at 3-4 and 7-8. For each node I created a list of 1 repeated [(number of lines)-index] times. Here, 7 (10-3) and 3 (10-7) times.
After grafting everything, I add everything in mass addition module. I had my final list which I checked if it was divisible by two.
It was more of a logic problem than a grasshopper problem.
Here it is the initial shape with what I wanted !
…