ake a modest notice about the two new Ladybug components, one of which creates a 3d terrain shading mask and another one which visualizes and exports horizon angles. A terrain shading mask is essentially a diagram which maps the silhouette of the surrounding terrain (hills, valleys, mountains, tree tops...) around the chosen location, and account for the shading losses from the terrain. It can be used as a context_ input in mountainous or higher latitude regions for any kind of sun related analysis: sunlight hours analysis, solar radiation analysis, view analysis, photovoltaics/solar water heating sunpath shading...
My home town is an example of the shading caused by the terrain. Here is how it looks from the tallest building in the town:
And the created terrain shading mask:
A mask for any land location up to 60 degrees North can be created:
There will also be a support for a few major cities above this limit.
Both Terrain shading mask and Horizon angles components can be downloaded from here. An example .gh file can be found in here.
Component will prompt the user to download and copy certain files in order to be able to run.
It was created with assistance from Dr. Bojan Savric. Support on various issues was further given by: Dr. Graham Dawson, Dr. Alec Bennett, Dr. Ulrich Deuschle, Andrew T. Young, LiMinlu, Jonathan de Ferranti, Michal Migurski, Christopher Crosby, Even Rouault, Tamas Szekeres, Izabela Spasic, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Dragan Milenkovic, Chen Weiqing, Menno Deij-van Rijswijk and gis.stackexchange.com community.
I hope somebody might find the components useful.…
st between those two applications. But as soon as every frame is re-calculated I noticed that intersection function is very slow. It is actually so slow, that maximum number of polygons to play with is only 10 or less.
Could you help me to find a faster solution for my script?
calculation of intersection lines;
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
import ghpythonlib.components as ghcompimport rhinoscriptsyntax as rsdef ctr(crv): pts = ghcomp.Explode(crv)[1] pts = ghcomp.CullDuplicates(pts,0.001)[0] return ghcomp.Average(pts)pts = []lines = []ctr_c1 = ctr(C1)for crv in C2: if ctr(crv) != ctr_c1: int = ghcomp.CurveXCurve(C1, crv)[0] if int: [pts.append(x) for x in int] lines.append(rs.AddLine(int[0],int[1]))
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The overall description of the script:
a)Processing+ghowl is used for moving objects and physics
b)python script (slowest part) calculates intersection lines
c)intersected parts of polygons are rotated in 90 degrees.
I have attached grasshopper and processing files. (processing is not necessary to test the script)
Thank you in advance,
Pereas.
…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
ength is applied to particle b, and the same vector multiplied by -2*BendStrength is applied to a and c
Hope that helps. I was thinking of changing this input slightly for the next Kangaroo release, because I realize it can be a pain if you want bending stiffness of a curve to be independent of the number of points used, but I'll make sure to clarify any changes when I do update this.
…
an that HashCodes well ... since they are "unique" per item (even if this - for the one reason or the other - is created at the same location with that) I barely can see how one can use them in order to get rid if "equal" items (Lines in this occasion).
On the other hand ... well ... using HashSets sampling the Line center and testing length and direction ... well ... this works but why bother? > if you are not doing business with code (thus you need this "check" internally) > use the Kangaroo1 component.
That said the topic of "equality" is rather huge and most people are confusing a lot of things on that matter: for instance a point not equal to another ... well ... that's rather simple but a brep "not equal" with some else ... this is not that easy (if it's solvable).…
th one element which is a list of 10 numbers?
I can flatten it and get (I think) a list of 10 elements (even though when I hover over the output of "Flatten" it says "Tree(T) as tree"). I'm surprised I can flatten at all what would appear to common sense to be a simple list of 10 numbers.
I'm hoping that if I can get this answered it will become obvious why we have trees of lists rather than just lists of lists as you would in most computer languages. That's my real goal - to understand the purpose of adding what seems like an unnecessary complication - trees - to the concept of lists in GH. It seems to me as though a "tree" is just a list of other "trees" until you get to the leaves where you can have "lists" which are identical to trees but can have something other than a tree in them. Whether you can have lists of trees or trees with no lists I'm unclear on. Do the leaves of trees have to be lists? Do lists have to be contained in trees? It would appear from the series example where a tree is produced for no obvious reason to contain the list that this is the case but given that you can flatten it, I guess not - or is the "List" I see in the param viewer just another type of "tree"?
I've found many tutorials that talk about how to manipulate trees and lists and I've managed to get along fairly well with them so far, but nothing seems to explain the reasoning behind the existence of trees and the philosophy for how and when they should be used and when lists should/could be used and precisely what the difference is between them.
Sorry to be long winded but I'm so confused!
Darrell Plank
P.S. I've seen David Rutten's diagram with the colored leaves in Grasshopper Primer 2 and that seems helpful. It would appear that trees can only have lists at their leaves and lists can't have trees although I'm not sure that it comes out and says that directly but at least there are no examples of this shown in his tree diagram. I thought I had it down pretty much so decided to test myself. Apparently I'm as confused as ever:
It certainly appears to me that this tree has two levels - a first level with one limb and a second with 10 limbs - and that I should be able to index it with {0;0} and retrieve a tree with one item in it - the list {0}. The panel data seems to confirm this with indices of {0;0;0}, etc. so I put this path in with quite a bit of confidence that it would work and...bust. The error reads "Path {0;0} does not exist within this tree". Huh? Again, I'm just so confused.…
Added by Darrell Plank at 12:17am on January 20, 2015
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…