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.…
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.…
eñadores, y creativos interesados en el aprendizaje de metodos avanzados de generación y racionalización de geometría compleja, y su implementación en distintas etapas del proceso de diseño.
Se abordaran los conceptos básicos para hacer frente a diversas problemas de diseño a través de la implementación de una serie de plataformas computacionales con el objetivo de construir un flujo de trabajo que permita optimizar proyectos de diversa escala y explorar esquemas geometricos complejos de manera rápida y eficiente.A lo largo del 6 dias trabajaremos con la plataforma de Modelado 3d Rhinoceros, el entorno de programación visual de Grasshopper y el motor de Renderizado de Vray.Estudiantes: $4,500.00Profesionistas: $5,500.00info+inscripciones:workshop@complexgeometry.com[044] 33 3956 9209[044] 33 1410 8975[044] 81 1916 8657
…
a pain to use sometimes. I recently found this great post:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/formatting-numbers-in-grasshopper
which points to the msdn .net framework standard numeric format strings:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dwhawy9k.aspx
and the custom ones too:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0c899ak8.aspx
Sooo... today I was trying to make a 2D array generator for RGB values to use with a RGB LED and an Arduino. For instance, declaring a 2D array in Arduino:
int color[3][3]={{255,0,0},{0,255,0},{0,0,255}};
I'm using the blend color component to spit out transitions between two colors. I want the list in the panel to be in the format above, so I used both the expression component and the string format component (are they the same under the hood?). In any case, if I have R, G and B values coming into the component, I want to format them so the come out looking like {R,G,B}, so I can just copy the output in a panel and paste it into the Arduino IDE. But what about {curly braces}. If the expression/format component uses them in it's syntax, for instance:
Format ("{R:0},{G:0},{B:0}",R,G,B)
how do I get them into the formatting string? I tried escaping them like:
Format ("\{{R:0},{G:0},{B:0}\}",R,G,B)
but that just makes the component angry
Escaping characters is explained in the formatting references above. Is it implemented in this component? Should I be looking at a different approach?
I've included a sample file below.
Thanks!
~BB~
…
ing-in-python?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A628495
For the most part, I got the serial port to work and I could share the port with other components without wiring the components together using a sticky Python dictionary. There were a couple of issues with closing the port (Rhino had to be restarted).
In any case, I'm back at it. I am however going the C# component route with an eye towards writing my own components with visual studio. I am trying to create bidirectional communication with a serial device in grasshopper. I need more control over the serial port that the generic Firefly components can afford. Furthermore, I would like to understand how to program this myself. The first goal would be to create a few components that could handle various serial tasks, one to open/close port, one to read from port and one to write to it. This is not unlike how I got it to work in python, and is also similar to the logic in Firefly's serial components.
The thing that has me stumped with C# is how one shares the port between components? If one component is responsible for creating and opening/closing the port, how do the read/write components address the instance of the port created in the other component? Python has the sticky dictionary, is there something similar in C#? I'm a novice when it comes to C# and how it works within grasshopper, so maybe I'm missing something simple.
I've attached a klunky definition that uses C# to open/close a serial port. I've tried accessing the port with other components, but I don't know enough to make it work. Again, I'm mainly interested in the mechanics of how one component can access the serial port instance created in another component. If I could get some user objects going for now, I'd be happy. In the future, I want to roll my own components. If anyone has any suggestions, code snippets, or any other forms of enlightenment, I'd be greatly appreciative!
Rhino5 x64 + GH version 0.9.0056
Thanks,
~BB~
…