About £3000

...and that's it?

Both are dynamic associative parametric modelers, meaning they keep a live intelligent linkage at all times between all elements of the geometry model. Both also has a high level of automation in terms of ready made fetures; parametric points, lines, surfaces etc. The GUI is mouse-based, so you don't actually have to "script" as in type on your keyboard very much. Both run within a widely used geometry environment and can thereby swiftly output results to standard formats. Grasshopper is better at the outputting though - it also generally follows the usual intuitive Rhino style making it easier to pick up than GC, which is less user-friendly (but not by far, other than looking comparatively dull).

As far as I know, and I'll admit my experience with GC is longer than with GH so this might be wrong, one main difference is that GC offers the option to get behind the scenes and directly script commands, switching back and forth between scripted and mousebased parametric modeling at will. GH does not do this, rather you can combine GH with Rhinoscripting but they remain more separate than what is the case in GC.

Also, of course, the scripting languages are different. GC has its own script which is close to C# while Rhinoscript is more VB.

Mmmmy bad, I figured GC refers to General Contractor. To which I would say...they are the same of course!


:: "GC" with his lil' protégé

(from the epic children's novel "James and the Giant Peach")

:D

lol

so GC could perhaps be argued to be a more powerful and sinuous software for advanced scripting...? ...as a result of it not needing two (rhinoscript AND grasshopper) methods to generate advanced logic.

thanks.

well...guess you could say that in terms of keepin within one design model gc does the trick better of skipping between modeling and scripting.

although i really think one of the many capable gh-users around here ought to comment.

and - sorry to pick on words - the "advanced logic"-part really does not have all that much to do with whether the geometry is coded by typing or mouse-clicking. it has more to do with how you approach and structure your work.

I used to use GC with Bentley Architecture. I found it to be very unreliable, cumbersome, and buggy... I recently tested the newest version (for V8i) and was disappointed with how little they improved the software.

I find Grasshopper to be way beyond GC in terms of UI and overall reliability (I had much more crashing in GC doing comparatively similar tasks that I have since been doing with ease in GH).

And you can create more advanced logics (as cowgill described) with grasshopper using scripting components (VB.NET and C#)

ah, now this is where i didn't really knew what i was talking about :) how does gh interface with the scripting components?

empea,
you have the ability to create a customized script component which looks like a normal GH component and also links into the other GH components. You can define the inputs and outputs and write a custom VB.NET or C# script in the editor window.

You can find examples of this here:
http://en.wiki.mcneel.com/default.aspx/McNeel/GrassHopperGallery.html

I guess in GC it is comparable to defining a "feature by function" and inputting a custom script to control a specific geometry... but the GH the script component isn't tied directly to any feature or geometry type.

nmiller - thanks for the link. actually in gc you can both define a specific type as "feature by function" as well as defining the function as a feature (of type "graph function") in itself and then assign geometry types of your choice to it. or you can write your own custom plug-ins directly in for example c#.

my hunch is that either of these apps can do pretty much the same things (given that you know how to) but where gh really gets ahead of gc is in terms of interface, intuitiveness and general user-friendliness.