st for the quality of the mesh.
Actually, convergence is much more than simply having low residuals. You can have a wrong solution with very low residuals. Usually, it is a combined process of both run time information on residuals and having an idea or expectation of what the simulation results should be. Another way of assessing convergence is if the residual values have been stable (within a very small limit, e.g. 1E-5) for more than a certain number of iterations (e.g. 1000). We are planning to provide run-time residual plots in Butterfly, hopefully soon. These plots can help keeping an eye on the solution.
You could try as a test if you want to switch to a blend of first and second order (by swapping upwind with linearUpwind in the fvSchemes)
.
Concerning mesh quality there are a number of ways, some of which are a bit advanced for this post and for BF's current capabilities. The best way to start is by refining the background mesh (i.e. the blockMesh). You can do that by assigning more cells to the x, y and z directions in the blockMesh component. However, make sure you increase the max global cells. I would suggest you monitor the output of the blockMesh in order to know the total number of cells there. Your max global cells has to be higher than that for SHM to even work. I'd suggest 2x to start with. Ofc all that requires a bit of trial and error depending on the case at hand.
Hope this helps!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
can be found in "C:\Documents and Settings\<user name>\Application Data\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\Plug-ins\IronPython\settings\lib\rhinoscript" folder on WinXP. So could have used yours too.
RhinoCommon is a SDK and basically the power behind grasshopper and rhinoscriptsyntax functions. In fact each time you call a rhinoscriptsyntax, a RhinoCommon code gets executed.
And, yes:
import Rhino - imports RhinoCommon
import utility - enables importing utility.coercebrep() (or coerce3dpoint() coercecurve() ... so on)
Item access means an input is consisted of a single item.List access means an input is a list.Tree access means an input is consisted of a tree with data on different branches.rs.BooleanDifference requires both of it's arguments to be lists, so it would be logical to set the inputs b1 and b2 as lists. But there is one problem, that Mitch pointed out to me: it seems that python components (like grasshopper components) are "intelligent", and can distinguish whether you are inputting item, list, or tree. Setting your input as list, might disable this ability and leave you with only possible type of input (list).So honestly I do not know why in this case, setting the inputs to Lists worked - due to mentioned "intelligence" of python component, even an Item type would work.This might be a question for an experienced user, I am just a beginner.…
(1) I have been exporting small sections of a larger model into Maya from Rhino as FBX. In Maya I rotate and scale the models (-90 in X, Scale XYZ 0.001). The Named Views are being saved, but do not have a successful import into the Maya model. They do not appear as in Rhino, and the problem is not solved by scaling or rotating the cameras.
(2) If I try going the other direction, the cameras exported from Maya as FBX are also not aligning with the model in Rhino as they are in Maya.. I will do my best to post some images of the problem and hope you can help.
error !!
This is what the named views look like
here I am trying to the other way with a good view from Maya
strange placement..
This is the best result I can achieve, after I scale the camera by 1000
Any Advice???
Thanks, Robert.
…
ysim.ning.com/
When you run the simualtion you will notice on the batch terminal that Daysim is also being called, so you may want to consider how Daysim uses Radiance files & data.
Regarding your current problem, I think you stumbled onto something weird and interesting.
Interior and exterior readings appear to differ by 40 in the best case scenarios. Even setting the transmittance to 1 yields similar results. I tried changing from cummulative sky to climate sky and got similar values. Changing the test points did nothing either.
I think, (yet I'm too lazy to prove this) that the difference in values stems from diffuse radiation over the sky dome.
If you delete everything except the glass you'll notice that interior values are like 80-90% of the exterior values (this seems like the expected behaviour with a transmittance of 1). So, if we consider that a vertical window, part of an opaque box, is receiving radiation from 25% of a sphere, as you start to inset the interior test points the radiation they receive will be a fraction of the 25%.
Let me try to explain this better...The exterior surface receives radiation from a section of a sphere calculated by 180degrees on the xy plane (let’s call this angle theta) and by 90degrees (let’s call this angle phi) in azimuthal elevation. If you integrate this over spherical coordinates (theta from 0 to pi; phi from 0 to pi/2) you will find that it comes to a quarter of a sphere. By comparison, the interior surface will not integrate theta from 0 to 180degrees,nor phi from 0 to 90degrees, instead it will be the subtended angle from the exterior surface as a function of their separation; the farther in you go the smaller the view of the outside.
If my hypothesis is correct there shouldn't be that much difference since the separation is only 10cms...the subtended angle would be like 170 instead of 180 for theta and 85 instead of 90 for phi...overall if you integrate both spherical areas there should only by a difference of 10%.
In conclusion, I believe the unexpected behaviour stems from the previous subtended angle thing. If direct radiation was the only factor the difference would be the aforementioned 10%, which suggests that an additional source of energy is also affected by this. Perhaps indirect and diffuse radiation from other areas of the sky dome.
I’m definitely intrigued on why this is happening. Please post if you figure it out.
Regards,
Mauricio
…
TB of RAM. I think I'm going to start a GoFundMe campaign to buy one for myself :)
2- The server's cost is about $13 an hour. I get free access to supercomputer through my university and xsede.org because I earned an NSF Honorable mention last March, however, the supercomputers available through both resources are a little complicated for me to use, as opposed to the one available from amazon that has Microsoft server 2012 already installed.
3- I wanted to run 400 annual glare simulations for 400 different views.
4- I tried a to perform annual glare simulation for one view on my Dell XPS that has Intel Core i7-6700HQ processor and 16GB of system memory. The simulation took 2 hours to complete. Radiance parameter ab was set to 6.
5- I wanted to obtain the batch file for each view so I can run them on the server. So I used the fly component to run all 400 simulations and closed the cmd windows, that wasn't bad ( for me at least) because I asked my son to this job for me, he was just glad to help me :)
6- I created one batch file using this cmd command:
dir /s /b *.bat > runall.bat
This created a file with the path to each .bat file. I edited this file in Notepad++ to include the word "start" at the beginning of each line. This was done using the "find and replace" dialogue box.
7- I split my newly created batch file into 3 batch files, each one has about 130 file names and " start" before the file names.
8- installed radiance on my server
9- Ran the first batch file on the server, this started 130 cmd windows performing my simulations, CPU usage was anywhere between 90% to 100% and about 105 GB of RAMs were used.
10. It took about 5 hours to complete all 130 simulations, I expected to run all in 2 hours but can't complain because this would've taken about 260 hours to run on my laptop. After the simulations done I ran the second and then the third batch files ( total of about 15 hours).
11. I got 400 valid dgb files. Couldn't be happier!
…
he time to work with it.
the project is about facade strips which turns along height. the top angle is
parallel to the facade and the bottom is max. 90 degrees twisted, but the strips
should turn diffrently to achieve more dinamic look.
first i have tried to achieve this by calculating distance between the rotation angle from points of the grid and a single point.
then i have tried to ad some more effecting points and used the distance to the divided surface (the circles are just to control the area of effection):
i manually lofted it.
the result is a bit annoying becouse the points that effect the angle are always visible:
i have triend to solve this by drawing a line and divided it to recieve points along the bottom of the geometry. the result is not working properly:
Anyway,
there must be a better/smoother way to achieve this. i would like to effect the twist of the surfaces by distance to a spline, but im just lost. can you help me please?
the problems im encountering:
0- distance spline to grid to effect the angle
1- list of x/y coordinates and angle of rotation for each point of the grid
2- export points to excel
3- lofting lines in one direction only (x1, x2, x3...)
4- reduce the list data to 2 decimal (0,00)
5- maybe angle from radian to degrees
thx…
t BBox will then be mapped relative to the UVW space of that box to the new target boxes.
Where your definition is slipping up is the data matching aspect of GH. You have two lists (that count). One list contains 100 items of target boxes and the other contains 2 items of geometry. GH defaults to the Longest List data matching
List A --> List B
Target Box A0 --> Cuboid
Target Box A1 --> Cylinder
Target Box A2 --> (Oops List B has run out of items. Now GH will repeat the last item = Cylinder)
Target Box A3 --> Cylinder
.....
Target Box J9 --> Cylinder
Solution
There are two approaches to rectify this the most logical would be to group the geometries into one object (What you had in mind with the bounding box) to do this use the Group Component on the Transform Tab > Utility Panel.
The other approach is far more common in GH mentality. Use the Graft, right click the G input of Morph and select Graft from the Context Menu. This places all of the items in the List on to separate branches. Creating a list of lists (although these new list only have one item). When GH now tries to data match them it will apply the whole of the first geometry list (Only the Cuboid) to all of the target boxes and all of the second list (Cylinder) to the target boxes again.
I hope this helps…
ort and export from the images below and also from the HELP file of DB in attachments (Page 71: Importing Geometric Data; Page 78-80: Import 3 - D CAD Data). In their HELP file, they mention about "import geometric data".
However, regarding the input of schedules, loads, constructions and etc., DB normally uses "Component " and "Template" (Page 29: Templates And Components; Page 591: Templates; Page 533: Components). "Templates" are databases of typical generic data, including Activity templates, Construction templates, Glazing templates, Facade templates, HVAC templates, Location Templates, and etc. "Component " are databases of individual data items (e.g. a construction type, material, window pane).
Both "Component " and "Template" are allowed to be imported and exported by using "Import / Export library data" command (.ddf format - DB Database File; Page 734: Import Components/Templates, Export Components/Templates). DB also allows us to build up our own libraries of templates and components (Page 731: Library Management; Page 733: Template Library Management).
In order to import both geometric information and other information related to schedules, loads, constructions and etc. from GH to BD, we supposed the following two ways:
1. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (both geometric and "Component " and "Template" information) --> DB
This is the way we most prefer. We did see information related to schedules, loads, constructions encoded in the gbXML file generated by GB, but still do not know the reason why DB did not take this information (I also mentioned this in Q6 within the gh file). We assume this might because the gbXML file we create encodes the schedules based on a different template / schema than the one DB expects. We also post this question to the DB forum for help.
(http://www.designbuilder.co.uk/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,25/page,viewtopic/p,13755/#13755)
2. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (geometric information only) + .ddf ("Component " and "Template" information only) --> DB
If the first way doesn't work and DB only takes geometric information from the gbXML, then we might think of the other way - generating the .ddf files from GH(HB+GB) to pass the schedule, load and construction information to DB.
I was wondering if it is feasible for HB and GB to have this function? And what is your suggestion to achieve this?
In addition, we notice that DB can export XML files (not gbXML), so we are trying to figure out if DB also accepts / reads the XML file. If so, we might be able to convert the gbXML (with both geometric and schedule information) to XML. What do you think about that?
Thank you again for all your help!
Best,
Ding
DB import
DB export
Template libraries
Component libraries
…
n make it possible to Motivation generate
a variety of interesting objects, from abstract fractals to plant-like
branching structures, their modeling power is quite limited. A major
problem can be traced to the reduction of all lines to integer multiples
of the unit segment. As a result, even such a simple figure as an
isosceles right-angled triangle cannot be traced exactly, since the ratio
of its hypotenuse length to the length of a side is expressed by the irrational
number √2. Rational approximation of line length provides only
a limited solution, because the unit step must be the smallest common
1
1
√2
denominator of all line lengths in the modeled structure. Consequently,
the representation of a simple plant module, such as an internode, may
require a large number of symbols. The same argument applies to angles.
Problems become even more pronounced while simulating changes
to the modeled structure over time, since some growth functions cannot
be expressed conveniently using L-systems. Generally, it is difficult
1.10. Parametric L-systems 41
to capture continuous phenomena, since the obvious technique of discretizing
continuous values may require a large number of quantization
levels, yielding L-systems with hundreds of symbols and productions.
Consequently, model specification becomes difficult, and the mathematical
beauty of L-systems is lost.
In order to solve similar problems, Lindenmayer proposed that numerical
parameters be associated with L-system symbols [83]. He illustrated
this idea by referring to the continuous development of branching
structures and diffusion of chemical compounds in a nonbranching filament
of Anabaena catenula.
The following is an example of its application:
starting string: A
p1: A F(1)[+A][-A]
P2: F(s) F(s*R)
which I think is basically trying to say
F(s) = move forwar a step of length s > 0.
Thanks again,
Mateo…