hino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper. I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali. Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Argomenti trattati: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2914…
nputs to run (please refer to the image)
Currently, here is how I set the data:
protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager pManager) { //Create default size
double defaultBaySize = 0; pManager.AddTextParameter("LotLib", "Llib", "Lot Library", GH_ParamAccess.tree); pManager.AddCurveParameter("BoundaryCrv", "BC", "Boundary Input", GH_ParamAccess.list); pManager.AddIntegerParameter("Direction", "D", "Direction of gridLines", GH_ParamAccess.item, 0); pManager.AddNumberParameter("CCsize", "S", "Distance from column to column", GH_ParamAccess.item, defaultBaySize); pManager.AddCurveParameter("GridCrv", "GC", "Take in curves input for gridlines", GH_ParamAccess.list);
}
protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) {/* Setup */ GH_Structure<GH_String> LotLib = new GH_Structure<GH_String>(); DA.GetDataTree(0, out LotLib); List<Curve> BoundaryCrv = new List<Curve>(); if(!DA.GetDataList(1, BoundaryCrv)) { return; } int Direction = 0; DA.GetData(2, ref Direction); double CCsize = 0; DA.GetData(3, ref CCsize);
List<Curve> GridCrvs = new List<Curve>(); DA.GetDataList(4, GridCrvs); if (!DA.GetDataList(4, GridCrvs)) { return; }}
Is there a way can set data in the way if the component does not receive inputs for BoundaryCrv but only GridCrvs, the BoundaryCrv List will empty.
Thank you very much …
nd linear/planar tectonics. Within this new field of investigation, the Stuttgart VS will be researching into novel techniques of material mixtures and grading, associative design and double curvature surface generation.
For the second cycle of this exploration we will be based at the Institute for Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK) at the University of Stuttgart. Drawing from the Institute’s long history of experimentation and research on tensile structures instigated by Frei Otto in the 1960s and conducted at present by Werner Sobek, this year we will be focusing on the design and fabrication of materially graded membranes, as well as the application of UHPC and FGC on fabric formworks. The workflow followed will be divided into two stages:
1. Computing Membranes: Computational form finding methods will be taught by professional engineers and architects from ILEK and str.ucture GmbH. The aim will be to utilise the latest software technologies to form find membranes for textile structures, or fabric formworks for complex concrete structures. The results will be evaluated against criteria such as internal air pressure, as well as asymmetric and wind loading. The outcome of this research will inform the material grading procedures (i.e. changing the stiffness, thickness or porosity of the membranes themselves, or the consistency of the concrete poured into the formworks) that will follow in stage two.
2. Fabricated Grading: The digitally computed membranes or formworks will eventually be fabricated physically, utilising the workshop and robotic fabrication facilities at ILEK. The objective will be to rethink conventional research on tensile and concrete structures as isotropic constructs, by customising attributes such as materiality, reinforcement, rigidity, translucency, patterning, and porosity among others. The final, graded prototypes will be made up of mixtures of materials, all accurately engineered to respond to variable environmental, structural and aesthetic criteria, in essence forming multi-material structures that have finally caught up with the latest material developments.
Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed:
Teaching team consisting of AA diploma tutors and ILEK and str.ucture GmbH engineers.
Access to the Institute of Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK), the Materials Testing Institute and Concrete Spraying Robotic facilities at the University of Stuttgart, as well as to the office of str.ucture GmbH Structural Design Engineering.
Computational skills tuition on Grasshopper, Rhino Membrane, and Karamba.
Lectures series by leading academics and practitioners in architecture and engineering.
Fabrication of functionally graded membrane and/or concrete structures.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Rhino (SR7 or later) and Grasshopper.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a student fee of £595 and a young professional fee of £895 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee.
The deadline for applications is 10 July 2017.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/stuttgart?name=stuttgart
For inquiries, please contact:
mixedmatters@aaschool.ac.uk…
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
ou will see all of the available components on a ribbon at once so there is no need to keep clicking drop down menus.
It's all about discoverability with GH. What if you're a beginner and don't know about the Create Facility (dbl click canvas) how can you find Extr?
Even if you hover over every component or use the drop down lists you will not see the name Extr appear anywhere.
Sure it makes sense that Extr is short for Extrude but it's also the Nick Name of Extrude to Point component
So you can easily miss the fact that one has a Distance Input verses a Point Input.
I think I made the move to Icons around about the move from version 0.5 to 0.6, possibly before. I initially thought that I would go back to text because I loved the mono chromatic look of the text but I soon realised that Icons were the way forward. The greatest benefit is speed. You don't need to digest and decipher every component (which is written 90 degrees to the norm).
I'm not saying you should move to Icons forthwith but at least consider that once you have a better knowledge and understanding of GH, Icons will set you free.
My top ten tips that I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to better themselves with GH.
1) Turn on Draw Icons
2) Turn on Draw Fancy Wires
3) Turn on Obscure Components
4) Use the Create Facility like a Command Line eg "Slider=-1<0.75<2" or "Shiftlist=-1"
5) Use Component Aliases to customise your use of the Create Facility eg giving the Point XYZ component an alias of XYZ will bring it up as the first option on the Create Facility as opposed to the other possibilities.
6) Try to answer other people's questions even if it's not relevant to your own area. By looking into solving a problem outside of your comfort zone and then posting your results it is very rewarding but it also lets you see the other approaches that get posted in a new light.
7) Take the time to understand Data/Path structures.
8) Buy a second monitor - There is nothing that can compare to real estate when working in Grasshopper.
9) Read Rajaa Issa's Essential Mathematics
10) Pick a panel in a tab on the ribbon and get to know every component inside and out and then move on. Start with the Sets Tab > List Panel…
even (0, 2, 4) then that means the point either never hit it, or went in and out again, meaning it's outside. If it hits an odd number of times, then it must have come from within originally.
The method implements this approach using the mesh bounding box, and then striking a polyline from your test point along a vector that is defined by the upper right corner of the bounding box + a vector of (100,100,100). In the case of your failing points, this is a result of their striking an edge very precisely, which gets counted as 2 hits instead of 1 (as it should be getting captured) and passing false:
Your best bet is probably to roll your own implementation, that tests for multiple vectors:
private void RunScript(List<Point3d> P, Mesh M, ref object A, ref object B, ref object C) {
BoundingBox bb = M.GetBoundingBox(false);
List<bool> inside = new List<bool>();
for (int i = 0; i < P.Count; i++) {
Polyline a = new Polyline(); Polyline b = new Polyline();
a.Add(P[i]); b.Add(P[i]);
a.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 100, 100)); b.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 150, 150));
int[] fa; int[] fb;
Point3d[] xa = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(a), out fa); Point3d[] xb = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(b), out fb);
inside.Add(xa.Length % 2 == 1 || xb.Length % 2 == 1);
checkA.AddRange(xa, new GH_Path(i)); checkB.AddRange(xb, new GH_Path(i));
}
A = inside;
}
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 10:20am on October 10, 2017
izes like 0.6m, 0.8m, 0.9m and 1.2m are the most "common": In cases where mechanical floors are a must (hospitals for instance) a 2.4/2.4 is quite handy (habitable/mechanical per floor). You can try 1.8/2.7 as well (floor/habitable) since 1.8 floor thickness can host HVAC and some decent W truss size. Also 1.6/2.4 (floor/habitable) is used in small buildings. NOTE: see next.
3. Don't forget to include corrugated metal height + concrete screed height + raised floors height: for the latter, say, something like 0.3m (modules + adjustable mounts + free space for electric stuff [boxes etc]).
4. As regards exteriors, Laurent Buzon is a close friend of mine. Contact him directly on my behalf:
http://www.buzonuk.com/
http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sourc...
5. LBS Structural ability and "monolithic" floor behavior (humans don't like vibrating habitable spaces) ARE not the same animal.…