llowed for the program to automatically download .exe file because of security.So, I should manually download "GenCumSky.exe" to use Gencumsky component in Ladybug.
I found " GenCumSky.exe" in the discussion forum at DIVA for Rhino's Website below.
http://diva4rhino.com/forum/topics/gencumulativesky-exe-problem
Then, I put this .exe file into my working directory. But, gencumsky component seem to write error message below on report output out put as image 1 attached.
"gendiscretesky:Error - invalid input parameter '-p'."
Following components also write error message as image 2 attached.
Dose anyone have an idea to solve this problem?
Regards,
Maru…
modeler. That being said, I am really interested in Grasshopper and I am having trouble learning it. Learning new software is often difficult especially when you are learning a new paradigm for creating like going from ZBrush to SolidWorks. Node based modeling is new to me.
One thing that I would like for Grasshopper that I have seen in MODO is more connection between the GH editor and the Rhino environment. I would like GH to recognize what I am doing in the Rhino work space automatically. If I create a polyline a polyline node automatically pops up in GH. If I revolve that polyline that connection to the polyline is also reflected in the GH window. This is not earth shattering. It would not only be a faster workflow but it would be a bridge to ramp into using GH faster/make it more likely that I would actually use it. Once I see how things are linked up based on how I already work I can go back in and add sliders and add logic that GH has that I done even know exists.
Is this realistic to ask for?
Thanks!…
m-found gridshell, make the lengths of families of elements equal (using the EqualLength component together with the Kangaroo2 solver).
I am experiencing 2 issues:
1) After the form-finding part, the number of elements in the gridshell (which are lines running from node to node) is multiplied by 4. The resulting shape is as expected, but for some reason all elements have been duplicated 3 times (in other words there are 4 coincident elements everywhere).
2) I have previously used the EqualLength component on the similar structures, with the difference that they were existing structures modelled in Rhino (similar to the Baked output of the form-finding process described in step 1)).
In my previous experiences the Kangaroo2 solver converged impressively quickly, but now it appears a lot slower.
I am wondering whether this is related to both the Kangaroo and Kangaroo2 solvers running simultaneously (although the form-finding part only lasts for a few seconds, which I would have thought means the Kangaroo solver has finished running after that time so all my PC's ressource can be dedicated to the Kangaroo2 solver).
Does anyone have an explanation (and a remedy) for the above issues?…
e design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working. The big speed/usability advantage for the user that apps like Inventor provide is: All the defining, handling, assembling/gluing to the adjacent components is done as part of its 'main loop' with all the hooks that can cater to user interaction, ie traditional modeling. I guess one example of this is how Revit handles the placing of Adptive Components. AC's (and GC's GFT's) is pretty much a copy of Catia PowerCopies (which are probably a copy of something else). When placed, the AC's input points are transferred one by one to the cursor for the user to interactively place them. When copied, it tries to keep the same inputs, while changing its position/parameters. This saves a lot of time/nerves.
Catia, OTOH, is still thinking in terms of scripting and looks for matching property names, or uses a script to match strings, that nearly match. Sure, sometimes, this is unavoidable, but I think that there is a lot of room for incorporating a more traditional 'event-based' interface or 'wrapper' around the scripted components.So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results? An example of this is how Modo's Toolpipe works. The Toolpipe is a simple tool to record the active selection, snap/alignment/working plane, tool settings for re-use. I could see the user benefitting if the GH component was aware of the app's 'state' when placing/assembling components.
Also, a lot of simple things could be 'modeled' first and translated into scripted form if GH could read the active workplane, snap settings etc. Draw first, convert to hand-scripted script later?Columns: Looking at your description, the vertical elements were modeled in Rhino, and referenced in GH? 5hrs to get some points on the lines? And using Excel as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model? The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.Would love to understand what you did by sketching.Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
With a manager, If one of the beams is connected to the column, changes in either component would trigger changes in the other to preserve the connection, regardless of the creation history. In GH, the dependencies are fixed, and the connection points would probably need to be defined independently, and placed 'upstream' of both elements. This makes editing laborious... but DAG processing is a lot quicker than constraints solving. Switching direction seems to be possible in the animation world. Maya etc have IK/FK switching, which seems to be able to reverse the solving direction on demand. Not sure how or whether the rig is scripted.…
. From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e)
with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input
Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...?
MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw,
2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11).
In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results.
Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method?
3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component?
Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12
Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
Thanks a lot for your helpRegards,
Aymeric
…
he concept, moving on to decision making and continuing with digital and generative design tools TO GET THE BEST SOLUTION for each problem.
WHY? The world is complex and ever-changing and we need to be able to handle the volume of information we receive and, of course, to find and choose the best solution. Therefore, we direct our ATTENTION TO THE CAUSE, and not only on the effects/solutions.
We will learn from NATURE, the only “company” that has not gone bankrupt in over 4000M years, and it’s GENERATIVE SOLUTIONS.
> OBJECTIVES <
The participants will work in multidisciplinary groups (ex. architect + designer + business manager + constructor + communication specialist etc.) applying knowledge management tools, different approaches and nature-based optimization methods.
Listed objectives:
1. Improving the generative way of TURNING AN IDEA INTO A PROJECT through problem-solving thinking
2. Discovering nature’s ways of shaping evolutionary solutions
3. Getting out from our comfort zone and working together with other professionals in groups in order to achieve better solutions: Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
4. Learning to use technology to manage information in the decision making process
& surviving the whole week
> ATTENDANCE & COSTS <
> Early bird – until 17th March 2013
Lecture – 15 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 100 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
> Late bird – until 6th April 2013
Lecture – 25 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 120 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
…
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…
e it as the same type. It refers to a different type definition apparently.
Error:
error: [A]MassPix cannot be cast to [B]MassPix. Type A originates from '7ea7fec0-99c5-49a8-ae80-af752ac2be94, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' in the context 'LoadFrom' at location 'C:\Users\pnourian\AppData\Local\Temp\7ea7fec0-99c5-49a8-ae80-af752ac2be94.dll'. Type B originates from 'fd0b2126-e10f-49de-9fc9-5504405d4135, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' in the context 'LoadFrom' at location 'C:\Users\pnourian\AppData\Local\Temp\fd0b2126-e10f-49de-9fc9-5504405d4135.dll'. (line: 82)
This is the case:
in component A:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByRef A As Object) Dim kjh As New MassPix(2.1, 2.3, 4, 5) A = kjh End Sub
'<Custom additional code> Public Class MassPix Private x As Double Private y As Double Private S As Integer Private K As Integer Sub New(xu As Double, yv As Double, SZ As Integer, KL As Integer) x = Xu y = yv s = Sz k = Kl End Sub End Class '</Custom additional code> End Class
and in component B:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByRef A As Object) Dim ABC As MassPix = CType(x, MassPix)
End Sub
'<Custom additional code> Public Class MassPix Private x As Double Private y As Double Private S As Integer Private K As Integer Sub New(xu As Double, yv As Double, SZ As Integer, KL As Integer) x = Xu y = yv s = Sz k = Kl End Sub End Class '</Custom additional code> End Class
the file is attached
ANY HELP IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED! …
udents, graduate students, researchers, professionals
The master class seeks to introduce Rhino Python, the new cross-platform scripting environment for Rhino 5 (Mac and PC), which is based upon the popular and successful scripting language Python. The two day master class will cover basic python programming skills including language basics and programming paradigms in the context of showcase design applications. Also the master class will compare and show the differences to other Rhino programming environments such as RhinoScript or Grasshopper. The participants will learn how to create their own Rhino commands, how to develop own function libraries and object classes. In addition concepts on the organization of code in larger python development projects will be shared and discussed. Day 1 Learning the Language Basics : The python language syntax will be explained in depth and demonstrated in Rhino. Participants will be given several small tasks to apply the newly gained knowledge. Day 2 Development of a Larger Script : More advanced topics in the field of code development will be addressed. The participants choose a task from their daily practice. There will be individual support.…