umbrella of Urban Heat Island (UHI) and I am going to try to separate them out in order to give you a sense of the current capabilities in LB+HB.
1) UHI as defined as a recorded elevated air temperature in an urban area:
If you have access to epw files for both an urban area and a rural area, you can use Ladybug to visualize and deeply explore the differences between the two weather files. Ladybug is primarily a tool for weather file visualization and analysis and it can be very helpful for understanding the consequences of UHI on strategies for buildings or on comfort. This said, if you do not have both rural and urban recorded weather data or you want to generate your own weather files based on criteria about urban areas (as it sounds like you want to do), this definition might not be so helpful.
2) UHI defined by air elevated air temperature but viewed as a computer model-able phenomenon resulting primarily from urban canyon geometry, building materials, and (to a lesser degree) anthropogenic heat:
This definition seems to fit more with they type of thing that you are looking for but it is unfortunately very difficult and computationally intensive such that we do not currently have anything within Ladybug to do this right now. I can say that the state-of-the art for this type of modeling is an application called Town Energy Budget (TEB) and this is what all of the advanced UHI researches that I know use (http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/surfex/spip.php?article7). Unfortunately for those trying to use it in professional practice, it can take a while to get comfortable with it and it currently runs exclusively on Linux (this does mean that it is open source, though, and that you can really get deep into the assumptions of the model). A couple years ago, a peer of mine translated almost all of TEB into Matlab language making it possible to run it on Windows if you have Matlab. He wrapped everything together into a tool called the Urban Weather Generator (UWG), which can take an epw file of a rural area and warp it to an urban area based on inputs that you give of building height, materials, vegetation, anthropogenic heat, etc. I would recommend looking into this for your project, although, bear in mind that is it not open source like the original TEB tool and that you may need to get a (very expensive) copy of MATLAB (http://urbanmicroclimate.scripts.mit.edu/uwg.php).
3) UHI as defined by a thermal satellite image of an urban area depicting an elevated average radiant environment that reaches a maximum a the city center and changes by land use:
This is the definition of UHI that I am most familiar with and was the basis of much of my past research. I feel that it is also a definition of UHI that is a bit more in line with where a lot of contemporary UHI research is headed, which is away from the notion of UHI as a macro-scale meteorological phenomena that is averaged as an air temperature over a huge area towards one that accepts that different land uses have different microclimates and (importantly) different radiant environments. While the air temperature difference between urban and rural areas usually does not change more than 1-4 C, the radiant environment can be very different (on the order of 10-15 C differences). The best way to understand UHI in this context is with Thermal satellite images, for which there is ha huge database of publicly available data on NASA's glovis website (http://glovis.usgs.gov/) or their ECHO website (http://reverb.echo.nasa.gov/reverb/#utf8=%E2%9C%93&spatial_map=satellite&spatial_type=rectangle). I tend to use thermal data from LANDSAT 5-8 and ASTER satellites in my research. Unfortunately, there is a lot f bad data with a lot of cloud cover mixed in with the really good stuff and it can take some time to find good images. Also, there aren't too many programs that read the GeoTiff file format that you download the data as. I know that ArcGIS will read it, a program called ENVI will read it (I think that the open source QGIS can also red it). I have plans to write a set of components to bring this type of data into Rhino and GH (I may get to it a few months down the line).
4) UHI as a computer model-able notion of "Urban Microclimate" with consideration of local differences and the local radiant environment:
This is where a lot of my research has lead and, thankfully, is an area that Honeybee can help you out a lot with. EnergyPlus simulations can output information on outside building surface temperatures and these can be very helpful in helping get a sense of the radiant environment around individual buildings. Right now, I am focusing just on using this data to fully model the indoor environments of buildings as you see in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNylb42FPIc&list=UUc6HWbF4UtdKdjbZ2tvwiCQ
I have plans to move this methodology to the outdoors once I complete this initial application to the indoors. For now, you can use the "Surface result reader" and the "color surfaces based on EP result" components to get a sense of variation in the outside temperature of your buildings.
I hope that this helped,
-Chris
…
ey eventually recover and you can continue to working normally. This however is not very practical...
(Additional information: We have a virtualized Windows SPS environment, might this be the problem? Locally - on my hard drive - it works fine.)
Futhermore we've discovered the following bug/feature:
We export a cluster and reference it back into our .gh file, then copy the .ghcluster file to a different location and rename the copy (without opening or changing it), then also reference the copied version back into the .gh file. Now Grasshopper shows two clusters with two different file paths, but claims that they both are the same ("this cluster occurs twice in this document"). If I double click one of them, make a change and save, both clusters get changed, even though they are separate .ghcluster files.
This would follow the logic that David laid out in this entry (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/clusters09), that GH identifies a cluster not by its file name or location but by its internal ID.
An addition we would very much appreciate for the next GH update, would be the option to right click a referenced cluster and then not only be able to "update" it but to also to "relink" it to a new or different source.
Right now you have to rename or delete the .ghcluster file in order to relink a cluster via the update option. You can also overwrite the old cluster und update. However, sometimes we want to keep the old version or disentangle one of a clusters many instances and relink just one, with out loosing its various inputs and outputs by referencing the new version and reconnecting it.
Thanks, BB.…
ion into the world of Parametric Design using these two sofwares. Grasshopper is a graphical program language through which one can model complex geometric forms. It builds generative algorithms were outputs to these forms are tied to the inputs of subsequent components. Rhino is an advanced NURBS modeler through which one does precision modelling, project workflow and organization. Grasshopper utilizes Rhino 3-D as a modeling platform to develop parametrically controlled models with real time geometric manipulation. These two programs are a powerful combination where Grasshopper parametrically defines the model logics to explore variations and optimized solutions while Rhino models and visualizes it. These two programs are essential for architects, designers, engineers, professionals, and students interested in exploring professionally the world of parametric design."This workshop will be held in Amman/Jordan between the 15th and 22nd of January 2016 from 5pm to 10pm …
his on the programming forum I'm guessing you're looking for a VB or C# approach to this?
Here are two algorithms (pseudo code, very similar) which will simulate a droplet of water on a surface (ignoring momentum, surface tension, surface angle, collisions with other drops etc.)
Algorithm one, easy implementation, slows down on horizontalish areas:
1) Pick a point somewhere on the surface. How you get to this level is your problem.
2) Lower the point by a certain fixed amount along the z-axis. Say, 0.1 units.
3) Project the lowered point back onto the BRep using a ClosestPoint function.
4) If the newly projected point is very similar to the input point, abort, otherwise, repeat step 2.
Algorithm two, more difficult, better control over step size:
1) Pick a point somewhere on the surface. How you get to this level is your problem.
2) Find the normal vector at this point.
3) If the normal vector is (nearly) straight up, abort.
4) Find the CrossProduct between the normal vector and the straight-up vector.
5) Rotate the normal vector 90 degrees around this cross-product.
6) Scale the rotated vector so it becomes the length of your sampling accuracy.
7) Move the point along the vector and pull it back onto the surface (should be a short distance if your step-size is small)
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:20pm on November 23, 2009
google's data (please correct if I'm wrong):
"SRTM1 data is sampled at one arcsecond (about 30 meters) and SRTM3 data is sampled at three arcseconds (about 90 meters). The higher resolution SRTM1 data is available for most of the US and the lower res SRTM3 data is available for most of the world."
The 3x3 stitching definition above is done in Rhino 4 but it doesn't actually "stitch together" or merge the surfaces into one. I had to do it manually in Rhino with the merge surfaces command. Which I think does a better job than grasshopper.
Also I think the calculations within it (distance of one degree change in lat/lng) won't be accurate enough (or high enough in resolution) even though they are correct so I cannot guarantee the 3x3 pieces are perfectly neighbouring sets of data (they might contain very very tiny strips of overlapped/missed topography data). However this error is really insignificant next to the limited resolution of the generated topography so it is neglectable if you're not a perfectionist like me.
Edit: For bigger areas Elk is much easier, but for smaller areas where you want to specify the area size Xiaoming's component is more convenient I think.…
s set up. All the goals in Kangaroo have indices identifying which of the points in the system they act on.
Assigning these indices automatically and still allowing inputs to change during simulation requires some tricks to work around the acyclic directed nature of Grasshopper.
In remeshing the indexing and even number of points changes which greatly complicates things if you want to also have goals assigned to certain edges/points.
Last time I spent serious time on this though was before the K2 library, so maybe time to revisit soon. I think it would probably over complicate things trying to accommodate this remeshing directly within the main Kangaroo solver component, but there could be a dedicated membranes tool (though I know you also want me to prioritize documenting the existing tools!).
Stepping back for a moment though - it is usually possible to separate the remeshing and relaxation into separate steps. Membrane relaxation generally needs well shaped triangles (no angles over 90), and remeshing can give you this. Of course the triangles change shape during relaxation, but if the unrelaxed geometry is not too dramatically different from the end result, and you use tangential smoothing to keep vertices from drifting, they can stay well shaped throughout. For bigger changes in geometry you could also remesh-relax-remesh-relax.…
Added by Daniel Piker at 10:29am on January 13, 2016
nds except only using CreateHBSrfs which can be unstable for me with some geometry (GH crashes).
If you want proof of the rotation not taking place using MSH2RAD, please look in the Daysim*.rad file that gets created when performing a Daysim simulation.
See example below. The same polygon is processed via the CreateHBSrs component and via the MSH2RAD component. The polygon gets rotated 90 degrees using CreateHBSrs but unfortunately not with MSH2RAD:
_______________
##GENERATED BY HONEYBEE
OPAQUE polygon b69a317a402d42c1994f410463cd_00 0 12 -15.824400 -5.615800 0.000000 -15.824400 -44.175400 0.000000 -15.824400 -44.175400 28.363100 -15.824400 -5.615800 28.363100
# SOURCE FILE: c:\ladybug\000000_TEST\SURR\MSH2RADFiles\SURR.rad
## c:\radiance\bin\\obj2rad -f c:\ladybug\000000_TEST\SURR\MSH2RADFiles\SURR.obj## OBJ file written by TurtlePyMesh
OPAQUE polygon object_1.10 0 12 44.175400 -15.824400 28.363100 5.615820 -15.824400 28.363100 5.615820 -15.824400 0.000000 44.175400 -15.824400 0.000000
_______________
All the best
-M…
what i want.
My intention is that the Randomly selected brick be rotated 90 degrees so that header face is proud of the actual wall face rather than stretcher face.
I can easily rotate the selected bricks and then protrude them in the desired direction. However, if i rotate the brick a gap is created on either side of rotated brick (refer sketch 1). I want to set a parameter that CLOSES THAT GAP, so that the wall remains watertight (refer sketch 2).
Brick size used 230mm (L) x 76mm(W) x 70mm(H).
Attached are
1) 1-Sketch: Explaining my conundrum
2) 2-Sketch: Explaining what i want to achieve
3) 3-Perspective: Baked Geometry of what i have achieved so far
Please feel free to ask for my GH definition if required.
I'm an absolute dummy in VB scripting.
So insight to solve my conundrum will be highly appreciated.
Cheers
…
if i select one by one and it shows
and also, select different amount of curves shows different angles[same curve]but the most important thing is all of them are wrong angles,
if i draw some 90 degree curve, the answer is right.
thank guys…
rection: there's no visible demand. Explanation: a lot of AEC oriented people (Smart Geo daydreamers) they think - potentially - about GH but they are rejecting it for more than obvious reasons: our job is 1% about the smart thing and 99% about the structured aspect of the smart (or stupid thing).
Back to that "hangar" : The primary role of this GH definition provided herein (and hopefully some future updates) is NOT to outline some academic solution (via some abstract collection of pipes/lines/points/surfaces) ...but to place in 3d space - properly structured - all the real-life (hmm, he he) bits that can compose the actual project. Of course if the bits could be parametrically driven assemblies ...well...you get the gist of the message.
All in all: I think that Engineers who are GH skeptics could see GH with a totally new perspective if, say, a collection of similar examples/test cases could be available for demo/evaluation/whatever > Ah! at last : this appears to be a real thing > what software did it? > say it again - Grass Components you said? > what sort of name is this? ... etc etc etc.
But since a similar development is quite expensive (and requires a team of several gurus), maybe this is rather a future potential task for the GH/Rhino people if they think that the AEC market segment could be beneficial for their products. Combine a similar capability with tools like yours and/or Evolute (planar quads are "a-la-mode" these days).
PS: forget trivial stuff > what about Stefanie? (plan B : better something than nothing)…