re
Minimum principal curvature
by the way, look at this picture.... if I only use surface curvature the result doesn't seems right as well. Maybe I did some mistakes? thanks :)
Gene
import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs
import Rhino as rc
a = []
b = []
if ((u or v) is None):
u = 0.5
v = 0.5
c_u = Srf.IsoCurve(0,u)
c_v = Srf.IsoCurve(1,v)
if (Density < 2 or Density is None):
Density = 2
if Scale is None:
Scale = 6
ScaleFactor = -Scale
for i in range(0, Density+1):
Normal_u = Srf.NormalAt(i/Density, u)
su = Srf.CurvatureAt(i/Density, u)
#s = Srf.CurvatureAt(0.5, 0.5)
#print(s.Kappa(0.5))
Normal_u_length = rs.VectorLength(c_u.CurvatureAt(i/Density))
#Normal_u_length = Normal_u_length*rs.VectorLength(s.Direction(0))
Normal_u_length = Normal_u_length * su.Kappa(0.5)
Normal_u= Normal_u*Normal_u_length
#print(type(Normal_u))
Point_u = c_u.PointAt(i/Density)
a.append(Point_u)
b.append(Point_u + Normal_u*ScaleFactor)
for i in range(Density+1):
Normal_v = Srf.NormalAt(v, i/Density)
sv = Srf.CurvatureAt(v, i/Density)
Normal_v_length = rs.VectorLength(c_v.CurvatureAt(i/Density))
Normal_v_lengthTuple = rs.SurfaceCurvature(Srf, [v,i/Density])
Normal_v_length = Normal_v_length * Normal_v_lengthTuple[7]
Normal_v = Normal_v*Normal_v_length
Point_v = c_v.PointAt((i)/Density)
a.append(Point_v)
b.append(Point_v + Normal_v*ScaleFactor)
mid = int(len(b)/2)
bu = b[:mid]
bv = b[mid:]…
tar Digital Process: Generative Design Technologies Workshop; Taller especializado que se llevara a cabo en 4 de las ciudades mas importantes de la republica mexicana [Puebla] [Mexico DF] [Guadalajara] [Leon] en Enero y Febrero de 2012.http://gendesigntech.wordpress.com/
Enfocado principalmente a arquitectos, diseñadores industriales, diseñadores de interiores, Urbanistas, Artistas digitales, estudiantes y profesionistas afines al diseño; este Workshop tiene como objetivo proporcionar a los participantes los conocimientos y recursos tecnológicos que les permitan desarrollar los elementos de un proyecto desde la concepción hasta su aplicación de manera completa.Apoyándose en un conjunto potente y flexible de plataformas, los participantes aprenderán a generar, analizar y racionalizar morfologías complejas, formas orgánicas libres y algoritmos computacionales avanzados así como a producir visualizaciones fotorealístas aplicables en diversos proyectos de Diseño.A lo largo de 5 dias de intenso trabajo, exploración y retroalimentación los participantes seran guiados en el desarrollo de un flujo de trabajo mas dinamico, que les permitira explotar al maximo el potencial de las herramientas y potencializar sus habilidades, aptitudes y capacidades.Instructores:Leonardo Nuevo Arenas [Complex Geometry]José Eduardo Sánchez [DesignNest]Daniel Camiro/Luis de la Parra [Chido Studio]http://issuu.com/chidostudiodiseno/docs/digproworkConoce el programa aquí.http://gendesigntech.wordpress.com/program/Para registrarte por favor visita.http://gendesigntech.wordpress.com/registro…
frontare il tema della modellazione parametrica con Grasshopper. Questa plug-in di Rhino consente di progettare, confrontandosi con un contesto evolutivo, attraverso la comprensione e l'utilizzo di parametri e componenti che influenzano la rappresentazione e la rendono dinamica componendo algoritmi. Nel corso verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse.Le informazioni teoriche saranno fornite in maniera accelerata ma organica e contestuale agli argomenti elencati. Per massimizzare i risultati, le lezioni saranno accompagnate da piccole esercitazioni pratiche.Argomenti trattati:- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio- Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica- Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati- Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi- Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling- Attrattori, image sampler- Data tree: gestione di dati complessiStrutturaIl corso ha una durata di 16 ore programmate nell'arco di 2 giornate con i seguenti orari: i giorni 28/07 e 29/07 dalle 10,00 alle 19,00 con pausa pranzo di un'ora.DestinatariIl corso è rivolto a tutti coloro che hanno buone conoscenze di Rhinoceros e vogliono affrontare i nuovi metodi di progettazione in maniera consapevole attraverso il linguaggio visual scripting proposto dal software Grasshopper.PrerequisitiPer affrontare il corso è richiesta una conoscenza di base del software Rhino attraverso esperienze teoriche e pratiche. I partecipanti dovranno venire muniti di proprio laptop e con software Rhinoceros 5 o Rhinocero 4 perfettamente funzionanti.AttestatoAlla fine del corso verrà rilasciata l’attestato di partecipazione ad un corso qualificato McNeel valido per l’ottenimento di crediti formativi universitari.LuogoLe lezioni si terranno presso lo studio il Pedone in Via Muggia 33, 00195 ROMA…
Profesor de Proyectos Francisco Arqués Soler, experto en la materia; Una vez exploradas y programadas las decisiones generativas del proyecto, el grupo servirá de laboratorio para investigar mutaciones del mismo.
http://dpa-etsam.com/iam/iam-cursos
https://www.facebook.com/iamadridETSAM?fref=ts
Trabajaremos en la plataforma de programación visual Grasshopper, reventaremos los principios de su estructura (mediante Millipede , exploraremos las condiciones bioclimáticas (mediante Ladybug+Honeybeey navegaremos por procesos de form finding y variaciones generativas (mediante Galapagos y Octopus y su conversión a BIM (mediante Chamaleon, Lyrebird, Visualarq, puesto que el dia final programaremos la salida del prototipo a Revit).
NOTA: el curso tendra lugar la segunda mitad de este OCTUBRE, aunque el CALENDARIO aun esta abierto de manera asamblearia al maravilloso grupo reducido de elegidos que se apunten al final, aunque suele ser MARTES Y JUEVES, DE 16:00 A 18:00 HORAS.
Título Oficial de Experto en Programacion Visual por la UPM, y los creditos respectivos (en este caso 2,5)
iAM | Instituto de Arquitectura de Madrid <iamadrid.arquitectura@upm.es> +34 91 336 6537 / 6589…
erona, nei giorni 01,02 e 03 dicembre 2016.
Il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico diventano sempre più rilevanti per una progettazione innovativa degli edifici. Ad esempio, il nuovo protocollo LEED 4 riconosce crediti per le simulazioni di daylighting e conferma l’importanza degli aspetti progettuali per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre i consumi di energia elettrica per l’illuminazione artificiale con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”. Senza strumenti software per la simulazione della luce non è possibile ottenere risultati di qualità. Radiance è un software validato, utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che dai progettisti ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale e artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Queste ultime facilitano le procedure di programmazione. Le principali e più versatili saranno oggetto del corso (DIVA4Rhino e Ladybug+ Honeybee, plug-in per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros 3D).
Il corso è rivolto a progettisti e ricercatori che vogliano acquisire strumenti pratici per la simulazione con Radiance al fine di mettere a punto e verificare le soluzioni più adatte alle proprie esigenze. Sono previste lezioni di teoria e pratica con esempi ed esercitazioni volte a coprire in modo dimostrativo ed interattivo i concetti trattati.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 16 novembre 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Glas Müller.…
etra -UNESCO world heritage sites. The course includes technical software tutorials in cutting-edge software, a design component, and guest lecture series.
The Visiting school is an extraordinary travel, learning and networking experience as well as a credential for graduate studies and career opportunities. The course is focused on speculating architecture for MARS, the Wadi Rum desert is resemblant of Martian landscapes, where Ridley Scott's 'The Martian' was filmed starring Matt Damon. The course will focus on novel techniques in design and fabrication at multiple scales: material, architectural and urban.
Contact jordan@aaschool.ac.uk visit www.aavsjo.com for registration and details. Accommodation is available at Antika Hotel for shared twin rooms with other participants at a discounted rate of 300$ for the entire course including breakfast and wifi (June 23 to July 4). The hotel is in Jabal Amman within walking distance to our venue.
Instructors:
Kais Al-Rawi
Julia Koerner
Marie Boltenstern
Mazen AlAli
Barry Wark
Andreas Körner
Guest Speakers:
Rob Mueller, NASA | Swampworks
Julia Koerner, JK Design | UCLA AUD
Full Guests to be announced.
Past Keynote Speakers:
Ross Lovegrove
Ben Aranda
Mark Foster Gage
…
. BIM and Parametric.
Posts and files over at Design By Many:
http://www.designbymany.com/content/model-pattern-american-cement-building
I am equally comfortable on both of these platforms, and built the same parameters into each model. My modeling experience was very similar to that of Santiago. The Revit model took 4 hours to build, while the GH deff. took 16 hours to build. Time invested is certainly not the only metric to be compared; however, it is a good demonstration of the immediacy with which modifications can be made to the component system if parameter adjustment is not satisfactory.
With credit to Andrew Kudless for his process work on Manifold, I have adapted a similar workflow tracing diagram to the two models:
My general observation is that both tool sets approach the same problem, namely providing a structured relationship between components and wholes, but from opposing directions. BIM excels at compartmentalizing individual components, while parametric modelers like GH excell at global system-wide manipulations.
In the case of the American Cement Building, modeling the cast component seems to have fit in the box of 'the whole being reducible to its parts' the best. Although i anticipated Revit having more trouble with the surface generation, I found it to be more flexible on all accounts. Building up the component in a Pattern Based Curtain System family, the direct interaction with the rig (specifying control point work planes, and offsets) allowed the network of interactions to be accessible and editable throughout the build process. This family was then applied to a curtain panel grid which itself could be flexed in proportion, and cell count.
With the GH build I originally had the intention of utilizing data trees for parallel component construction so that changes to the base grid would affect offset normals and the like. However, after i had spent three hours constructing one parametric rail curve, I was unable to continue keeping track of the parallel data structure, and reverted to building a singular component. While GH certainly has the capacity to handle this task, I have found personally that the user does not.…
between the two. A simple example would be if you plug Integer data into a Text parameter. It's perfectly possible to create a piece of text which represents the integer. I.e. the value 18 becomes the text "18".
It's also possible to convert a floating point number to text, although in that case the conversion is not lossless, as the text only shows a limited number of decimals, thus rounding the actual numeric value.
In your specific case here, you have connected a Curve parameter output with the Loft Options input. Loft options are about the type of loft, whether or not to rebuild/refit the resulting loft surface and -if so- what sort of tolerance to use.
If you look at the tooltips of the input parameter for the Loft component, you'll see that the first one takes all the section curves and the second one takes the options to be used to make the loft. You'll have to put all your curves into the first input:
This can be accomplished by holding SHIFT while making the second connection.
However this will generate a new problem. Loft operates on a list of curves, and for each list of curves you provide it will try to create a single loft. But if you merge the two curve streams, you'll sometimes get lists of 4 curves, this is probably not what you want.
At any rate, Loft is probably not what you want in the first place as an offsetted curve (especially curves with kinks) will result in incredibly messy lofts. I'd recommend Boundary Surface as an alternative, but that will generate trimmed surfaces, which may not be acceptable for you.
Now then, on to the Offset failure. Curve offsetting is a planar operation. By default, the plane in which Offset works is the world XY plane. Your curves are all perpendicular to the world XY plane, so that is already problematic. The fix would be easy (plug the curves also into the Offset P input), were it not that one of your section curves is wonky. This is probably either due to a bug in the Rhino Brep|Plane intersector or it's a problem with the input Brep. Either way, I could not get one of the curves to offset correctly, no matter what I tried.
In the end I solved it by using Loose Offset, which also means that the loft works much better because both the interior and the exterior curve have identical topology (see attached). Do note that Loose Offset does not guarantee an offset accurate to within document tolerance, it only moves the control-points.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
ly planes instead of lines, so there is no equivalently elegant and orderly branching structure in there made from lines. You only get the mostly triangulated truss which is much tighter, shown here in blue in the 2D version:
If you only sparsely populate those truss points, you don't have as much triangulation and you do get more of a natural bone look, but you lose the orderly branching that I was so excited about in 2D. Also, since hexagons pack 2D space perfectly, the 2D case does create a lot of good areas of hexagons, but in 3D there is no similarly symmetrical space filling object except a cube, but cubes are not what Voronoi emulates at all. If the 2D case branches with three lines per vertex, then the 3D case could ideally branch with 4 lines per vertex, just like the atomic structure of diamond. I was hoping for that, naively, but am now discouraged. A surface adaptive diamonoid lattice is a long way off, it seems. Without the Voronoi relaxation cycles, just distorting an existing lattice somehow merged to the surface as needed local to the surface, won't even out well.
Diamond also is a very specific structure, not amendable to fractal like branching so I'm not even sure what the 3D equivalent of such branching is, whether there is an orderly system. "Branching" is the wrong concept anyway, since they both branch and join together again, forming cells. Pure branching with that ends at the surface is not coming out of Voronoi.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/stochastic-fractal
Here I have created a superior surface adaptive 3D Voronoi, by using my 2D system of only moving a lot the vertices already near the surface, leaving mostly alone the deeper ones, so I no longer get a blank hole in the interior but I do get lots of surface density:
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 2:01am on August 16, 2015
node geometry from line structure inputs.
In terms of trying to make all your panels regular hexagons... this topic comes up frequently on GH whether it be using only equilateral triangles, hexagons, pentagons etc;
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/folded-plane-subdivided-into-equilateral-triangles?id=2985220%3ATopic%3A1007963&page=2#comments
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/triangulation-using-only-equilateral-triangles
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/polygon-composition-with-hinges-1
In general, if you want a curved facade surface your hexagons cannot all be identical. There was a post on this forum about exactly this. I was convinced you could not have anything other than a flat surface with fixed, equalateral triangles but it turns out (and was shown by Daniel Piker and Kangaroo) that you can indeed have a non-planar surface panelled with equalateral triangles but it tends to be a kinked surface and it wasn't straightforward to control.
To try and reduce the variety of components in building structures like this, people have tried this sort of thing...
http://www.solidsmack.com/fabrication/you-can-now-build-your-own-geodesic-dome-at-home-in-under-an-hour-with-this-handy-kit/
...but notice the lack of panels!
Perhaps your best route is use something like what Bradley ended up with in the first link I posted then work on ID tagging each panel and node (and their orientations) so you have a construction procedure to follow.
One other thing to bear in mind... the simple construction above was really awkward to construct. On a larger scale it could be a nightmare! Once you have 2 nodes connected you can't fit the third without loosening the 2 that are already connected and shuffling them together bit by bit. Hard with 4 pieces, a disaster with many more so always think about how you intend to construct the pieces!…