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).…
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
perienced with grasshopper, but so far I've managed to combine the following:
Giulio Piacentino's "Catenary arch from height" script
Pirouz Nourian's "Mobius" script (Obtained from a friend)
End Result:
Here's where I'm stuck: I want the mobius twist to revolve around the midpoint of the arch, but the script uses the input values to determine the endpoints, resulting in a weird sinuous shape when viewed from above. Also, the secondary end points (generated by the mobius script, determining the width of the surface) are generated by default along the z axis, resulting in an arch that only touches the "ground" at two points. I attempted to work around this issue by trying to force the zHeight parameter to correspond with the y axis (thus rotating the arch 90 degrees so it would lay "flat"), but the script interprets the third point as a value and not as an actual point to bisect. I thought this might be an issue with the C# component that I obtained from Giulio Piacentino's script, so I attempted to tinker around with the source code. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in C# so I only managed to mess everything up (I've since recovered the code from the cache). Anybody got some ideas? -BC …
onsidered period.
Even if the end of July for the mediterranean climate is not the best period to perform an adaptive comfort analysis (it's just a pretest to define a LB model) I want to refine the Adaptive comfort Chart (AC) by changing the external air temperature data imported from the .epw file with that of monitored data as reported here below:
Where the monitored ext air temperature are in this form (green panel below):
I have used the comfortPar component to set the following parameters:
Adaptive chart as defined by EN 15251
90% of occupants comfortable
the prevailing outdoor temperature from a weighted running mean of the last week
fully conditioned space (even if it is not properly in line with AC as already discussed)
The question is this: the AC component could correctly apply the code below if there is only a list of external temperature data for a restricted period (without indication about the limits of this period) and not for an entire year?
else: #Calculate a running mean temperature. alpha = 0.8 divisor = 1 + alpha + math.pow(alpha,2) + math.pow(alpha,3) + math.pow(alpha,4) + math.pow(alpha,5) dividend = (sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-24:-1] + [_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-1]])/24) + (alpha*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-48:-24])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,2)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-72:-48])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,3)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-96:-72])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,4)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-120:-96])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,5)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-144:-120])/24)) startingTemp = dividend/divisor if startingTemp < 10: coldTimes.append(0) outdoorTemp = _prevailingOutdoorTemp[7:] startingMean = sum(outdoorTemp[:24])/24 dailyRunMeans = [startingTemp] dailyMeans = [startingMean] prevailTemp.extend(duplicateData([startingTemp], 24)) startHour = 24
…
" (idiomatic) and easy way of doing things.So here come some basic questions:
Is there a way to create custom components by grouping an existing sub-network together? I'm looking for a way to re-use parts of a program (something similar to subroutines), and to make the network look less cluttered. I found that it is possible to group components (ctrl-g), but this still displays them as separate blocks (too much clutter), and provides no way to re-use a sub-network in such a way that if it is modified in one place, all it's instances (all the places where it is re-used) also get modified.
Is there a component that does nothing, just passes a signal through? Suppose I need to connect block A to blocks B1, B2, B3 (all three get the same input). Then I change my mind, and I decide to connect block C to these three, not A. In this case it will be necessary to change three connections, not just one. I'm looking for an easy way to do this by a single rewiring, not three. (This came up in a practical situation).
Finally, a related question: is there a component that acts as a switch, so I can choose which signal it passes through out of a possible set of choices? For example, suppose that a set of objects can be coloured based on a number of different properties (size, positions, rotation, etc.) I'm looking for a way to switch between these very easily, without the need to do much rewiring.
Thank you in advance for any replies / useful comments, even general ones on how to easily structure a large Grasshopper program/network.…
button to generate such complicated and unruled geometry. Seriously, if you don't understand a geometry, how can you solve the structural needs and the bloody fabrication. Giant fast prototyping machines doesn't exist!
In a era where ressources and energy is getting scarce, I don't understand this trend of fancy no sence look like organic buildings. They just look organic in our human perception. Nature builds things with define physical and biochemicals rules, and this is why when they grow, they look like that. You should study Frei Otto publication from the 80's.. the IL publications. They were using physical models to generate physical structures that would be build in the physical world. Computers and softwares are dangerous as we distach from reality.
We put all this effort to generate these fancy forms, but no brain is put in structural optimization, energy efficiency (for instance in relation with the sun, or other natural elements)
IT technology goes faster than the time we have to reflect about it. (not talking about the technics).
As Frei Otto told me personally in our last discussion (talking about philosophy and architecture): " We have to define the OPEN QUESTIONS. Once these questions will be defined, you'll get answers".
I think we are getting to a question here: " How to use this technology to solve problems in Architecture?" Before that " What are the real problems in architecture?"
Maybe David should make a component for that? For instance, a button that could solve the loging and infrastructure problems for these millions of people living in the slums of Mumbai...
What about that Krish Raj?…
igner called Christophe Barreau.
http://www.christophe-barreau.fr/
We design sail catamarans from 40' to 80' and occasionally some other stuff.
One may know it's a quite uncertain activity so I find myself tacking upwind on other seas from time to time, such as product design and jewelry. I also have side projects with mates regarding hi-fi or RC planes.
As for "static" architecture I had a couple experiences working on large "complex" buildings. Sadly French architects are not very familiar with BIM, parametric or even precise 3d modeling so I've been hired to introduce GH in the workflow.
I'm an un-authorized rhino trainer, sorry to say, but I just love teaching and meeting new faces, although I'm not as devoted as Danny ;)
I've been using GH both for modeling and analysis for about three years now and I'll daresay I became pretty good at it... I'm not a geek at all but it's just so useful, and it's really worth it sometimes €€€!…
ke 20 samples per day, 50 days out of the year for 1000 samples) from each panel and calculate the % of occlusion. Allow that % to be the % "open" of each panel. Design the opening in each panel to be something cool and proportional. Profit.
You could even break it down by a finite number of available panel types(say 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% open) and create an efficient production. All of these things can be paramterized to allow for more samples or more panel types as needed or based on your calculation limits.
The only exception would be proper environmental analysis, say, if you were trying to reduce solar gain in summer and allow for it in winter. You would want to split this calculation between when you need to be gaining heat and where you want to be shading. Then extrapolate the percentage between the two. You may even need a gradient of heat gain through fall/spring. The possibilities depend on how much you know about the mechanical requirements of the area/building.
That would be my approach. If I have more time tonight I will try and put something together on this as its been something I'd like to have in my back pocket....
Edit: You would also need to analyze the angle of incidence as it could have an effect on the amount of solar gain.....…
pproach of estimating wind loads using design codes such as ASCE7-05.
B) Hiring a wind expert to construct a physical model and and calculate wind pressures measured directly from a wind tunnel test.
A) will allow you to derive a site specific wind design pressure based on the height of the building, surface roughness, site location etc. Typically you then multiply this pressure by an appropriate co-efficent in the code for a given building shape.
The other atypical method it to use numerical approaches such as CFD. This approach is not yet accepted due to nuances such as of surface roughness.
Building deflection is again subjective. Doing a modal analysis and getting an idea of the frequency is better. You can increase the frequency by playing about with the building stiffness.
You need to modify the stiffness of the building to get the deflection down. i.e. play about with geometry, add extra members with stiffness, reduce weight, use material with higher elastic modulus etc
If you are getting a 7m deflection for a 400m building then I can right away that is way too soft. That is equivalent to 400m/7m or H/57. You want to be at least H/500 to H/1000 so aim for 80 to 40 mm.
Your wind load seems reasonable at 87 psf for that height of building
…