review of dataflow parametric modelling tools (grasshopper, houdini and generative component)

we are doing a review of the 3 major dataflow parametric modeling tool. we have created an example and re-did it in all 3 modelling program. we will then look at the construct of each network and try to do a review of all the 3 modelling software.

attached is the example we created. Please give ur comments on it , or suggest any other way to reduce the complexity of the network.

( i am not a very experience grasshopper user, so any improvement to the network is welcomed)

thanks

the example schema is base on this few parameters:

1. the tapering of the component is dependent on the distance between the affector and panel

2. the extrusion is base on the direction of which the panel is facing , those facing directly north will have less extrusion then those facing away

3. the material of the panel is base on both the area and the direction of the panel.

*those panel facing north and have big area will have a clear transparent glass , as if to let more light into the space (white colour)

*those panel facing north and have small area will have a normal glass (black colour)

*those panel not facing north and have a big area will have a double glaze glass to keep away heat (red colour)

*those panel not facing north and have a small area will have a normal glass (black colour)

Attachments:

the_worm_pavillion.3dm, 27 KB
the_worm_pavillion.ghx, 1.3 MB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Danny Boyes on December 23, 2010 at 5:19am

Hi Chen Kian Wee,

I have gone through your definition and replaced certain sets of components where there is a better way, but like most things in Grasshopper there is always more than one way to achieve the same results. I have not tried to alter you workflow in any way as presumably you are comparing the same algorithm in all three programs.

Typically what I've done is to replace the cull patterns where they have been used to get specific points on a curve with components like End Points and Points on Curves. Also the numbers series to generate lots of the same numbers I have replaced with Repeat Data components.

Where you have used Flatten and Graft in conjunction to neaten the data structures I have removed these to show that GH will try and make the most of what it is supplied even if the two inputs are not identical in numbers of branches. But for house keeping purposes I can see why you wanted to use them, although I would recommend avoiding the flatten component where possible as I can can introduce problems when wanting the definition to handle multiple worm pavillions.

You will need to use the latest version of grasshopper 0.8.0004 to see what I have done, as it uses the Context menu Graft function which is not available in v0.6.0059

It will be interesting to see your results.

Good luck,

Danny

Permalink Reply by Danny Boyes on December 23, 2010 at 5:20am

oops here's the link

Attachments:

the_worm_pavillion_mk2.ghx, 1.1 MB

Permalink Reply by chen kian wee on December 23, 2010 at 7:10pm

thanks alot will try to update u guys on this experiment !

Permalink Reply by Matt Gaydon on December 23, 2010 at 5:41am

Hey Chen Kian Wee,

It seems Danny has beaten me to it at uploading a revised/optimised workflow. Though i shall upload mine anyhows as its slightly different approach. I have gone though the whole code and where possible removed duplicate sets of components by editting the tree structures, as well as removing all the code required to create the Triangled faces and replaced them with a Loft component using a little bit more tree knowledge.

Hope this helps

Matt

P.s This was also written in GH 0.8.0004

Attachments:

the_worm_pavillion MG REV.ghx, 592 KB

Permalink Reply by chen kian wee on December 23, 2010 at 7:09pm

thanks alot !

Permalink Reply by Luis Fraguada on December 23, 2010 at 8:49am

Which other forums are you targeting for suggestions in Houdini and GC? Would be interesting to see the posts from each programs' users...

Permalink Reply by taz on December 23, 2010 at 11:42am

ditto.

Also wondering what some of the comparison criteria might be.

All are fruit but how do you evaluate apple vs orange vs pear...

Permalink Reply by Daniel Piker on December 23, 2010 at 12:41pm

There was some interesting discussion on this a while back in the GC forums:

http://communities.bentley.com/products/products_generativecomponen...

Permalink Reply by chen kian wee on December 23, 2010 at 6:59pm

the comparison criteria might not be be which is better than which , like u say its apple orange and pear , but i think the review serve as a good overview of the 3 tools , their disadvantages and advantages , the concept and structure of the network ( the 3 might look similar graphically , boxes and connecting wires, but once u use it there are significant difference in how each network is constructed between the 3 program) it will be good for users of each tool to read about other similar programs too.

Permalink Reply by chen kian wee on December 23, 2010 at 7:08pm

i will probably be targeting the official forum of each program . but i have not posted it onto the other forums yet. Might not post it onto the houdini forum as I myself is more of a houdini user, to be fair to the other 2 programs due to my inexperience with them I ask for help from you guys. Thanks a lot!

for houdini :

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=172

for GC:

http://communities.bentley.com/products/products_generativecomponen...

Permalink Reply by robert cervellione on December 23, 2010 at 2:49pm

since is ported kangaroo over to GC it is interesting see the workflow diference between the two programs. having kangaoroo as a base is good for the testing because the functions are all the same but the way you go about setting things set up differers, but in the end you get the same results.

Permalink Reply by chen kian wee on December 24, 2010 at 3:33am

This is another example we did , its a recursive example, the schema goes like this :

- check the surface area if it is bigger than 2 , divide it into 4

so u can see from the example the surface is repeatedly divided into 4 pieces, due to the lack of looping in grasshopper u have to do this manually copying the network again and again.

its just a simple example to test the recursive ability of grasshopper. Again any comments or suggestion is welcomed thanks alot. Thanks for the suggestions for the previous example , have not digested the network yet, willl do it over the next few days and see how it goes, thanks again

And if u guys are interested I have posted the previous problem onto the houdini and GC forum.

Attachments: