buildz

Vasari Talk last minute reminder: Analyzing Geometry using Curtain Panels and Reporting Parameters

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:13:00 +0000

I’m going to be leading our free webinar later this morning, talking about using panels and reporting parameters to mine information from forms.

Register now! Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM EST

Questions on this topic? Post them here.

Summary: The ability for pattern-based curtain panels to "report" on their local conditions is an extremely powerful aspect of Project Vasari and Revit's parametric toolkit. In this Vasari Talk we will introduce reporting parameters and how they can be used to analyze geometry.
Learning Goals: At the end of this session, you will be able to:
1. Define reporting parameters in a panel
2. Pull information out of geometry using panels
3. Drive data back into panels

Trogdor!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:02:00 +0000

Reader question: “Can you draw a dragon? I want to see your skills of an artist.”

A dragon? That’s easy! Feel free to follow along with my simple step by step instructions. I make drawing FUN!!

Trogdor the Revinator

As always, in humble awe: http://www.youtube.com/homestarrunnerdotcom#p/search/0/90X5NJleYJQ

Elephants and Donuts: boolean operations in Revit and Vasari

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:47:00 +0000

One of the great joys in making building forms is coming upon a form that is both lovely and efficient. Imagine the joy when this shape is also a donut. Mmm . . . donuts. Firmness, Commodity and Delight, a true Vitruvian joy.

Many starchitects have found and exploited the characteristics of the donut, also known as the torus, for various projects. Using the natural parameterization of the surface, a torus or toroidal section can be broken up into 4 sided panels that are all entirely flat and identical to each other in bands along the surface.

In this video, I’ll show in mere seconds how to make the basic layout of a parametric toroidal section and panelize it to demonstrate certain structural efficiencies.

Elephants and Donuts

Your Move, Case: a holiday chess set

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 03:54:00 +0000

Dave Fano over at Case put together a nice workset checkers game for your holiday enjoyment. Myself, I’m more of a chess guy, so here’s a chess set family: 6 types, 1 parametric spline, 2 voids.

Download Case’s gameboard with Buildz chess pieces.

Don’t wait for the end of the holidays. Besides, you need a reason to get away from your relatives for a little while . . .

Hey BTM, Nice Huevos: shape handles and ellipsoids

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:26:00 +0000

BIM Troublemaker did a great post recently on making a parametric ellipsoid. But I am lazy, and wanted to try an easier way.

Shape Handles and Ellipsoids

Download the file from here.

Buildz and Co. AU2011 Classes Available Online (mostly)

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:42:00 +0000

The Autodesk University folks have posted online versions of classes. Here are the three I co-presented.

Twice Baked: This is a lab class and so was not recorded. However, the handout and datasets are very detailed and have perhaps even more information than what Robert and I presented.

Energetic Supermodels: Also an unrecorded lab. However, a good bit of what we covered can be watched at our New York Revit Users Group presentation, and you can download our handout here.

You Want to Model a What?: Our whole presentation was recorded for your viewing pleasure.

You may need to make an AU account for yourself to read/view/download these.

Thanks again to my fabulous co-speakers, William Lopez Campo, Matt Jezyk, and Robert Manna! And thanks to our many lab assistants, helpers, and contributers: Arjun Ayyar, Scott Davis, David Light, Steve Stafford, Phil Lazarus, Dave Baldacchino, Vincent Poon, Nauman Mysorewala, Ian Keough, Mike Massey, Mark Green, Don Rudder, Bjorn Wittenberg, Emmanuel DiGiacomo, and I’m very sorry if I forgot anyone!

Parametric Patterns XII: Reporter

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:16:00 +0000

Reporter

“Re-present (abstract or transform) information from a model.”

I haven’t dealt with Woodbury’s “Reporter” pattern yet, partly because the process of abstracting information in a complex model in tabular or graphic format is often quite trivial in Revit. For many (if not most) things that architects, engineers, and designers need, simply hitting the “schedule” button will suffice. This standard set of tools allows for quantities, many parameters, costs, etc, etc, etc, to be pulled out of the model into tabular form. Data alterations made to this tabular information are driven back into the model. Or, to put it more accurately, the tabular data is simply another “view” of the same data that is represented by model geometry.

Refinements of large amounts of data or additional information can also be drawn from the model using criteria based filters. While basic filter behavior allows for limitation of views and selection based on category, criteria based filters allow users to specify aspects of their model that they want to identify based on ranges or relationships in the data. For instance, you can limit a view to only display columns within a certain height range, or only show doors that have the word “Beelzabub” in the name.

Along with this out-of-the-box feature based functionality, one can also create family based geometry in such a way that it can add another layer of information to a model, drawing out more information than would otherwise be there.

Fabrication

“Transform design data for fabrication”

Reporting for Fabrication

Download the file from here

Out of Plane

“Report the out-of-plane polygons of a surface by both color and text”

Please take a look at this post, which is a thorough examination of reporting panel deformation.

Form Finding by Creating Parametric Profiles with Joe K

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:30:00 +0000

Buildz is again honored and pleased to welcome Joe Kendsersky, Autodesk Customer Success Engineer.

The purpose of this post is to introduce how to create parametric profiles and use them for form finding in the conceptual modeling environment in Revit.

In the conceptual modeling environment, there have been several occasion where I find myself recreating some basic profile shapes (be it a square, circle, octagon or something more complex) that can take time depending upon the profile shape, so why not make them once and have the ability to reuse as needed. The methods to do this are not new and have been available since we introduced the new modeling tools. I find these explorations interesting and by having a profile library “kit of parts” assists in ability to easily create lofts from repeated elements.

Image below shows basic samples of what can be created using this work flow.

Let’s get started and create a sample. First, in Revit start a new mass family: new > conceptual mass. Sketch a square using model lines on level one plane. Later in the post we’ll discuss the differences between using model vs. reference lines together.

Add two length instance parameters to control X,Y direction. Test the parameters to ensure constraints are satisfied. Save the family as square.rfa, this is the base profile that we’ll use.

The goal, we are going to load square.rfa into a new conceptual mass family and place it on a reference point. Before doing this, lets prepare: Start a new mass family: new > conceptual mass.

Select a reference point, in the properties dialogue set show reference plane to always and place it on level one plane.

Position the reference point to the origin / intersection of two default planes (front back, left/right) this will make it easier to align the origin of the family when loading into another template or project. This also will act as the spine of our form in the Z-axis.

Now, set the plane for the reference point to the Z-axis – highlighted below. Save the family as square mass profile.rfa

Load the parametric square.rfa into square mass profile.rfa family. Make sure the option place on work plane is selected and position the square profile at the origin / intersection – as shown below.

We’ll create a few levels and add a height instance parameter.

Crossing window select the square profile and reference point, copy to clipboard, paste and choose aligned to select levels and then select the levels – except for level one. Keep these steps in mind, as this can change depending upon how a profile is initially setup.

Now, let’s create a blended form by selecting the profiles and then create form:

Profiles selected:

Lofted Blend:

Given every profile placed on each level has its own X,Y instance parameters and additionally each reference point has an angle parameters, we can create parameters in family types and associate these to each instance.

In the family: square mass profile.rfa, I have added several length and angle instance parameters to control each instance of our profile – as shown below.

Parameter Association: tab select the square profile on level one, in the properties palette associate (X,Y) to the appropriate parameters that were just created, this is done by selecting the radio buttons - highlighted below.

Select the reference point on level one, and in the properties palette associate rotation angle to the appropriate parameter that was just created, this is done by selecting the radio button - highlighted below.

After all the initial setup, let’s test and edit some parameters to explore some different forms in the family types dialogue.

Sample Forms:

You can also explore the same idea by starting off with reference points to setup your profiles structure and stitch in model lines to create a closed loop form.

Additionally, when using this method, we have the ability to swap out one profile with another to explore various shapes, not having to remake the form. For this case below, a parametric octagon profile was created and loaded into the square family mass environment. These can be swapped by selecting on any profile instance and changing it to another profile type in the properties dialogue.

In the first example, we created a parametric square profile using model lines, this is relatively easy to setup and control. However, there are several profiles types that would be very difficult to make without adding additional references for the base structure – as shown below.

When a loaded family is selected to be used to create form, form creation act as though EVERYTHING in the loaded family is contributing to the form creation. That means these extra pieces of reference geometry are going to spoil our form creation.

However, we can also just be a bit more careful in our selection and just use a portion of the loaded family. To allow for this careful selection we need to create a surface. Select the four reference lines that make up the profile and create form, create a surface by selecting the surface and not the extrusion in the preview. Once this created, it can be loaded into a new mass family and hosted on reference points.

Profile loaded into a mass family and placed on reference points and parameters are associated.

Now, to create the blended form is the tricky part; you need to tab select the face of each profile instance that has been placed before creating form. Unfortunately, you cannot create a crossing window around all the profiles and then create form because we are selecting the family instance and not the faces, if you don’t select the faces, you’ll receive a message: “Unable to create form element” because Revit will be trying to create a form using all those invisible pieces of reference geometry. Because your form is being created by sub elements of the loaded family, this also has a disadvantage that you will not be able to swap out the family for another family.

So depending on how the profile family is constructed; you’ll be able to either:

a. just select the whole family and use it for form creation – square profile.

b. need to tab select elements in the family for form creation – ellipse profile.

Profile faces selected:

Blended Form:

Sample Forms:

In conclusion, these are some basic examples which only scratches the surface of what’s capable for profile creation in this environment. In the end, no matter what you are exploring: tower form, architectural column or any other element etc. having a kit of parts aides in the time for initial set up without having to recreate profiles. It also provides control of the form if the base profiles are setup up correctly with appropriate parameters.

Special thanks to Zach Kron for his comments and review.

Download a Sample File from here.

Joe Kendsersky is an Autodesk Green Beret who gets parachuted into customer offices to smooth over the bumps on their road to BIM victory. This job is also referred to as “Customer Success Engineer for Revit Architecture”. One of his major roles is to insure the success of new and existing customers as they move from pilot to production and provide Autodesk with deep insight into product usage and customer experience. Joe is trained as an architect and joined Revit Technology in 2000, and subsequently Autodesk in 2002. Since switching into the software industry, he has continually worked to aide in the development of Revit and enjoys sharing new knowledge with all users.

Get Flat: Scale Translation Surface in Vasari

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:50:00 +0000

Scale Trans-What?

Ya, scale translation surface, ask for it by name. It’s sure to provide you with nice planar panels and lots of flexibility in form making.

I’m getting over my Autodesk University post partum depression by filling in a couple of the blanks I left in my presentations with my fabulous fabulous co-presenters William Lopez-Campo, Robert Manna, and Matt Jezyk (check here, here, and here). This installment in particular pertains to AB4700: You want to model a What?

Scale Translation Surface in Vasari

More to come. If you are impatient for more information on this kind of geometry, check out this paper by Jim Glymph, Dennis Shelden, Cristiano Ceccato, Judith Mussel, and Hans Shober.

Playing with Energetic Supermodels

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:49:00 +0000

Matt Jezyk and I are sneaking in a late arriving Lab class for AU 2011. Check your schedules and head over Wednesday night at 5pm.

Autodesk® Project Vasari: Playing with Energetic Supermodels

Class ID: AB9660-L

Class Information
Class Type: Hands-On Lab
Primary Track: Architecture and Building Design
Other Tracks: Design Leadership
Primary Software: Autodesk Revit Architecture
Primary Speaker: Matt Jezyk
Co-Speaker: Zach Kron

Class Audience

Designers who are interesting in learning more about Revit, professionals who focus on creation of advanced parametric models and early design schemes, and parametric design enthusiasts who like to say "You can’t do that in Revit."

Class Description

In this hands-on lab, you will explore experimental tools and workflows using Autodesk Project Vasari. Project Vasari connects the parametric modeling capabilities of Autodesk Revit® with many of the analysis and simulation capabilities available in Autodesk Ecotect® Analysis and Autodesk Green Building Studio. You will also learn about and use new performance-based design tools available from Autodesk Labs. First, you will create a few parametric building models and simulations. Next, the class will cover more advanced topics, such as how to create automated feedback loops. You will explore workflows where changes you make to the model cause changes in the simulation results, which then drive changes back into the model. You will use both out-of-the-box tools and add-ons currently under development to create parametric building models that respond to environmental conditions through both automatic and semi-automatic feedback loops.

Key Learning

Use advanced adaptive components and curtain panel techniques
Combined parametric modeling with analysis to help drive decisions early in the design process
Describe new types of analysis and simulation that are now accessible to building designers
Create feedback loops to enable analysis results to make changes to the building model

Increment Sketch

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:36:00 +0000

I was having a conversation recently with someone about how “no one sketches anymore”. I find that hard to believe . . . maybe people have different ideas of what sketching is. There’s probably a range of “notes”, “drawing”, “doodle”, “throw away model”, and “draft” that fits inside the idea of sketching. While I don’t find my own sketches particularly beautiful, they are usually essential to the process of making just about anything. I don’t think I’ve ever succeeded in making any kind of reasonably complex parametric model without some amount of paper and pencil foundation work.

Here’s some stuff I was thinking about getting ready for this post on incrementing.

Happy Halloween, III!

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:00:00 +0000

It’s time to announce the winners for the 3rd Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving Contest. As always, we have the Baddest, the Goodest, and the Mostest Parametric;

Baddest: “Bad” in this case is regarded as high praise for an uncanny scariness, a serious and terrifying aspect. Think of Shaft, Xena, Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, Spartacus, Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction, Mila Jovovich in Resident Evil, early Johnny Cash, Annie Oakley, Hannibal, etc . . . bad.

Goodest: The pumpkin that gets to the wholesome essence of both Jack O' Lanterns and the design platform on which it was built. Free of workarounds and hacks, this winner is a model of both creativity and good citizenship.

Mostest Parametric: The pumpkin that is shaped by rules and variables, that is definite yet infinitely flexible. It not only defines a particular look and feel, but conveys the possibility of endless variation.

A summary of this year’s entrants: you people are just crazy. We at Buildz realize that, in expertly providing practical notes on impractical things, we may attract the more fringe members of our already niche community. But this is just BEYOND. Frankly, I’m more than a bit awed by these submissions. My descriptions here can only serve as a fanboy introduction, please take a look at the files and accompanying documentation links to get a real understanding of the imagination and analytic genius hinted at in the images.

The Goodest

Call me sentimental, but Andy Milburn’s 6 part epic examination of the formal and structural qualities of a pumpkin actually brought a tear to my eye. For me, this is really what it is all about. His conclusion, that “pumpkins and Doric columns can be treated as homologous structures” strikes me as profound, and funny, and deeply accurate.

As with previous Goodest recipients, Andy goes to the wholesome center of both the jack o’lantern and the platform in which he makes it. He has done the seemingly impossible and made the design of a vegetable and a classical architectural structure identical. It is BIMy, goofy, and exceedingly architectural.

While a close second for Mostest Parametric, what puts Andy’s stuff over the top for Goodest is there are no hacks or workarounds that I detect. This is a good old fashioned office friendly Revit pumpkin. Take it home to meet your BIM manager and she’ll ask it to stay for dinner.

If you have not visited Andy’s site, Grevity, please go there now. There are 6 pumpkin related posts for October.

The Baddest

In the grand tradition of baddassery, that lineage of people, animals and objects that you DON’T want to piss off (0r, alternately, you DO want to have on your side when you get trapped in the toolshed with zombies chewing on the doorknob) we find Marcello Sgambelluri. His monster pumpkin will turn you into pie before you can say “trick or treEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

Speaking of pie, it also operates with a Slider parameter that turns it into a can of pumpkin pie filling! Aaaaaaahhhhhhh!

(and . . . and . . . AND it’s an animated .gif ! Kickin’ it old school badass!)

There are six nested profile families and a list of parameters as long as my arm to drive this beast.

As with previous Baddest recipients, Marcello does unspeakable, tortuous things to the platform (Revit). Think of Marcello as Marsellus Wallace, pondering how to make this form: “I'm gonna call a couple of hard, pipe-hitting n****s to go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.” Just thinking about what he had to do to Revit to make this work makes my fingers bleed.

Due to certain laws in the states of Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Yemin, I am not allowed to distribute the actual .rfa file for this model. To find out how this was really done, you are going to have to attend his class at RTC. Under 18 not admitted without an adult. (There is a PG-13 version available in the downloadable zip.)

The Mostest Parametric

Ritchie Jackson takes us back to school with his Centrum Cucurbitum. Along with images and models, he includes a document “Centrum Cucurbitum: Investigating Pattern Flexibility”, a well considered study of the use of end user programing in Revit to enhance BIM.

Ritchie employs C# programming on the component scale, using his code to generate element variations. “All the buildings elements were created using a common parametric model driven by twenty-three input variables. The idea was to determine if this single pattern was flexible enough to provide a sufficient degree of articulation and variation for the components of the design at hand.”

These components are then manually assembled into a larger structure.

While there is no larger parametric control of the overall building form “the parametric commonalities of these parts lend themselves to be governed by a meta-Jig”. There is a common parametric language that all the elements share, allowing them to be reassembled into harmonious relationships. The systematic creation of unique parts allows for a systematic but flexible assembly.

Ritchie’s implementation in Revit is understood as only one possible way to realize a more generalizable parametric methodology. “Whilst Autodesk Revit was used to create the parametric form and some of the issues raised are specific to that package the process could be implemented in any one of a number of other applications.”

This is an excellent case study of how to use “out of the box” parametric tools in conjunction with end-user programming. Along with Ritchie’s document describing his process, there is a Macro enabled rfa file that includes some of the code for your own education and amusement.

Also Ran . . .

While the Goodest, Baddest, and Mostest Parametric are called out for their jaw dropping pumpkin acrobatics, there are a number of other submissions that I want to mention.

Chad Smith: an anxious and doomed pumpkin

John Fout: punk’ins

Kelvin Tam: a parametric face

Lilli Smith: a slider driven, emotional pumpkin

Paul Munford: pumpkin furniture

Philip Chan: a doubly carved pumpkin

Scott Davis: flexible profile pumpkin

William Lopez Campo: 3d printed and fully analog

To the Parametric Pumpkin Class of ‘11, my cup runneth over. Please please please, take some time to look at the files and documents for these projects, there are important lessons to be learned in each. Thank you so much, we at Buildz are honored and humbled by your contributions.

Download the files from here.

SUBMIT!

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:11:00 +0000

Details

Dynamo Hum

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:39:00 +0000

This is going to be interesting! Go, Ian, GO!

10 days to pumpkin

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:04:00 +0000

These crack me up.

Just 10 days left! Only you can can make the 3rd Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving the BEST ONE EVER!

FAQ:

Did you say3rd Annual? Why yes, I did. Buildz has been promoting Pumpkiny goodness, badness, and parametricity since ‘09.

Did I read that correctly? Parametric Pumpkin? What if my pumpkin is just a pumpkin? Contrary to Freud, a pumpkin is never JUST a pumpkin. Your rendition will be evocative of deep unconscious representations of what it means to be a vegetable. If it is not particularly flexible or constraint driven, it can still be eligible for Goodest or Baddest .

Now, this Carving thing, what if I hate boolean operations? Subtractive forms, while common, are not a requirement to submit a pumpkin. We understand that many talented designers are allergic to certain modeling operations, and we welcome alternate approaches.

What if my pumpkin sucks? Can I still submit it? Absolutely! As Woody Allen says: 80 percent of success is just showing up.

I made a pumpkin for a curvaceous, younger 3d modeling competition, do you still love me? Yes, my dear polyamorous reader, we will always love you. While we at Buildz would like to think we are your only source for impractical 3d kernoodling, we accept your exotic lifestyle choices and take what we can get. And while we are on the subject, we have recently been on Facebook with our old college “friend” Mayline, and she is still as flexible as ever. So there, Tramp.

18 days to pumpkin

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:04:00 +0000

Remember! Only YOU can make the 3rd Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving the best one yet.

Best building toy you never bought

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:22:00 +0000

Ingredients:

30 Q-tips

A jar of rubber cement.

Preparation:

1.) Dip the end of each q-tip in rubber cement

2.) Let dry

3.) Make an icosahedron

(Thanks to Steven Caney!)

Parametric Pattterns XI: GoalSeeker

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:34:00 +0000

Goalseeker

“Change an input until a chosen output meets a threshold.”

The Goalseeker begins by stating where you want the design to end, not how you want it to get there. This is the one pattern that is pretty much impossible in Revit or Vasari (or Grasshopper, for that matter) without some additional coding. Revit’s engine likes to string a bunch of elements and relationships together and accumulate the pieces into an integrated whole. This is essentially a bottom up process, where the result is determined by accumulated relationships. Goalseeker is the reverse, where the result is determined and we need to sift through multiple paths to figure out how to get there. Or how to get close.

This is not an easy operation for most platforms, partly because the end result is usually an approximation of an ideal. Finding the highest point on a hill, for instance, can be an eternal loop of finding points NEAR an ideal “top”, points that are infinitely ever-so-slightly higher than the last measured highest point. To make sure that the process stops, you need to build in the concept of “good enough”, a fuzzy area that satisfies the human sense of “top” but not a computer’s impossibly precise definition of “top” . Computers don’t usually like “good enough”.

In this example, there is a core Goalseeking engine, a python script authored by Aki Hogge, which simply manages an input, an output, a goal, and the differences between them. What is done with these numbers is defined by good old fashioned family parameters. This allows the heavy lifting to be done by the specialized script, and Revit allows the user to generalize it’s application.

Enough talk, let’s take a look ( I recommend full screen).

Demonstrating a Vasari/Python Goalseeker

Woodbury writes that “Key to writing a working Goal Seeker is understanding how to build the desired measure into the system. Understand how the result will change with changes to the driver”

The interesting part for me is that the same script can be reused for many different applications. While it certainly will not satisfy every application (it’s pretty limited, in fact), it is remarkably generic and portable. That is, it can be used for all sorts of different measurement needs, so long as you just need an input, an output, and a set quantity to measure the output against.

The core of this pattern involves the discovery of base conditions that are now known, but an end state that is known. Usually in parametric modeling the reverse is true: you set up the relationships of pieces and welcome the surprise of a resulting condition. But with the goalseeker, you define what you want the outcome to be and let the algorithm figure out how to get there.

Download Goalseeker python script and sample files from here

Read how to get started with python scripting in Vasari and Revit here.

Python Scripting in Vasari 2.1 and Revit 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:35:00 +0000

It’s here! Daren Thomas has posted installers for RevitPythonShell for BOTH Revit 2012 and Vasari 2.1.

What does this mean? You, dear reader, can now script live in a Vasari session using Python. Behold!

Python in Vasari: Getting Started

The samples I’m showing are things that I am not capable of cobbling together on my own . . . I’m NOT AT ALL a coding person. It’s actually my desperate hope that you will understand these concepts much better than I and do something cool with the tools. Keep an eye on Nathan Miller’s site, I’m sure he will have good stuff. My Create Surface script is a simplification of his supershapes script posted here. Thanks to Aki Hogge for everything else.

I have tried a bunch of times to get through “Hello World” in both full Visual Studio and VSTA for Revit and each time just failed miserably. I’ve had much more success with this tool and can see a way to actually progressing in my API education. So if you have tried and failed with the Revit API in the past, give this a shot. Here’s the text version of how to get started:

RevitPythonShell for Vasari in 5 minutes:

Run Vasari at least once on the computer in question
Install IronPython: http://ironpython.net/
Install RevitPythonShell: http://code.google.com/p/revitpythonshell/downloads/detail?name=Setup_RevitPythonShell_Vasari_TP2.1.exe#makechanges
Download some starter samples from here.
Open Vasari >Addins tab>RevitPythonShell>Configure . . .>
In Search Paths tab, add the Lib folder in your IronPython installation (ex, C:\Program Files (x86)\IronPython 2.7\Lib), this is for autocomplete
In Commands tab>Add> select the attached pySamples
Save and restart Vasari. Play with samples.

All the samples run in Mass.rfa files, GoalSeeker uses the Goalseeker example files. It all works in either Vasari or Revit.

To monkey with the scripts live, just open them in an editor (notepad works, I’m sure there are way better ones) make changes, save and then run again in Vasari.

There’s no official SDK or documentation for the Vasari API, but it is essentially a slimmed down version of the Revit API, with detail model elements and such removed.

3rd Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:31:00 +0000

It’s the most wonderful time of the year! Air is getting dry, I get to wear my old-guy cardigan, and the grape arbor in the back yard makes my house smell like the Manischewitz-pocalypse. And of course the king of vegetables, the venerable Cucurbita mixta, or common American Pumpkin, begins its turgid climb to seasonal culture dominance!

And YES! The 3rd Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving! Break out the napkins, start sketching your concepts. It’s time to understand the inner soul of pumpkins.

Prizes, as always, will be awarded for The Goodest, The Baddest, and The Mostest Parametric.

We at B.U.I.L.D.Z. LLC, pDq are platform agnostic. Submit entries from whatever platform you are comfortable in: Blender, Catia, Revit, GC, Sketchup, Rhino, 123d, sumi-brush, spirograph, whatever. Our factory judges will look into your pumpkin’s soul and decide if IT is worthy, not your tools.

Along with receiving bragging rights, the winners will have their work showcased on these pages to TENS of readers and receive a valuable piece of Buildz schwag.

Entries must be received by 12 noon EST Oct 28. Winners will be announced at midnight on Halloween.

So brew yourself a steaming mug of Kopi Luwak, turn on your high-performance NeXTcube, and make a performance based, LEED certified, direct-to-fabrication, cloud computed, optimized, and/or object-oriented Jack O’Lantern. Post entries to zachkron@gmail.com, at least a screenshot, but feel free to send models, journals, parameters, videos, scripts, whatever, modeled in whatever you like. If you have some huge file, please send a link or let me know and we can work out some kind of upload. Show how flexible and open-ended a carved vegetable can be.

Make good stuff!

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:43:00 +0000

</littleVictoryBoogie>

[Edit: file cleaned up and downloadable here. Explanation soon.]

Vasari 2.1 Wind Tunnel: 3D Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:52:00 +0000

The Wind Tunnel analysis available in Vasari 2.1 is mesmerizing.

. . . I think my building is going to suck pedestrians off the sidewalk. Mwah-hahahaha!

For basics on how to use the functionality, check out this link.

Now, a couple other things I like to consider when jumping in on this tool:

Use 3d analysis for more robust results: 2d is fast, but only takes a small area of your model into consideration

Let the analysis run for a while before really looking at it: crunching voxels is hard work, and you wanted to get some coffee anyway.

Pause your analysis before exploring it: Moving around the data slice and using other methods of visualizing the analysis is where the fun comes in. This takes computing power, so you’ll want to stop analyzing and start visualizing.

The default behavior is to use “2d analysis”, which is very fast to calculate, but only takes into consideration the winds and geometry of a flat plane.

This is what I get after only a few seconds using the default settings on my model.

Now, this is fine, it gives you a good starting point to understanding your model. But with my corkscrewing geometry, I’m pretty sure that I’m getting a vigorous 3 dimensional churn, probably a big rush of wind coming up from the ~~innocent victim trap~~ plaza. To take this into account, you need to check the 3D Analysis button.

This is where you will jump from “real time” to something more intensive. For instance, on my 8 core machine, I popped on 3d analysis, waited 4 minutes, and had this

Notice how most of the area around the model is not very differentiated? This is because my computer is just beginning to process all the voxels. With that one button push I go from 15,626 2d cells to 1,515,625 3d cells being analyzed. But you can also see the ~~spiraling death vortex~~ turbulence area that I suspected would form in the recessed area of the tower. ~~Mwa-hahahaha!~~

8 minutes after start:

20 minutes:

After about 40 or 50 minutes my simulation started wavering back and forth between this

and this.

At which point I say “good enough” and pause the Real-Time Analysis:

Which allows my processors to go from this:

to this:

Whew!

So with the analysis paused, I’m freed up to explore the model. If I left it still processing the data, it wouldn’t leave much of my poor machine’s brain power to manipulate the views, like scrubbing the XY slice up and down, or better yet, playing with the 3D Volumetric controls (more on that in another post).

One quick thing I can do is look at various slices of the data. If you go to the 2D Grid slice tab, changing the 3d Axis will give you this:

Now compare that with my nearly immediate results from the 2d analysis’ vertical slice

You can see that there is certainly a relationship between the 2d and 3d analysis in terms of directionality and relative intensity of the wind velocity. But you can also see some significant differences. For instance, let’s adjust the Data Display to have the same Minimum/Maximum range displayed:

Going from an initial range of 0 - 102 m/s, I change the 2D analysis to match my 3d analysis of 0 - 32 m/s

So this is more of an apple to apples comparison of 2d to 3d:

Lots more to say on this functionality, we haven’t even looked at this stuff:

. . . stay tuned.

Animated Slices

Sign up for AU 2011 Classes

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:19:00 +0000

I’m co-teaching 2 classes this year, a Lab with Robert Manna from Stantec (recently Burt Hill) and a Lecture with William Lopez Campo from HOK. Registration is open . . . what are you waiting for!

AB4391-L Twice Baked: Creating Your Own Adaptive Components and Panels with Autodesk® Revit®

Class Audience

Designers, modelers, and staff who work with Revit and Revit users who are familiar with adaptive components who want to achieve a higher level of mastery.

Class Description

This hands-on lab builds on the topics covered in last year's "Au Bon Panel: Baking Your Own Adaptive Components and Panels with Autodesk Revit Architecture." Revit 2012 has introduced the ability to place adaptive components directly into projects, which opens up even more possibilities of what you can do with this powerful family modeling tool. We will address more complex topics, including using hosted points and shape handles, and will provide tips on how to make use of nested components. Our examples will include both the practical and perhaps not-so-practical, including how to use Adaptive Components as “design aids” (“computational” design on the fly). You will learn how to build “stuff” that behaves how you want it to and not how Revit thinks it should. So, come prepared, review the classes from 2010, and get ready for a whirlwind lab!

Key Learning

Understand the concept of “computational design on the fly"
Control the orientation and alignment of components
Understand how to use adaptive components and panels to create well-quantified designs, not just sculptural elements
Use nesting families to create complex adaptive components and panels

No guarantees, but here are some emerging thoughts on what we’ll talk about:

AB4700 You Want to Model a WHAT? Converting Real Projects into Parametric Relationships

Class Audience

Advanced users of Revit or users of other parametric design software who want to understand the same concepts in Revit; designers who want to create ideas that will drive BIM models; BIM support people who need to make designers' ideas buildable

Class Description

Designers are constantly faced with two related challenges: how to rationalize a form into buildable elements, and how to create geometric frameworks to represent design requirements. These problems are two sides of the same coin. In this class, attendees will see examples of how Autodesk® Revit® conceptual design tools have been used to transform ideas into reality by either “pre-rationalizing” a design based on requirements or “post-rationalizing” an existing design into manageable elements. Speakers will draw upon real-world examples and recognizable precedents. Case studies will demonstrate how very complex buildings can be addressed quickly and with standard architectural tools.

Key Learning

Recognize connections between computational ideas and architectural projects
Apply parametric design strategies to real projects
Rationalize a building form into a parametric framework
Create a parametric framework based on requirements

Again, no guarantees, but more thoughts on some of what we’ll talk about:

And you thought you were sooo original . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:06:00 +0000

An interesting discussion is going on concerning Evolute’s patent on freeform surfaces in buildings consisting of planar quadrilateral or hexagonal faces. This isn’t a patent on the process to create them . . . it’s for the whole category of resulting built forms. Check out the summary of the patents here (and don’t be afraid to read the full patents too).

Also see these links:

Evolute’s recent statement regarding their patents
Daniel Piker’s site spacesymmetrystructure. Daniel is the author of Kangaroo, a live physic engine for Rhino and has a note in his software’s download page to take a look at Evolute’s patents.
Daniel Davis, an architectural PhD student, keeping an eye on the digital culture.
Lorenz Lachauer’s discussion of an Open Design license for architecture
http://object-e.blogspot.com/

What do you think? Look at the forms below, do they count? If there is math underlying the form, is it freeform? Have you made something that qualifies?

J. Gribl’s Hippo House, Berlin, with Schlaich Bergermann and Partner, 1996. While it looks organic, is this “freeform” ? It’s actually a “translational surface”, so I’m not sure if it qualifies.

Some Gehry . . . surely freeform, but not planar, just expensive.

Eladio Dieste, Church circa 1960. Nice and wiggly with many many flat quad faces. But actually they’re ruled surfaces, and there isn’t a support structure.

A patio in Massachusetts, circa 2005. Probably the closest example of freeform with planar quads, but again no support structure.

In the end it isn’t so much about proving pre-existing art (are there examples between 2000 and 2007 at least?) but is it CONCEPTUALY o.k. to patent built forms? Isn’t it more appropriate to patent the process that attains the geometry? But what if the inventor of the Television patented the process of creating the TV, rather than the outcome? And what is “freeform”? Are there any precedents for this specific kind of building pre-2000? 1990? 1900? Are we able to separate “CAN you patent that?” (which is a legal question) from “SHOULD you patent that?” (which is a philosophical question).

I don’t have the answers to this, my gut tells me something isn’t right with patent law . . . but I also don’t think the implications are obvious. What do you think?

Neither of These Keyboards Suck

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Kron) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:42:00 +0000

Cleaning up the house, I found these pictures taken years ago at a flea market in Italy. They feel like writing instruments from an alternate reality. They remind me of this post and have me thinking about “intuitive interfaces” and learned behaviors.