t it is rounded to 25, 100, 75. I've figured out the rounding portion, but when I plug the resulting list back into the custom preview, it doesn't recognize the data. I'm guessing it is because my rounded list is in curly brackets, whereas the unrounded data straight from the image sampler is not. How can I process this to remove the curly brackets?
Thanks,
Ryan
…
Added by Ryan Dirks at 5:20pm on September 18, 2014
CA, DA, DC)Two of those diagonal lengths are obviously redundant but they allow you to simply shift the array to get at different rotational permutations. This makes the search for the nearest mean a bit more straightforward since, in the context of panel clustering, you'd need to consider all rotational permutations of each one.…
Added by David Reeves at 5:26am on November 9, 2014
he potential of BF to assess such cases. In your search, try and be specific on what you want, cause validation can focus on codes (i.e software environments like OF and Fluent), solvers (e.g. RNG vs kEpsilon vs kOmega, etc.), meshers, and so many more. Additionally, I'm sure there's a lot of CFD studies of Atrium spaces.
Myself, I haven't been involved in any validation studies as I have always used CFD on the practical side of things. Therefore, I always trusted OF since it has been heavily validated over the years.
The beauty of BF, or at least its end goal, is that you can easily test design alternatives directly from a friendlier and possibly better-known environment of Rhino3D.
I would suggest therefore to just try things out. Design your geometry, in this case the atrium, in Rhino. Decide which are the parameters that you wish to investigate and incorporate those to a GH definition that produces different design alternatives for the range of those parameters (i.e. your parametric model). Then run the cases through BF. There's a couple of examples that come with BF and a few others users are providing either here or on github.
I'm afraid trial and error is painful with CFD but it's the best way forward. Also, I suggest you bookmark cfd-online.com and skim through everything in there. Most if not all of what we are discussing has been discussed there.
Good luck!
Kind regards,
Theodore.
…
سلام آقای جان بیلی کاوه اشکوه هستم اپراتور سی ان سی از ایران وطراح دکوراسیون داخلی اگر ممکن هستش فایل اصلی میزcosinosa baram mail konid adressmail man hast
(kavehoshkooh2290@gmail.com)بسیار متشکرم
Added by kavehoshkooh at 3:25pm on September 11, 2015
i to usb cable and was able to connect Grasshopper with my digital piano realtime through a simple VB.NET component, no need for any other intermediate software. I used this library http://midiservices.codeplex.com/ (but there are several others).
The VB component outputs a list of 88 values that correspond to the intensity of each piano key at the current time (if the pedal is on and a key is depressed the value is halved, if the pedal is off the value is 0).
The rest of the definition is just to do something with this data. It uses these values to display each note as different floating colors that move with the wind (using Kangaroo). The strength of the wind changes as the music dynamics change.
If there are several devices connected you might have to change the line device.Open(0) to another number.
Definition: piano_midi.gh
…
an be given as 88° and 95°. All three angles must sum up to 180, and we're already 3 degrees over balance. Or maybe the user specifies three edge-lengths: 21, 12 and 8. 21 is bigger than 12+8, so even if the triangle was stretched flat, the two short edges cannot reach the ends of the long edge. The above is easy to test for and I add errors to the component if an invalid triangle is provided. However there are also many angle+edge length combinations which result in invalid triangles.
I could of course test for these as well, but the problem is now tolerance. What if the user specifies a redundant angle of 54.7°, whereas the mathematics tell us that the actual angle is 54.7002°. Is that an error? If so, is the angle wrong or is perhaps one of the edges wrong? Or has the triangle simply been over-constrained? Is there a mathematically robust way of dealing with this? And if so, would that also be the most user-friendly way of dealing with it?…
Added by David Rutten at 2:23pm on August 23, 2014