LEDAS Assemblies / Driving Dimensions

Hi David,

Will GH be able to talk to the new LEDAS' plugin?

I think the plan is that there will be Rhino elements / subelements that will be driven by 'driving dimensions'. It would be good if GH can interact intelligently with these elements.

LEDAS is also providing constraint solving. It would be great if GH can react to or even incorporate the constrained geometry sets as part of the definition.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by paul hackett on November 17, 2009 at 3:02pm

Constraint Solver is the only thing GH need to be the best. The rest is playing cool games.

Permalink Reply by dominic on November 18, 2009 at 4:11pm

Hmmm...

The $1k barrier is a worry. I guess RMA relies on large numbers of licenses, but at the same time has a large interval between releases. Whether this is sustainable is heavily dependent on whether a competitor enters the same market segment. I suppose big boys like bentley or autodesk could start dumping lite versions of their software to kill off rhino in the usual unsocialist entreprenuerial way. Leaving behind legions of die hard users that take years to switch to the remaining vendors ?

You could read this as one more reason to make sure that the sdk is king. Rhino is a great platform for plugins like Tsplines etc that sometimes cost more than itself. Maybe the sdk should make it easier for plugins to talk to other plugins. Tsplines should be able to be driven by GH out of the box. Same for LEDAS / GH.

Software dev has a required effort curve that is pretty grim as the amount of code increases. RMA will need to maximise positive externalities and other intangibles.

LEDAS has a solver ready to go... let those who want it pay for it. Just make sure that GH can talk to it and vice versa.

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on November 18, 2009 at 5:24pm

I suppose big boys like bentley or autodesk could start dumping lite versions of their software to kill off rhino in the usual unsocialist entreprenuerial way.

I know you're just baiting me...
Why don't you ask the "National Alliance of CAD Developers" to pass the Anti-dog-eat-dog rule. Then maybe you can try the Equalization of Opportunity Bill so that each software company can only distribute one product. No more Autodesk buying everything up.

Permalink Reply by dominic on November 17, 2009 at 8:02am

OK. How is DD / Assemblies being handled ?

I assume that 1, 2, 4, 5 are already solved because the plugin is available.

Permalink Reply by dominic on November 16, 2009 at 7:02am

A pity: Solvespaces 'group' function appears to break the contraints solving into discrete steps, which would fit in nicely with GH's procedural way of doing things.

Maybe, LEDAS could provide this to their plugin and the user pays LEDAS directly. All it needs then is LEDAS to be 'socialist' about things and give McNeel access to their data / libraries so that the solver components or driving dims can talk to and play with GH.

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on November 16, 2009 at 7:24am

I don't follow the 'socialist' reference. I think the word you are looking for is 'entrepreneurial'. Can't they do that with a profit motive (selling more licenses)? But i guess the uninterested party would be McNeel, what do they gain if they have to include LEDAS code in the SDK and all profit goes to LEDAS? The best solution is for McNeel to buy a solver and integrate it into the SDK or develop it themselves from scratch.

Permalink Reply by dominic on November 16, 2009 at 12:27pm

Socialists? LEDAS is Russian.... geddit? Not looking for old style bucaneering entrepreneurialism.

If McNeel won't buy the solver, its because it does not believe it can pass the costs on to the buyers without lossing numbers. So, those willing to pay will pay LEDAS directly for the privalege should have the option do so. No problems for Mcneel.

So far so good. But, soon LEDAS users will start to notice that they can't drive LEDAS constructs like driving dimensions / assemblies using GH and GH users can't recognise or talk to LEDAS constructs. Zombie land. The 'either-or' situation will be a real pain for both camps.

Best thing is to be 'socialist' and publish the interfaces so that the 'rich' can talk to the 'poor' ... computationaly. Rhino's cake grows as it becomes more enticing platfrom to newbies and both GH and LEDAS gets more bizness in the process.

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on November 16, 2009 at 1:10pm

Rhino's cake grows as it becomes more enticing platfrom to newbies and both GH and LEDAS gets more bizness in the process.

I still don't see how that is socialism. McNeel is from the US, so why don't they try their current economic system, that is, lobby to Washington to see if they get any bailout money and buy a solver with it... although they'll probably just spend it in bonuses :P

Permalink Reply by dominic on November 16, 2009 at 4:26pm

Its "socialist" because it requires both commercial parties to make available their intellectual property, free of charge, for the good of the wider community, in the hope that they can reap the rewards at a later date by tapping into the economies of scale generated that defrays the costs to the indvidual to such an extent that a Pareto optimum is achived ;-)

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on November 17, 2009 at 5:10am

I guess we have a different meaning of socialism. So if Microsoft releases an IDE and documentation to the development community for free in the hopes that more people will create programs in their platform adding value to it and selling more copies in the future. That is Microsoft being socialist? What about Microsoft Shared Source Initiative?

You are not the first to notice that if only we could tell these individual entrepreneurs what to do, we could achieve a Pareto-optimal economy. Some that come into mind are the members of the Gosplan committee.

Permalink Reply by dominic on November 17, 2009 at 7:56am

ho ho... yes.

Gosplan / soviet system did not achive a P-O economy.

Do you think the world would have been better if MS charged for it?

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on November 17, 2009 at 8:14am

Gosplan / soviet system did not achive a P-O economy.
That's my point.

Do you think the world would have been better if MS charged for it?
Of course not, I think their strategy is working fine. I'm just saying i wouldn't call it socialism.