Propagate a rhombus module in a surface in grasshopper

Hello all,

I am new to this group and to Grasshopper as well.

Maybe this is an easy question but as I am a beginner I haven't found the answer so far. I would like to propagate the rhombus module designed in th gh file to the designed surface. First I try to propagate the module to the surface, (with the guidance of this tutorial: http://www.p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n-s.org/video%20tutorials/INTRO%20TO%2...) but some points of the rhombus were still stay behind. I want to be designed parametrically in order to change dimensions in GH. Here I am trying to construct the module onto the diagrid pattern, I was trying to connect the points that are higher to those that are lower, but I think that I haven't understand well the trees and brunches, so I couldn't make it.

Is it possible the points that are higher to change their position regarding the sun path?

I have seen some older cases with a vector simulating the sun incidence, but I was thinking to do something similar in Ladybag.

Thank you in advance!

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Karisma Shoker on February 24, 2017 at 9:00am

Brilliant Peter! Thank you!

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on February 24, 2017 at 9:20am

And this is a preview about the remaining 99%.

We have a given line graph as K1 did:

Our goal is to create a W truss (and lot's of other things: clash checks for instance) out of these taking care planarity constrains as well. Let's over-simplify the case. Using that planar test data set shown we create a classic Adjacency Matrix that tells us what node is connected with what (you can use Sandbox for making the connectivity required in order to make the Matrix) :

Some other freaky thingy gets the Matrix, does freaky things (using recursion) and finally yields node indices that belong to a closed loop/cycle (see the forefront and the back). The other indices shown (describing "bigger" loops) are used for other type of stuff/checks:

More soon

Permalink Reply by Karisma Shoker on February 24, 2017 at 10:44am

Thanks!

Could you also send the file with the "freaky C# stuff you can get trusses (the one shown is thick at mount points and thinner elsewhere) as the "inverse" of the forms that you are after"

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on February 25, 2017 at 12:57am

BTW: There's a few things that I can post (classified as "public") and many many others that I can't (the "internal" ones). Broadly speaking anything that implicitly or explicitly could help a pro to gain profits falls in the latter category.

The challenge here is to do the job (up to a point) using "anodyne" ways at the cost of providing slow, incomplete and quite inefficient solutions.

That said this specific vault case requires addressing 4 "classes" of problems (for instance: regions due to ccx events or alternatively circuits in graphs etc etc).

Back to business:

Creating a realistic "random" W truss of that type is one of the most challenging tasks in parametric adventures (in fact ... is the top dog by some miles). One of the many issues is an approach to manage "on-the-fly" clash situations by individually modifying nodes (without been sure that you can arrive to an all overall valid solution). Since one "path" tried may yield dead-end(s) this means keeping track of your corrective actions in a hierarchical manner and been able to follow a different "path". Another (obvious) issue is to use instance definitions for all the "components" thus achieving almost real-time response (try to manage 100K++ "solids" [sleeves, cones etc etc] to see what I mean) ... etc etc.

The big thing is: what are you going to tell to your instructors about the required code part? (that 99% mentioned) And if a "complete" solution is primarily based on "black boxes" could - in the instructor's eyes - your Master Thesis qualify as yours?

That said Vaults_V1 is achievable solely via components.

Permalink Reply by Karisma Shoker on March 26, 2017 at 4:44pm

Hi Peter,

I took a route using box morph in order to simplify my intentions and make it more manageable for a beginner like me.. I have managed to set up a boundary region using 2 surfaces and a box morph component.

Currently I am able to use 2 surfaces and populate a component between them- I have rebuilt the boundary surface (SURFACE 1) and offset it (SURFACE 2).

Now the trouble I am having is manipulating SURFACE 2 using the attractors/repellers (Capture 2 + 3).

When applying the forces SURFACE 2 is broken down into points and I am struggling to rebuild the geometry in order to reconnect to the surface morph. Is there anything you could recommend? I think I bit off more than I can chew and now trying to simplify...

Any help will be much appreciated!

Permalink Reply by Karisma Shoker on March 26, 2017 at 4:52pm

I have attached the file here

Attachments:

Building_Surface morph.zip, 192 KB

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on March 27, 2017 at 12:27pm

Well...

1. What is this ultra paranoid thingy? What serves? Why?

2. Leaving the big questions aside is this (other stuff deactivated) what are you trying to achieve using the morph things? In plain English: morph a polyline into a collection of twisted boxes where the top is the curvy thing (with variable "resolution") and the bottom is the flat thing (ditto).

Attachments:

Building_Surface morph_V1.gh, 28 KB

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on March 28, 2017 at 2:03am

BTW: Since parametric these days means in 99.9999% of cases just an abstract/academic concept (and pretty much nothing more) where's the parametric part related with the defining "top" curvy surface?

That's the 1B question.