on 2: I think the reason to draw a fitness landscape is to highlight graphically the presence of local minima, even in a simple optimisation problem. In architectural terms, this means getting an idea of how many sub-optimal solutions there are in a problem, which helps while exploring conceptual design proposals.
Have a look at this very basic example (which I published with two colleagues on "Shell Structures for Architecture", chapter 18): a shell footbridge (24m x 4m footprint), which is generated by two parabolic section curves (the two apex heights are the two design variables). The maximum displacement of the structure under gravity load and self-weight is the objective function. Simple example, but several local minima and interesting shell forms (image below).
@AB,
The expression used by David in the Number of Samples Input is a simple “x+1”. By grafting the Divide Curve Output, he got 81*81 lenghts (6,561 values). You have to make sure that number is divisible by the no. of samples. The second expression used for the Length output is only a scaling factor (my guess), to control the height of the fitness landscape drawing.
Cheers…
n account of the position of the sun and weather cannot be expressed in terms of a single set of luminous intensity values (which is what IES files do).
With regards to your example files, I agree with Chris. The primary reason for the low illuminance levels is that the light bounces are getting lost in the tube. Have you checked with the manufacturer/distributor if the location of the IES file should be inside the tube and not flush with the ceiling? Physically modelling such tubes in lighting software like Radiance (which is what HB uses) or AGI32 is a fairly expensive proposition. This is one of the reasons why manufacturers provide photometric data for such devices (however simplistic that data might be).
The candelamultiplier increases or decreases the luminous intensity values. So it will have a direct impact on the calculation. The primary reason for having that input was to enable users to do some testing with different lamp types and environmental factors such as dirt depreciation. You need not change them for your simulation. Assuming that the IES file is inside the tube, in order to make this calculation work inside HB you'd have to crank up the calculation settings to a very high level (start with -ab 10 -ad 4096).
Finally, due to shortcomings in the annual simulation software (Daysim), IES files will not work directly work with annual calculations. However, there is a fairly easy workaround for that issue. In case you are planning to run annual calculations with IES files, please let us know here.
Sarith…
ing illuminance and limiting exposure (lux hours). Hours with direct solar irradiance are likely to exceed the limiting illuminance thresholds, which range from (200 to 50 lux as per Table 3.4 in CIE 157:2004). It makes sense to consider direct illuminance (an ab=0 simulation in Honeybee) separately from a normal illuminance calculation.
Assuming that the museum exhibits have low to high responsivity to light, an ideal solution would minimize direct sunlight. For daylight from the sky and reflected light, it might be enough to keep the illuminance levels below the recommended thresholds and then sum up lux-hours.
Daysim, the annual daylighting engine used by Honeybee and DIVA, is not very accurate for direct-sun calculations. You will get more accurate results if you run your analysis with Radiance directly.
Instead of considering the horizontal illuminance grids, one can create grids that correspond to the dimensions of the exhibit and then average those values. I think single points, as shown in your gh file might not suffice. Calculating lux-hours is by far the simplest part of such a simulation. It will only require averaging these points, extracting them into an array and then summing up that array.…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…
s (and God knows how many in the next case) that's why (other than the colossal amount of time (for no reason) required for creating them ... try to bake them and measure the file size).
3 .Most non pros believe that the thing that matters the most in engineering is the geometry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is about the 5% (complex real-life cases etc etc - but this one is very simple geometry wise and not that simple with regard the whole "ideal" AND effective strategy required).
4. So I've included in this Rhino file attached a small portion of your frames as input for the second C#: CAREFULLY study what it does and most importantly why: it gives you the clear indication about why you should attack this on an assembly/component basis by using instance definitions INSTEAD of recreating 14++ K "solids". The difference in performance is COLOSSAL, not to mention the baked Rhino file size.
5. Using instances is IMPOSSIBLE whiteout code (as is the case in 99% or real-life engineering tasks).
6. Geometry was never an issue on that one (is the 5% max of the whole puzzle no matter requirements you may have).
Bad news:
1. Zoom extends doesn't work after importing your data (maybe a NVidia Quadro K4200 driver issue - who knows?): use saved views stored.
So ...the choice is yours, best, Lord of Darkness…
ponents, among other functionalities, is significantly widening the relevance of the toolset.
Meanwhile having used the tools for some time now and have gone through the forum, in my opinion a few critical system controls is still missing - unless I'm missing some understanding.
In order to really make the hourly energy analysis valuable in early massing studies etc. the consideration of indoor climate can be more detailed. The HVAC capacities, max. airrate and min. inlet temperature should be within comfortable ranges and hardsized by user input to reduce internal draft problems. If not considered I find that the analysis could possibly demonstrate good energy behavior and reasonable operative temperature but in reality could cause a bad indoor environment - and when "rectified" at a later stage the energy consumption will increase.
I would like to know how it is possible in HB to set-up a HVAC system with these ventilation controls and a "unlimited" convective/radiant heating system, and how to deal with the issues mentioned below. The inputs parameters exists in the components, but I can't seem to get the right system behaviour.
In the attached file I have gone through 4 scenaries, each with seperate issues in setting up the system (As no template appearantly supports the combined setup the heating system is simulated using an inlet temperature of 99 degrees).
HVACSystem: "ideal air loads" - Issue: no hardsized airrate, no cooling supply air temperature
HVACSystem: "VAV w. reheat" - Issue: no regulation of airrate, no use of input heat supply temperature in heating mode
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" -> issue with duplicate zone names
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" on multiple zones -> issue with duplicate zone names
Thanks a lot!
Jon…
they may not always give you a clear picture of their precise functionality. I thought this may be an issue with many users so I decided to use this opportunity to list all the parameters with my quick take at describing their functionality. Here it goes:
DEFAULT VERTICAL SHIFT -- Number - Shifts panels vertically creating a custom-sized panel with height of the specified dimension at first row of skin.
DEFAULT HORIZONTAL SHIFT -- Number - Shifts panels horizontally creating a custom-sized panel with width of the specified dimension at first column of skin.
DEFAULT SKIN CHAMFERED CORNER--True/False - If "True" wraps panels around surface corners. If '"False" creates a custom-sized panel if necessary to complete the skin surface at the shared edge, defining this way a sharp corner.
RESET BAY AT POINTS-- True/False - When using Panel Bays (Group of Panels) this option restarts the panel bay at a surface corner.
FLOOR HEIGHT-- Number - The Floor To Floor value of the Skin generated. If Panels are shorter than this value, a leftover 'gap' will be seen at top of panels.
MINIMUM PANEL WIDTH -- Number - If the width of a panel (standard or customized) created during the skin generation is less than this value, the panel won't be created and the placement will be skipped.
MINIMUM PANEL HEIGHT -- Number - If the height of a panel (standard or customized) created during the skin generation is less than this value, the panel won't be created and the placement will be skipped.
MINIMUM PANEL AREA-- Number - If the area of a panel (standard or customized) created during the skin generation is less than this value, the panel won't be created and the placement will be skipped.
PANEL PROFILE TOLERANCE-- Number - If a resulting panel shape is within the specified tolerance value to any already created panel, this panel is used instead of creating a new panel shape. The tolerance specifically tracks the distance between each corner of the new panel and the corresponding corners of the existing panels. This parameter is mostly used in "SURFACE PANEL MODE'', where a large number of custom-shaped panels can be generated, to reduce the number of unique panels created.
GENERATE PANEL TYPES ONLY-- True/False - This parameter allows the Skin Generator to discard the creation of scene geometry but still have the grasshopper panel data being generated. The skin panels can be retrieved as grasshopper geometry using SkinDesinger's Display components.
RESET DF BETWEEN SURFACES-- True/False - When "True", the Design Controllers (Design Functions in v.01) resets to its initial values each time it starts a new skin surface. Used for instance to restart a layout pattern at every new surface.
SURFACE PANEL MODE-- True/False - The "SURFACE PANEL MODE" is used to generate panels matching the shape of the surfaces included in the "skinSurfaceList" input.
SURFACE PANEL ORIENTATION -- Orientation Type - When activating the "SURFACE PANEL MODE'', this parameter defines the orientation of the panel generated relative to the normal of the surface that defines its shape. The acceptable values (found in the "Surface-Panel Mode Orientations" dropdown) are:RESETFLIPROTATE 90ROTATE 90 FLIPROTATE 180ROTATE 180 FLIPROTATE 270ROTATE 270 FLIP
I hope this helps but feel free to reach out if you have any questions!
Santiago
…
cnicas y estrategias para resolver problemas que hoy se presentan en el diseño y fabricación digital de formas complejas y euclidianas. Se podrá entender mejor la diferencia entre el estilo Modernista y el Parametricismo que vivimos desde el 2000.
Tomando como plataforma básica Rhino, se explora y optimiza el diseño y fabricación de topologías complejas bajo los entornos de Rhino, Grasshopper y RhinoNest.
Instructores:
Andrés Gonzalez, McNeel Miami.
Director de RhinoFabLab.
MSc. María Mena Deferme, Directora de Arquitectura.
Tecnológico de Monterrey campus León, Mexico.
NOTA 1: Tendremos el patrocinio de LaserCUT.mx y podremos usar un Láser Industrial durante todo el taller, mas el laboratorio del iTesm.
NOTA 2: Estudiantes y docentes podrán adquirir Rhino 4.0 con un descuento del 50% sobre el precio de lista en USA.
Descarga el Outline del workshop PDF
http://www.screencast.com/t/M2FjOTBi…
at the same time just seems logical to me that a force would always seek the path of least resistance, so rather than making a 90 degree turn follow a more similar direction. The thought of separating stresslines into groups of tension and compression ist interesting from a design perspective. I wondered how tension and compression forces relate to the S1 and S2 lines, so what I did is pluging the outputs of P1 and P2 into the respective vector display for S1 and S2 and coloring the vectors blue for compression (negative values) and red for tension (positive values). So when you look at the upper side of the surface S1 (SC_02), Tensors along S1 show compression towards the middle and towards the supports Tension. However the Principal Stress Display of the Mesh Visualisation Component for the upper side shows it the other way round, again Red/ Tension and Cyan/ Compression as it says in your manual. Did I miss out on something ? When I look at the lower side (SC_03) I find it more or less matching up (I am just decerning between negative and positive values) so that might make the difference in the size of the compression area. So, does this mean that the S1 and S2 lines are related to the upper and lower side of the surface ? One beeing predominantely in compression(upper side) and one being stressed(lower side) ? That would also explain to me why S1 and S2 swap when you change the side of the surface. I am sorry, many questions... If you have time to explain, would be great. Also, maybe you have a book or article in mind which would explain those things more in depth....
Many thanks,
Philipp…