Recesssion Paneling Tools tutorial in new build?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andy Payne on November 18, 2009 at 3:41pm

I'm just curious... but it looks like your base surface has not be reparameterized. If you right-click on the surface parameter component, is the reparameterized button toggled? That would be my first guess. I'm almost positive it isn't a problem with the build, and more a problem with the definition.

Permalink Reply by Ida Angel Weum on November 18, 2009 at 4:28pm

The definition and the base file are exactly the same. That is why it is funny that it works perfectly in the old version and not in the newer version. I tried reparameterizising, but it did not work.

Secondly the definition works on all other examples in the old version but not on any of the same examples in the new version.

Permalink Reply by Andy Payne on November 18, 2009 at 5:00pm

Hi Ida,
I'm pretty confused by this problem, because I just opened the file from the source files folder (I re-downloaded it from my site just to make sure I was working with the same file you were) and it opened fine in version 0.6.0019 on my computer. I did get an error message that stated the definition had been made with an earlier version, but the definition worked fine just the same. Perhaps there is a bug in the WIP version you have on your machine. Have you tried uninstalling GH and then re-installing from scratch? Also, since the definition is not very difficult or long, have you tried re-making the definition from scratch in version 19? I'm just trying to trouble shoot this issue. Perhaps David will weigh in on this, because you can see in the attached image that everything worked as anticipated.

Attachments:

• Paneling Tools_working.jpg, 638 KB

Permalink Reply by Ida Angel Weum on November 19, 2009 at 5:14am

Hi Andy

I tried uninstalling and re-installing Grasshopper. I built the definition from scratch as well. The problem is that half of the defenition I'm working in is working in the old version and the second is not and vice versa.I tried the defintion in the old and in the new version at the computers at my university and got the the same result even when building the definition from scratch. I don't know what the WIP version is, but I use the version downloaded from this site.

To me it looks like there is something wrong with the Morph-function, but I don't know. Got any other ideas

Thanks for all your help

Permalink Reply by Theunis du Toit on November 19, 2009 at 5:49am

I took a quick look at your image, can you try plugging your Surface into your divide component's "I" input?

Permalink Reply by Ida Angel Weum on November 19, 2009 at 5:56am

That worked. I posting an image of the new definition, just in case someone comes up with the same problem.

Thank you so much Theunis.

Attachments:

• 060019_solved.jpg, 739 KB

Permalink Reply by Andy Payne on November 19, 2009 at 8:39am

Hi Ida,
I know why plugging in the surface parameter into the I-input of the Surface parameter worked for you and the other one didn't... and it had to do with the re-parameterize button I asked you about in the beginning. When you plug your surface into the I-input, it essentially gives you the interval (in both the U and the V direction) of your surface. This may be something like U: 0 to 600 (I'm making these bounds up) and V: 0 to 900. In your earlier definition, you had plugged a 1.0 into the I-input, so your interval was only going from 0 to 1 in both the U and the V. So, when you plugged this interval (0 to 1) into the rest of the definition, you were only getting panels in the area of your surface that went 0 to 1. Since, your surface interval was from 0 to 600 and 0 to 900... you were really only working on a really small portion of your surface. That's why I had suggested that you reparameterize your surface so that the interval on your surface would only have a range from U: 0 to 1 and V: 0 to 1 (instead of U: 0 to 600 and V: 0 to 900). By reparameterizing your surface, and making sure your interval is only going from 0 to 1, then you should get panels propagated over your entire surface. The way you have solved it will work as well (as you found out), but hopefully this will give you a little more background information. Does this make sense?
BTW, the acronym WIP just stands for "Work in Progress" and it's the latest public release from David (0.6.0019)

Permalink Reply by Ida Angel Weum on November 19, 2009 at 3:23pm

Hi again Andy
I get your point about the reparameterization , but it was the first thing I tried and in my definition it did not work, even if I built the definition from scratch. I took a screenshot from reparameterizating the base surface one more time. I’m really happy I found a solution, but of course I too like to know how things work too. Unfortunately in this case I am still unsure why the definition works in the current build version and not in the WIP version. I would not call it recession in the WIP version any more, but maybe the discussion can be useful for new users doing the Paneling Tool tutorial. I know that a lot of architecture students only use that definition to make their façade paneling.
Thanks again for looking into the problem.

Attachments:

• Reparameterize.jpg, 335 KB