(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…
y using the Honeybee_Update Honeybee component.
The video below (best viewed in full-screen mode) provides an idea of what these components are capable of being used for:
The video below shows how these components can be used in an existing Honeybee project (for additional links please open this video in youtube):
I have uploaded two examples as Hydra files that show how these components can be used for grid-point and image-based simulations:
Example1 : Grid Point Calculations
Example2: Image based simulation
Finally, a more esoteric application is demonstrated in this video:
These components are still in the beta-testing stage. Some of the limitations of the components are:
1. Only Type C photometry IES files are supported at present.
2. Rhino is likely to get sluggish if there are too many luminaires (i.e. light fixtures) present in a scene.
3. Due to the spectral limitations of the ray-tracing software (RADIANCE), simulations involving color mixing might not be physically realizable.
Additional details about photometric and spectral calculations are probably an overkill for this forum. However, I'd be glad to answer any related questions. Please report any bugs or request new features either on this forum or on Github.
Mostapha, Leland Curtis, Reinhardt Swart and Dr. Richard Mistrick provided valuable inputs during the development of these components.
Thanks,
Sarith
Update 16th January 2017:
An example with some new components and bug fixes since the initial release announcement can be found here
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
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…
ting at multiple geometries in the same location. I simply sorted the list of values and used the Delete Consecutive component. This potentially rearranges the order of values but I don't think that matters in your case. I also threw in an Int component which actually seems to make a difference (try sidestepping it and you will see!).
2-I flattened the output of the mesh component before sending it to union. This ensures that the original mesh is booleaned once with all the components rather than individually with each of the 86 components.
Is this what the result should look like?
One suggestion for future postings: when referencing geometry in rhino, it often helps if you attach your rhino file as well so people don't have to guess where you are starting from.
If you have further questions, just ask ;-)
cbass…