Hi Andrea, thank you very much for creating such a cool tool! I have been keeping following your tutorials. May I ask what is the difference between the advanced part component and the basic part component? I want to understand which one is applied in which situation. That would be very cool if it could be explained in a tutorial. Many thanks.
Hi, the main difference lies in the fact that the AdvancedPart has some extra inputs, which allow you to use some other features of Wasp. These are: - Local constraints (supports and additional collider geometry) - Field channel assigment (when using multi-channel fields) - Part Hierarchy (when creating a part which is made of sub-parts) There are examples for all these features in the Wasp example files, and I will slowly try to cover them as well in the video tutorials. Besides this, for the aggregation components both BasicPart and AdvancedPart can be used indifferently (you can even mix Basic and Advanced parts in the same aggregation). Simply, if you use a BasicPart and try to set some of the features above, the algorithm will ignore them for the BasicParts.
I am trying to model something similar to this but to have each wasp hexagonal prism fit into a set infrastructure. If I model a column-beam-girder grid, is it possible to create rules for these shapes to aggregate into it?
Hi Daniel, yes. What you would need to do is to use the Transform Part component to position the starting points of your aggregation within your grid, and then make sure that your Parts fit and follow the grid with the correct dimensions. Let me know if you need more help. You can also join the Discord Support chat if you have more in-detail questions: discord.gg/wke9jt6
I suppose the question at hand is what do you think "discrete" modeling is? I understand the addictive nature of the surface project but, honestly there are 12 step programs for that
Hi Arthur, happy to hear that tutorials are helpful. About the "discrete" denomination, I know it is confusing. While "discrete" is not a accurate term to describe the plug-in's underlying logic ("combinatorial" would be the correct term, I believe), when I started to develop Wasp I choose to call it "discrete modelling toolkit" as I saw it as a part of a wider discourse on the emerging field of "discrete" in architecture (see the AD issue on the topic). I saw this as a discourse focused on openness, user-adaptability and free sharing of architectural knowledge. However, I have to say that with more recent developments within the same discourse, I find myself quite at odds with it, as it looks like it is shifting more towards a aesthetic and stylistic exploration of discreteness, and less towards the open approach to design and fabrication I saw in it at the beginning. So yeah, I am thinking since a while if the name should change to "combinatorial modelling", but I am yet to come to a decision. Would be curious to know your opinion.
What is the problem with it? If you are using a newer Wasp version, you will need to update the file. You can see how to do that in the second part of this video: ruclips.net/video/MXHCtVCbeiA/видео.html
@@TempAutonArch Thanks for the reply. I am pretty sure I am using wasp 0.5.003 and the example files are also from that version. The aggregation component turned red and the error bubble said "solution exception: index out of range: 0". Only when the mode set to local, no constraints works well.
wooow, that's gonna be useful, thanks!
Hi Andrea, thank you very much for creating such a cool tool! I have been keeping following your tutorials. May I ask what is the difference between the advanced part component and the basic part component? I want to understand which one is applied in which situation. That would be very cool if it could be explained in a tutorial. Many thanks.
Hi, the main difference lies in the fact that the AdvancedPart has some extra inputs, which allow you to use some other features of Wasp. These are:
- Local constraints (supports and additional collider geometry)
- Field channel assigment (when using multi-channel fields)
- Part Hierarchy (when creating a part which is made of sub-parts)
There are examples for all these features in the Wasp example files, and I will slowly try to cover them as well in the video tutorials.
Besides this, for the aggregation components both BasicPart and AdvancedPart can be used indifferently (you can even mix Basic and Advanced parts in the same aggregation). Simply, if you use a BasicPart and try to set some of the features above, the algorithm will ignore them for the BasicParts.
@@TempAutonArch Thank you for your quick reply. I really enjoy this plug-in.
Thanks! Glad you are enjoying it!!!
I am trying to model something similar to this but to have each wasp hexagonal prism fit into a set infrastructure. If I model a column-beam-girder grid, is it possible to create rules for these shapes to aggregate into it?
Hi Daniel, yes. What you would need to do is to use the Transform Part component to position the starting points of your aggregation within your grid, and then make sure that your Parts fit and follow the grid with the correct dimensions. Let me know if you need more help. You can also join the Discord Support chat if you have more in-detail questions: discord.gg/wke9jt6
Thank you so much Andrea! Very helpful tutorial. More of a general question but why is the tool called discrete modelling?
I suppose the question at hand is what do you think "discrete" modeling is? I understand the addictive nature of the surface project but, honestly there are 12 step programs for that
Hi Arthur, happy to hear that tutorials are helpful.
About the "discrete" denomination, I know it is confusing. While "discrete" is not a accurate term to describe the plug-in's underlying logic ("combinatorial" would be the correct term, I believe), when I started to develop Wasp I choose to call it "discrete modelling toolkit" as I saw it as a part of a wider discourse on the emerging field of "discrete" in architecture (see the AD issue on the topic). I saw this as a discourse focused on openness, user-adaptability and free sharing of architectural knowledge.
However, I have to say that with more recent developments within the same discourse, I find myself quite at odds with it, as it looks like it is shifting more towards a aesthetic and stylistic exploration of discreteness, and less towards the open approach to design and fabrication I saw in it at the beginning.
So yeah, I am thinking since a while if the name should change to "combinatorial modelling", but I am yet to come to a decision.
Would be curious to know your opinion.
Hey Andrea, the example file of support constraints is not working, can you have a look into it?
What is the problem with it? If you are using a newer Wasp version, you will need to update the file. You can see how to do that in the second part of this video: ruclips.net/video/MXHCtVCbeiA/видео.html
@@TempAutonArch Thanks for the reply. I am pretty sure I am using wasp 0.5.003 and the example files are also from that version. The aggregation component turned red and the error bubble said "solution exception: index out of range: 0". Only when the mode set to local, no constraints works well.
Are you talking about the file provided with this video? Or the file in the example files collection available on Food4Rhino?
@@TempAutonArch from food4rhino
Allright, I will check
ohhh
Very cool! 🔥 🔥 🔥 Thanks. 👍 Btw, I found a small bug and made a pull request on GitHub, if you're interested.
Thanks, I saw it! Just need to update the file to the latest version and I will integrate it!