Відео

Not sure I understand, but you can use a Rule Generator to create the rules, an there is an option to prevent the same part or the same connection to connect. If then there are specific connections you want to prevent, you can use an Exclusion Constraint for that.

As many as you want

​@@TempAutonArch I have another question about the attributes, it seems that there is an error when I add an attribute that is sticking out of the basic part. Does the attribute only work within the basic part? ps. I'm trying to filter the attributes by materials in my architecture project for wasp. Unless there is a better way then I would love to hear it! Thank you for your work!

@mork3743 no, there should not be a problem. An attribute can be anything and does not need to fit within the part geometry. Feel free to send the files over Discord or email, and I can take a look.

You can build a mesh or plane constraint to prevent them for going too high. You can find videos about both constraints types on the channel...

@@TempAutonArch thanks a lot

That is because your geometry might be too complex or there might be some issue with it. You can always create the Collider manually in Rhino, by creating a small inward offset of your part geometry and adding that in the COLL input of the Part component.

@@TempAutonArch Thank you for your help. My geometry is just a box and I think it might be the surface which is too complex. Wish you a nice day.

@@TempAutonArch I just figured out this problem. I watched your tutorial again and I got to know that to fix this situation, just reduce the value of field points resolution. Thanks again😊

Check the second video in the series, you can attach the original polysurface to the part as an attribute.

It was coded in Processing, a Java-based framework for creative coding.

Hi, this normally has something to do with your geometry, or with the way it has been drawn. Could you send me a file at ghwasp(at)gmail(dot)com, so I could take a look?

Thanks! I sent the email with the file :)

That is just a warning, check if it works anyway.

Yes, you can bake it in Rhino and edit it, or you can use the Add Part and Remove Part components in Grasshopper to edit it...

Yes, you need to do the mesh conversion before inputting your geometries in Wasp. You can change the meshing settings in the MeshBrep component to have meshes with lower complexity. If that is still not fixing your issue, the best solution is to model a simplified geometry which represent your parts, use that as the Part Geometry, as attached the detailed geometry to the part as an Attribute.

You can use blocks, but not directly. You need to use a basic geometry for the Part, and attached to it a Plane as attribute, to be used as reference plane for placing blocks. After aggregation, you can use those planes and a plug-in able to handle blocks (e.g. Elefront) to replace the Parts with blocks. This 2-step process is necessary because Blocks are not understood as Base Geometry in Rhino.

There is a video on the Wasp Patreon page showing how to do this, if you are interested.

This can be caused by a lot of things. Please join the Wasp Discord channel and share your files there.

Currently Wasp is not supported for Rhino 8, but should be sometime soon..

I think the geometry in the file is hidden. Check if all the layers are on, and use the command Show to make hidden geometry visible

Unfortunately Wasp is not entirely supported in Rhino 8 yet. I will hopefully get to fix that in the near future, stay tuned!

Hi! Yes, mesh constraints and volumetric fields can be used to achieve similar results (with mesh constraints normally being faster computationally). However, the main difference lays in the way they achieve the result: while mesh constraints rely on a purely stochastic (random) process to find the result, volumetric fields follow a logic growing from the center (or wherever you define the highest values in the field) towards outside. So, the main question is if you are interested only in the final result, or also in the intermediate steps and how it got to that result. As a general rule, fields allow you a more granular control on the aggregation process. Hope this clarified it a little :)

Yes it is possible using the Aggregation Graph component. The number of edges in the graph is the total number of connections.

Sorry, I am not sure what you are looking for. What do you need?

Hi, I would double-check the remapping of the field values, as that might be causing the issue. If you cannot fix the problem, you can post your question and the file on the Discord support forum ( discord.gg/Wke9Jt6 ), or send me an email at ghwasp (at) gmail.com

Hi, you probably have a newer version of Wasp installed on your computer, which is not compatible with the version used in the example files for this tutorials. You can update the files to the newest Wasp version installed on your computer using the Wasp_UpdateFile component, as shown in the last section of this video: ua-cam.com/video/MXHCtVCbeiA/v-deo.html

Hi Jake, if you have multiple attributes, you will get them all from the Deconstruct Attribute component, and could then filter them by name. Another way (probably easier) would be to take the attributes directly from the PART_OUT output of the Graph Grammar Aggregation component using the Get Attributes by Name component, which would allow to separate them according to their name.

You can use any geometry from Grasshopper as well, as long as they are closed meshes or breps

No, that is not possible. You can use a proxy geometry for the part, and then use the Transform information after aggregation to place blocks, for example with the Elefront plug-in or any other plugin that handles blocks in Grasshopper.

​@@TempAutonArch I see, thank you!

They both are plug-ins for generation of assemblies from discrete units. However they have few differences, the main one being that Monoceros operates on a fixed cartesian grid, which is predefined, and fills the cells of this grid with elements based on their neighbouring relationships. Wasp instead works exclusively from the parts, and hence does not assume any predefined grid for the aggregation (the grid is generated by placing parts, and each part can change the choices available in the next step). So, it really depends what your goal is, whether you are more interested in defining multiple neighboring relationships between parts, at the cost of relying on a fixed grid, or if you are more interested in the growth process of the aggregation. Both really powerful tools, but for different purposes.

You could combine this tutorial with a volumetric field in Wasp ( ua-cam.com/video/4ZmGYNXk8bo/v-deo.html ), and it should allow you to reconstruct elements from Lego parts. Things might get slow though, depending on how many part types you are using.

Uhm, there might be two possible issues: either you might have hit return at the end of the line, causing the name to be different, or it could be that the part you have selected does not have that attribute. If you cannot solve it, feel free to send me your file at ghwasp@gmail.com, and I can take a look.

Yes, you just need to replace the Stochastic Aggregation with a Field-driven Aggregation, and it will allow you to grow according to a given geometry

Hi. Yes, it possible, but in the current stable version of Wasp there is a bug that causes issues when using multiple constraints. Please install the latest Wasp beta version, and it should fix the issues: github.com/ar0551/Wasp/releases/tag/0.5.006b If it does not, please contact me at ghwasp@gmail.com, and I can try to take a look.

@@TempAutonArch Thank you so much Andrea, it works in the latest version. Thank you for your reply!

I was about to send this to you and Nora XD

@@ashwin4991 hahah thanks :)

This is a quite complex project, which was programmed entirely in Processing (Java based programming framework) over the course of one year. If you want to try to achieve something similar, you might have a look at the videos about Field-driven aggregations, particularly the one about surface-based fields and combining fields.

@@TempAutonArch Thank you !

Yes, it is possible to use more than one geometry for a field-driven aggregation. However, the geometry of your parts and the rules need to be set accordingly to allow the aggregation to follow the field properly. If you are having issues, you can share the file with me and I can have a look: ghwasp@gmail.com

In the description: bit.ly/wasp101_002