Questions

A discussion to post Geometry Gym component questions and queries

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by seth denizen on February 10, 2011 at 9:17am

Ahoy hoy,

Does anyone know if it is possible to use geometry gym's geodesic component to make truncated or archimedean solids such as the cuboctahedron or snub cube?

Any advise on modeling with these kinds of geometries in GH would be welcome.

Thanks

seth

Permalink Reply by Jon Mirtschin on February 10, 2011 at 2:19pm

Hi Seth,

I've coded a few polyhedra in StructDrawRhino, feel free to nominate any others you might need to use.

I've attached the file for the sample image.

Cheers,

Jon

Attachments:

polyhedra.ghx, 33 KB

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on April 9, 2011 at 2:19am

Hey Jon -

I am unable to get the PH component to produce a tetrahedron - am I doing something wrong? It produces the other types no problem.

Permalink Reply by Jon Mirtschin on April 9, 2011 at 5:46am

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for reporting, I've caught the problem. I've also enabled wireframe (seems I never did it). I'll upload a new build tomorrow.

Permalink Reply by A Garcia Madero on March 24, 2011 at 10:12pm

Hi Jon,

I've successfully installed your plugins in my two computers but I recently found an error.. I'm working on a definition that includes your ForceDensitiRelax component and works perfectly on one computer but once I open the exact same definiton on another computer the component ceases to work.. I've seen this same thing happen to a friend of mine too.. Have you heard this before? Is this an error with the computers, the instalation of the plugin or the plugin itslef?

Thank you!

Permalink Reply by Jon Mirtschin on March 24, 2011 at 10:51pm

Is there any error messages?

There can be issues of compatibility, make sure you have the latest version of Grasshopper and my plugin installed.

The other obvious reason would be an expired or missing license file, if you try to create a geodesic dome or something like that does it work? Note the license file is specific to the computer the request was made from. You need to run sdrZZLicenseRequest if it has not previously been done.

If all the above is ok, there isn't an obvious reason why you would not get the same result on two computers. Let me know more and I'll try to help resolve.

Permalink Reply by A Garcia Madero on March 27, 2011 at 10:27am

Hi Jon,

Just letting you know that the problem was indeed that we had diferent versions of grasshopper in each computer.. We've now updated them and everything works just fine.

Thank you!

Permalink Reply by Martin van Meijeren on March 25, 2011 at 4:34pm

Hi,

I’m facing problems concerning Geomgym's create Area/region function.

The output area’s of GH are tri’s (only planar surfaces), which seem to be ok as well as the mesh in GSA (using your Youtube movie on this topic).

When trying to actually analyse the model, GSA is giving data errors like ‘angle around node is too small’.

Can you maybe take a short look at it?

Ty!

Attachments:

Permalink Reply by Jon Mirtschin on March 25, 2011 at 5:10pm

Really impressive model, congratulations.

I haven't tried meshing non-planar surfaces in GSA yet, I've always meshed in Rhino/Grasshopper in this situation (if you control the aspect ratio you can get analysis friendly meshes in most situations).

But I'd like to study your model a little more closely and test if GSA can do it. You can create gsa "lines" that are arcs.

I'll post back as soon as I can.

Permalink Reply by Jon Mirtschin on March 25, 2011 at 5:45pm

One thing on this, you might reduce the probability of the gsa mesher producing "unacceptable" mesh if you make the line mesh size smaller than 1000 metres (maybe you started modelling with a rhino document of millimeter units). Refer attached, I didn't try to analyze it. More on this (and maybe utilizing external meshing) coming up soon.

Permalink Reply by Martin van Meijeren on March 26, 2011 at 2:06pm

Hey Jon, thanks for your advices up to now!

Changing the step size of the mesh from 1000 to 2 makes a positive difference in the mesh pattern. GSA is now only giving warnings for the mesh instead of errors, thats promising;) Further on GSA is giving another error concerning matrix singularities.

Would be great if you would have a closer look to the mesh and the models though!

In the meantime I'll keep you informed about my progress ofc.

Attachments: