the Butterfly_Solution component to visualize only the last value, during the simulation.
With this setting, the optimization through Galapagos seems to start in a good way, but after some iterations it stops due to this error on blockMesh component:
Runtime error (ArgumentException): Environment variable name or value is too long.Traceback: line 420, in __setitem__, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\os.py" line 80, in getShellinit, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 69, in containerId, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 260, in _RunManager__command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 316, in run, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 716, in command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\case.py" line 748, in blockMesh, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\case.py" line 112, in getContainerId, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 215, in command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 47, in script
Anyone know how to fix it?
Thank you
…
essors. And their counter-attitude is not made because of some real reasons - it's just some kind of fear, that time will overrun them and that they will become useless in comparison to the new generation of "computer architects". That is why they are giving false replies on this subject you mentioned: about boring and soulless architecture.
But! I also need to agree that you can not be an architect if you can not draw that by hand, also and imagine the object and it's parts in 3d, in your head, without even using the 3d model from PC application.
I used to draw around 80% of all my projects on university during studies, by hand! And that part helped a lot, and gave me pretty decent base for usage of PC applications later. Drawing by hand develops a bit investigating spirit, and enables you to think about the shape, the way it looks, and the way it will look.Even today, I first do a dozen number of sketches and drawings, before going onto the drawing on PC.The same goes related to some details, that I am already drawing on PC - sometimes I feel it much more comfortable to solve them by hand, and then draw back to PC.
So my opinion on this is a bit mixed - I think that an architect needs to have a solid basis in hand drawing, in order to become a better architect. But I also think that using technology in process of creating architecture is inevitable and reasons for not using it, are pointless.
Just my two cents on this issue.…
Added by djordje to Hiteca at 4:22am on August 7, 2012
being driven by the wii nunchuck... But, here's my issue. I tried it first by having the output from the listener be a 6-digit number... so, I'm using the (CInt(Val(StoredValue))) command and it's writing out 181130... and I can easily split it up selecting the Left(x,3) or Right(x,3)... I first rant that number through a Format("{0:000000}",x) so that even if one of the accx or accy numbers were a 2-digit number (so my overall number would only have 5-digits)... with this Format function... I'm always assured a 6-digit number. And this method works... except...
If the first group of numbers coming in only has 2-digits... So, lets say the accelerometer read out of the first one (accx) is 89. Let's say the accy read out is 119. So, when I run this through the Format function to make it have at least 6 digits, my number now reads 011989. So, if I were to take the first three numbers on the right, my read out would be 989... which is much higher than my expected (60-180 range that is really coming over the Serial Port)... So, I'm back to where I started... in that I need to figure out a better way to split up the data.
Which brings me to your method. I tried it as well... in fact, I added a comma in the serial readout, so the string coming out of the listener reads 89,119. So, I can use your trick to go look for a delimeter and then read to the left and right a certain number of digits... The problem I still have is that the data going into the function is a string, and thus even if I split the 3 digits to the right of the comma out (so, my output says 119)... it's still a string, and my number parameter is still red. In your picture above, was your original 181 130 a number or a string? My guess is that it was understood as a number, because your number parameters at the end are accepting the value. But, in my case... I'm still stuck with the inability to convert a string to a number... Does this make sense? And are their any other workarounds?…
Added by Andy Payne at 9:42am on September 3, 2009
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.…
ybee_EnergyPlus Window Shade Generator" component.
3. SolveAdj component has the input to set BC for interior surfaces.
If you want to set them to adiabatic then you can use setToAdiabatic components.
4. For natural ventilation Chris has provided extensive answers including this one.
If the component doesn't work then you need to download the files manually from github and replace the userObjects with the old ones. You have to do it separately for Ladybug and Honeybee which can be painful. Is there anyway to change the firewall settings?
…
till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
Refinement component at first, possibly using MeshMachine instead which is slow but actually gives many fewer triangles and adaptive meshing for tight curves too. Neither are easy to adjust on a deadline!
Then you have to sneak up on workable settings, using only a few lines, or Grasshopper will freeze perhaps indefinitely for 200 lines with extreme settings, especially the CS (Cube Size) setting that can blow up into a huge number if your scale is big.
Cocoon gives lots of nearly flat split quad faces so I quadrangulated those for fun:
Or MeshMachine can refine the mesh to make it efficient:
Whereas the Cocoon Refine component will merely return an equally fine mesh with more equilateral triangles but no serious remeshing to rid so many tiny triangles where they are not needed? Actually, it does seem to remesh also:
David said he used some of Daniel's MeshMachine code in there.…
ey provide all the means to what I try to achieve.
What I need is to get a fast (as possible) evaluation of passive heat/solar gain from a certain facade. I know my building can cool to a certain degree (lets say 80 W/m2 - now lets forget other internal gains) and I want to be sure my facade is not letting excessive amounts of heat into the room/building. Normally I would make a full blown simulation to count my overheating hours and thereby evaluate my facade. To speed up the process, the idea is just to evaluate overheating hours in a faster way. So what I am thinking is that excessive amounts may estimated by counting high intensity irradiation patches in a critical sky-component or whatever such thing would be called that surpasses my sensible cooling load. My hope is that any facade visible to the sky-patches would very similar to the number of overheating hours if properly calibrated to a simulated model. However I have no idea right now, if this can be done.
Why do this? Speed, convenience, whole building thermal analyses.
@Chris and @Abraham The critical sky-component is made with LBs radiance component radiation and filtering the beam-components with highest effects from a yearly epw-file.
@Chris Conductive heat gains are also important especially if the facade is badly insulated, so the next step is to filter the outdoor temperature parallel with that critical sky-component and then do a static heat transfer analysis and combine that with the effect from direct sun influence. Again, no idea if it works.
Hope it makes sense. I a little embarrassed I drew you into this little experiment. This was not at all the point of the discussion. But now we are into it I like to know what you think. If it works its kinda neat, at least i think it is.
/K…