unique properties (color, UV map, vertex normal) the vertex is duplicated. So if you weld a mesh using the weld command with an angle tolerance of more than 90 degrees you're left with a box with 6 faces and 8 vertices.
It's quite a common way to describe meshes, Also the way your graphics card consumes meshes, so there's little CPU processing needed to process the meshes and feed them to the graphics card. If it's hard drive space you're worried about, there may be some compression possible. Apart from primitives, I don't know a geometry that do not represent a box by having four faces (including maya's polygons).
A mesh is considered closed when there are no naked edges. So for boxes this does not return false. I assume that internally spatial queries are used (or perhaps a check if the vertices are exactly the same)(see https://github.com/mcneel/rhinocommon/blob/master/dotnet/opennurbs/opennurbs_mesh.c )
Conclusion: If you want faces to show as having a (semi) creased edge, you'll have a vertex direction for each vertex.
However, if your goal is to make gears, I'd skip the whole part of creating meshes, and leverage Breps and extrusions to create the geometry, or using Extrusion (the geometry) might be a solution to create lightweight geometry, and forget about creating meshes yourself.
…
nt analysis - benchmarking >> bad condition of a face falsifies, resolution-dependence ...
B) if you use the karamba- or gh-mesher it still gives you bad results as your sphere has its nurbs-edge running through your cap. rotate the sphere 90° around x before and you are getting a nice mesh.
C) your supports are not defined just around its edge which i guess the benchmark would require?
D) you defined wood as the material, and there are some non-benchmark defaults for that i guess. also i am not sure but i think there have been some issues about the computability of shell element's materials with low shear modulus, and therefore the one of wood was raised. but you have to ask clemens for that.
nevertheless you can define your own material-properties with the resp. component
for me now, it calculates the first 5 buckling modes
good luck!
best
rob
…
rench "géométrie de raccordement" this geometry is different and unique to each pattern, and is highly dependent on the central geometry of the pattern, some non exhaustive rules imply that:
this geometry is usualy the extension of the central one
follow by the preceding rule the same angularity than the central geometry
the angles are dictated by the parent geometry shape, here you have an octogon, which means that the angles are either or both the ( subdivision usually) and multiplication of the PI/2.rad angle(90°, 45°, 22.5° and so on)
there is the notion of tiling, which also dictactes the axes of symmetry and possible combination of primary shapes , here you've got the (4,8,8) tiling, which goes along with what is called an octocagonal symmetry
What you've got here is the base geometry, that you could fill with a variety of rich ornaments, I suggest You look at Jule's bourgoin book : "Les éléments de l'art arabe : le trait des entrelacs " there you may find your pattern in a higher complexity and diversity, if you come to analyse them, you could figure out the logical relationships between the shapes , or what you're referring to "mathematical formula"
I think finding some patterns of reference is the best way to tacle even more complex shapes
If you want more insights at least about some academic works I will be pleased to share my humble gathering of knowledge
Good luck…
cussions.
The heart of the problem was a math domain error that was occurring in the function that calculates indoor air stratification, which is ironic as this was a simulation that did not have any indoor test points. This has now been fixed in the attached file and on the github.
The second issue was that the month was off by 1 when you connected up an HOY and this has also been fixed now.
https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/commit/d45ac37bc8b9db3f76aa5d9fcc00687394b9ef5d
My last comment is a suggestion to break up the ground top surface into several surfaces as this allows the temperature maps to account for spatial differences in ground temperature across the scene. This is what I do in this file here:
http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Outdoor_Microclimate_Map&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0
Thanks for getting down to the cause of issues like this one. It really makes these bugs much easier to fix. Between the both of you, I feel you can take credit for over 90% of the bug fixes in the community.
Great job, as always,
-Chris…
aybe cause this problems.
.
maybe we can rotate this vectors in a slight angle to produce smooth principal curvature lines.so i set a point to test my thought. and i put following codes into yours,but it did work to specific curve. it cannot apply to several curves.
can you give me some advice?
.
thanks a lot!
.
If (Not IsNothing(PrevDir)) Then
If (dir.IsParallelTo(PrevDir, 0.5 * Math.PI) < 0) Then
dir.Reverse()
End If
if (dir.IsPerpendicularTo(PrevDir,rAngle) then
dir.rotate( fAngle ,crv.Normal)
End If
End If
…
this:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal pt1 As List(Of Point3d), ByVal pt2 As List(Of Point3d), ByRef A As Object)
Dim myLine As New Line
Dim arrLines As New List (Of Line)
For i As Integer = 0 To pt1.Count - 1
myLine = New Line (pt1(i), pt2(i))
arrLines.Add(myLine)
Next
A = arrLines
End Sub
I then get this error:
Error: Overload resolution failed because no accessible 'New' is most specific for these arguments: (line 90)
If I rewrite (and change the access to Items NOT List) to:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal pt1 As Point3d, ByVal pt2 As Point3d, ByRef A As Object)
Dim myLine As New Line
myLine = New Line (pt1, pt2)
A = myLine
End Sub
..then it works pefectly!Is there a bug with accessing list items? Or have I been staring at the screen for too long and I'm missing something very obvious?!Thanks,Toby…
nal vector.(see pic 1)
Second: Holding an abstract mesh or surface with a 3D grid structure. Basically creating 90 degree vectors on an uneven surface coming out of the object, sort of like a cactus with a grid pattern. (see Pic 2)
Third: I think #1 answers this issue: when the lines hitting the rough surface go in two different grid directions, their intersecting points are too close together. Structurally these points can be united and the vectors would be reduced. Manually deleting these lines after being baked is currently the only option. It would be so cool if there was a mathematical arrangement that would connect points that are within a certain distance to one another. (see pic 3)
…
. since there are going to be multiple units facing different directions, each unit will be calculated differently based of their respective plane.
The following screenshots can explain the situation a little better
So Lets say the vector is pointing from the operating unit to the position of the sun, an the plane underneath is where I would like to measure the angle from
this second picture shows how each unit should function, so the measured angle doesn't exceed 90 degrees. what I did is zeroed the z value for the sun position to get a project vector. The problem with this solution is that it only works for XY planes, where I need to have a lot of planes that are specific for each unit and its orientation.
Help would be much appreciated…
problem is that the values of the isocurves are plotted not always in the same way: sometime parallel to the curves, sometime perpendicular.
In the following case, for example, i would like to turn the values of 90°(to get them parallel to the curves).
in order to have something like this:
How can i do that (without baking them)??
Thanks in advance
Claudia…
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…