me research involving shades and and solar radiation and I need the sun's path through the entire year to fully optimize the design. This far I've been able to simulate what I want by having my shadders following a mock solar orbit around them, what I need to know is to use a model that simulates solar paths, use it as an attractor point and have my shadding surfaces follow it, pretty much like that I am doing right now (or so I think)
Here's where my questions come around:
I remember finding somewhere on the internet a definiton that simulates the sun's path through the year; I think I can find it again and use it for my purposes. I think that I could just run the GH definition, bake the geometry and then upload it to Ecotect and have it run so I can get the data and keep working over that, then feed the geometry again to Ecotect, ad nauseam. However I think that is a very slow process.
Is there a way that I can run an Ecotect plug in of sorts within GH, that way I can get my data IN grasshopper and model accordingly?
Does that make sense?
Thanks a lot for any input.…
Added by Antonio Tamez at 3:40am on October 24, 2011
s for the sunlight hours analysis.
I'm producing BRE Annual Probable Sunlight Hours calculations and so to match the BRE approach, I'm using 100 sun vectors, each representing 1% of probable sunlight hours. I could use the Sunpath and Analysis Period components to produce sun positions for the whole year, but this gives results that do not fully reflect the BRE methodology - which is important here. I'm detailing this just to clarify that this isn't a full annual calc of 8760 hours for 350 surfaces.
Anyway, when I run the calc, it takes about an hour to run, but the Sunlight Hours Component itself reports a calculation time of 3 seconds! Does this mean that the rest of the time is all about prepping the brep geometry? If so, is there a reason why this is much slower than when using a view of sky recipe and exporting to radiance. For the same project, I completed a view of sky calculations and based on the number of test points and -ad setting, this was completing about 5.25 billions rays so I understand why that took an hour.
Any thoughts as to why the sunlight hours calc seems to take so long?
thanks
Nick
…
s topology gets pretty bad for use in CAD programs, since they are "in and out" at the same time. Generate naked edges and non-manifold edges. The problem itself is when I make an offset of the surfaces, which create "bad objets" in Rhino. I'm using Mantis, a plugin for Mathematica software, and one based on this the Math Surfaces script from http://www.co-de-it.com/wordpress/code/grasshopper-code. Both give me errors. I have tried to make a merge with the normal flip in the same model, but the error continues. If I do a split, in Rhino, there is no problem to create a solid offset, but the opposite is totally different if I make a Mirror. Can you help me with this complicated issue? Thank you.…
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
…
starting as soon as possible.
We're offering challenging projects, insights and contact to leading industry companies, project responsibilities according to abilities and initiative, great work environment and laid-back atmosphere, room to play and evolve,...
Our ideal candidate:
- is passionate about construction, engineering and (computational) design
- is proficient in Rhino / Grasshopper / (GH-)Python
- knows his ways around the Adobe Suite and MS Office
- has a current work permit for Germany
- is a German speaker (other native speakers also welcome, with excellent English skills)
- has an architectural background (Student / BA / MA /...), ideally with work experience
- is interested / has experience in digital manufacturing and prototyping
- will be able to join us shortly
We're looking forward to your applications / inquiries / CVs to: mpelzer@fat-lab.de
View our past projects here: www.fat-lab.com
(Current projects, unfortunately, are non-disclosed)
…
try to get the output. In this case the output needs to be set before requesting for it. I am doing it with this call:
ret = gsaobj.Output_Init_Arr(1,"Global","A1",14003001,3)
In API help the call is documented like this:
short Output_Init_Arr (long iFlags, string sAxis, string sCase, enum ResHeader header, long num1dpos)
so this call has 5 arguments (long, string, string, long, long) (the enums are defined as longs)
This call works, because when I print the ret, i get 0 that is "succeded" so everything works so far.
Then I request the output with the following:
results = []
ret = gsaobj.Output_Extract_Arr(10,results,numcomponents)
In API help the call is documented like this:
short Output_Extract_Arr(long iRef, SAFEARRAY(struct GsaResults)*arrayResults, long* numComponents)
I am getting the error "
Runtime error (ArgumentException): Could not convert argument 1 for call to Output_Extract_Arr."
So it seems that is not accepting 10 as a long in the beginning (assuming that argument 1 is the first). I already tried passing a variable as long, using long(10) there, nothing works.
Furthermore I don't know if the other two variables are correct like that. I come from VBA where I need to declare everything but AFAIK python is more permissive in this sense. "results" should be a dynamic array of objects and "numcomponents" a long.
Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks! :)
…
r "virtual partitions" as follows:
What I mean "air walls" here, is derived from the description of the E+ documentation with the header of "Air wall, Open air connection between zones". (Page 17, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/tips_and_tricks_using_energyplus.pdf)
As I understand, the term "air wall" used in E+ here refers to a description of something like "boundary condition" between adjacent interzone heat transfer surfaces, but not a kind of "construction or material" (like air space resistance or air gaps within a wall/double glazing window).
The main purpose of introducing the "air wall", is to simulate or approximate the airflow/convection/natural ventilation effect between multiple thermal zones which are connected by a large opening.
In my previous tests, using HBzones and GB, I managed to create the gbXML file which can be successfully imported to DB (without assigning any constructions within HB). And the adjacency condition can be recognized automatically by DB, even when I did not use the "Solve adjacencies" component in HB - shared surfaces between multiple thermal zones are recognized automatically by BD as "internal - partition"(which are standard partitions, but not virtual partitions).
In order to create/approximate "virtual partition", I need to manually draw a "hole" in the standard partition surface (fig.1&2). Again, the reason why we want to use "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") is that it allows airflow between multiple thermal zones which are connected by large openings and we could get different temperature of the each subdivided thermal zone which compose a large thermal zone.
My question is, if there is a possible way to simulate/approximate this kind of "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") in HBzones or in GB? If so, I would like to test if DB recognizes it or not. Actually, we expect that there is no need to involve any manual operations (like drawing a "hole" in the standard partition surface) in DB, due to an automatic optimization loop.
Thank you!
Best,
Ding
fig.1
fig.2
…
string may contain any number of curly bracket pairs with non-negative integers in them:
"When {0} brings back {1} days and {2}"
The number inside the brackets refers to the data to insert in that location. In effect, {x} is a placeholder for actual data. The data inserted into a specific bracket pair is the data supplied in the latter part of the function. {0} refers to the first item, {1} to the second, {2} to the third and so on ad infinitum.
If I supply some data the entire expression may look like this:
Format("When {0} brings back {1} days and {2}", "Spring", "blue", "fair")
which will result in the string "When Spring brings back blue days and fair".
If the data you're inserting is a number (or a date) then you have additional formatting flags that you can use. These additional flags appear behind the placeholder index integer separated by a colon.
Format("Pi = {0:0.00} ({0:0.000000})", Pi)
The :0.00 means the number will be formatted using two digits. The other flag will enforce six digits, resulting in: "Pi = 3.14 (3.141593)"
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 3:00pm on February 3, 2013
n the inability to be a real-life member within a parametric workflow (same kind of issue with Evolute Tools Pro).
As regards strictly AEC matters the main problem with GH is Rhino itself (not feature/constrain driven, not a solid modeler, not AEC oriented by any means and not biased towards assembly/component modeling). Other than that and due to the known GH inability to handle/manage blocks/nested blocks at bake time ... well... I hardly can see how "to set up work flows between different tools such as ..."
I'll post soon 5 - rather "trivial" - AEC cases that are totally undoable (shop drawing level) with anything other than CATIA (or NX).
BTW: since international practices grow and grow in numbers these days (and individuals are dead) I can't see any realistic limitation for creating dedicated teams (kinda like Frank Gerhy did) that can easily deal with the "extremely heavy" nature of the beast.
BTW: this is a job ad (Project Architect role) from one of the biggest US AEC practices (rather a corporation, he he)
How things change these days ... don't you agree?
best, Peter
…