ted a picture of in your post. The reason is that sound has larger wavelengths than light.
With a light rendering model, energy can be said to reflect specularly, relative to their geometry, because the wavelength of light is inifinitesimally small relative to any object you might have modelled. With sound, energy may travel and reflect diffusely, or move around objects, depending on the scale of those objects. Think of the fundamental equation of frequency to wavelength - speed of sound = frequency X wavelength. Using that, you can see that a wave in the 125 hz octave is about as tall as a human being (or maybe a little taller) and would easily move around your body, not being reflected at all. A wave in the 1000 Hz. octave band is as big as your forearm, and might reflect specularly from your torso. A wave in the 4000 hz. octave band is about as long as your index finger, and might reflect off of your torso, or even your head.
Similarly, if you were to model the seats explicitly, it might be relatively accurate at very high frequencies (say 4000 hz. and above) but that is a very small part of the answer. Consensus in the field is that the most accurate way to model the seats is with a flat plane, raised to about shoulder height, and then with scattering coefficients applied to represent the varying effects of geometry on sound. I tend to use low coefficents below 250 hz. (say around 30%) and high coefficents above 250 Hz.(90%).
Absorption depends on the seat which was chosen. This is often a good area to use for a model calibration based on measured reverberation time.
Arthur…
ces are distorted (second). What is going on?
Surfaces in the second are a rhino cage edit of the surfaces in the first image. They were originally all closed polysrfs exploded just to input into grasshopper.
In the definition attached, each surface is compared to an original (its the small box in the far left of the top image) The point there is the ability to select for more than just the 6 faces of a cube, but find the closest match to more complicated inputs. In the second image, distorted surfaces are being compared to a distorted original.
If I have my math right, two parallel unitized normal vectors should have a dot product of 1, and the further away from 1 their dot product the further away from parallel, no? Why does it fail when I leave the comfy land of 90 degrees?…
Added by Peter Stone at 2:39pm on January 28, 2015
e to constrains, I HAVE to do it like this (I can't 3D print everything or opposite).
First
I have no idea how to make the panels, without so many duplicate Edges, Faces etc.
Second
I can't figure out how to align the triangle panels to fit in the construction, so it can be assembled ideally without glue. This problem is both conceptual (I can't figure out how to do it fiscally) and grasshoper-wise - I don't know how to organize data list and produce a global movement, so that the triangle parts do not intersect with each other, BUT intersect the 3d printed construction part (where they fit fix in or just fit and can be glued).
Triangles will be milled out from 3mm Plexiglas, BUT I will not have an option to mill at an angle, so only 90° edges.
3D printed parts will be executed by a high level production powder printer, so it should hold good.
Any ideas?
best,
cuki
…
File) 2. I have designed a curved Trichordal-Truss from one curve in Rhino.
The Truss is lying in the XY direction and the footer is placed on the zero point.
3. And now my problem:
I want to put the Truss-object on the feet, move 90°
(from the XY axis to Z axis, see sketch 1).
4. Then copy / move the truss to all 36-points of ellipse (see sketch 1).
5. Align the 36 trusses with the center of the triangle .
pointing at the center of the ellipse (see sketch 2).
6. Using a slider to change the position of the 36-Trusses at der ellipse.
Variable distance between Truss and ellipse (see sketch 3).
Thanks for you Answer.
Best regards
Noureddine…
multiply of variants from Galapagos, to have a chance for better analysis and comparability after. I also would like to use more then one solution in my design after.
In old topics i found kind of 3 solutions.
1.Change Galapagos to octopus ( what don t really want to do, i am kind of happy with Galapagos)
2. Use Slingshot! and MySQL Database ( it s look a little bit too complicated from the first view)
3. Use Colibri and Design Explorer Platform (looks kind of pretty way to solve my problem)
So i tried to add Colibri components to my definition , but have some mistake in the Colibri Aggregator after adding the Genome "An item with the same key already been added". I think it comes because for some steps i am using the "Gen Pool" and not a normal slider. Is it a way to connect Gen Pool and Colibri (i really prefer to have it, then a lot of sliders in some cases)?
And the second question (if i will get it solved with gen pool), could i somehow controll the recording process? For example i would likte to record only variants wit fitness over 90% or start recording just after 20. generation and record till the end?
I also opend for all other possibilities to reach the same goal (record/save/bake multiply variants from galapagos)
…
string may contain any number of curly bracket pairs with non-negative integers in them:
"When {0} brings back {1} days and {2}"
The number inside the brackets refers to the data to insert in that location. In effect, {x} is a placeholder for actual data. The data inserted into a specific bracket pair is the data supplied in the latter part of the function. {0} refers to the first item, {1} to the second, {2} to the third and so on ad infinitum.
If I supply some data the entire expression may look like this:
Format("When {0} brings back {1} days and {2}", "Spring", "blue", "fair")
which will result in the string "When Spring brings back blue days and fair".
If the data you're inserting is a number (or a date) then you have additional formatting flags that you can use. These additional flags appear behind the placeholder index integer separated by a colon.
Format("Pi = {0:0.00} ({0:0.000000})", Pi)
The :0.00 means the number will be formatted using two digits. The other flag will enforce six digits, resulting in: "Pi = 3.14 (3.141593)"
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 3:00pm on February 3, 2013
n the inability to be a real-life member within a parametric workflow (same kind of issue with Evolute Tools Pro).
As regards strictly AEC matters the main problem with GH is Rhino itself (not feature/constrain driven, not a solid modeler, not AEC oriented by any means and not biased towards assembly/component modeling). Other than that and due to the known GH inability to handle/manage blocks/nested blocks at bake time ... well... I hardly can see how "to set up work flows between different tools such as ..."
I'll post soon 5 - rather "trivial" - AEC cases that are totally undoable (shop drawing level) with anything other than CATIA (or NX).
BTW: since international practices grow and grow in numbers these days (and individuals are dead) I can't see any realistic limitation for creating dedicated teams (kinda like Frank Gerhy did) that can easily deal with the "extremely heavy" nature of the beast.
BTW: this is a job ad (Project Architect role) from one of the biggest US AEC practices (rather a corporation, he he)
How things change these days ... don't you agree?
best, Peter
…
nette for years.. but without the nice GUI. It also allows combining constraints solving to be part of the DAG.
What is parameterics? Or parametric associative as GC has been described. Can't remember. History or procedural modeling? Even constraints solving or rules based solving all use parameters. Is it generative or merely parametric? I guess the difference is a parametric door doe not generate other parameteric doors?
BIM has opened the door to a more data centric view and manipulation of the design model. To old skoolers a wall is a linear construct that can be abstracted into parameters... beginning and end points of wall in plan + height and thickness. But start adding other stuff and need to ineteroperate with others and things get problematic.
Pretty soon, all those abstractions (parametric or otherwise) need to be structured and you end up talking about schemas etc to control the format of the parameters using rules as checks or constraints..so that your parameters can interface with parameters from others without causing data quality issues. It all gets very database thinking like.
So, I would say parametrics as GH does it is more free form and ad hoc and at some point if it goes BIM, the parametrics will be need to be (re)structured..
BIM is dependent on IFC development which is not very fast. IFC4 is only beginning to think about parametrics and 'Design Transfer'.
…
humacher (Zaha Hadid) and in fact most issues of AD (Architecture Design)
The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture by Matthew Poole, which is kind of a follow up
In my opinion learning Grasshopper will be enough and there is no need to learn Python to use it successfully. Best to have a deep understanding of Grasshopper and what it can do then to try and learn too many things at once. It will help you in applying the principles to other code and not the other way round (ie. learning the concepts first and then going into grasshopper). The best way to learn the concepts is by applying and trying them in a tool like Grasshopper.
I absolutely recommend that you visit a Grasshopper workshop, as that will teach you a lot more than Youtube videos. If you cant visit a workshop, then I recommend the rese.arch video series on Grasshopper. They're really indepth and go from simple introduction to very advanced. You should ideally buy and complete all of them.
Also there is of course Dynamo and its integration with Revit and BIM, which is something to look at, although Grasshopper covers all of that as well, at least with the integration with ArchiCad. Autodesk products are more common around the world though.
Be aware that a lot of the power of Grasshopper is also in the plugins you can get for it, like Kangaroo (physics simulation), Ladybug&Honeybee (environmental analysis), Karamba (finite element analysis), Hoopsnake or Anemone (looping) and many, many more. You can find them at food4rhino.com.
Good luck!…
50 and reduced the 'cell size' slider to 0.5. When the 'Azimuth' angle is changed to 180 +- 90 (dawn or dusk), the points are widely dispersed, reducing the density and increasing the number of cells in the "sparse grid". Under these conditions, the number of cells was ~2000 and the Profiler time for 'Boundary' went up to a full minute or more each time 'Altitude' or 'Azimuth' was changed.
So I created this code to benchmark some alternatives and found two interesting things:
'Boundary' surface performance (v.1) is not linear. As the number of surfaces goes from 1000 to 2000, the time per surface goes up dramatically.
I tried three alternatives for creating a rectangular surface at a given point that are all substantially faster: v.2, v.3 and v.4. For 2000 points, v.4 is 150 times faster than v.1 !!!
Performance of v.2, v.3 and v.4 are similar and all scale up very well. To benchmark beyond 2000 points, I recommend disabling the VERY SLOW v.1. At 5000 points the 'Pop2D' component takes ~11.3 seconds but v.3 and v.4 take less than one second to generate 5000 surfaces!
See boundary_2015Nov19a.gh attached.
So I replaced the 'Rectangle' and 'Boundary' components in my sun reflection model with v.4 in focus_2015Nov19b.gh (also attached) and the performance is amazing.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this performance issue with 'Boundary' on the forum before but as with many things, I didn't realize what a major obstacle it can be until I discovered this for myself.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:16pm on November 19, 2015