a pain to use sometimes. I recently found this great post:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/formatting-numbers-in-grasshopper
which points to the msdn .net framework standard numeric format strings:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dwhawy9k.aspx
and the custom ones too:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0c899ak8.aspx
Sooo... today I was trying to make a 2D array generator for RGB values to use with a RGB LED and an Arduino. For instance, declaring a 2D array in Arduino:
int color[3][3]={{255,0,0},{0,255,0},{0,0,255}};
I'm using the blend color component to spit out transitions between two colors. I want the list in the panel to be in the format above, so I used both the expression component and the string format component (are they the same under the hood?). In any case, if I have R, G and B values coming into the component, I want to format them so the come out looking like {R,G,B}, so I can just copy the output in a panel and paste it into the Arduino IDE. But what about {curly braces}. If the expression/format component uses them in it's syntax, for instance:
Format ("{R:0},{G:0},{B:0}",R,G,B)
how do I get them into the formatting string? I tried escaping them like:
Format ("\{{R:0},{G:0},{B:0}\}",R,G,B)
but that just makes the component angry
Escaping characters is explained in the formatting references above. Is it implemented in this component? Should I be looking at a different approach?
I've included a sample file below.
Thanks!
~BB~
…
ing-in-python?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A628495
For the most part, I got the serial port to work and I could share the port with other components without wiring the components together using a sticky Python dictionary. There were a couple of issues with closing the port (Rhino had to be restarted).
In any case, I'm back at it. I am however going the C# component route with an eye towards writing my own components with visual studio. I am trying to create bidirectional communication with a serial device in grasshopper. I need more control over the serial port that the generic Firefly components can afford. Furthermore, I would like to understand how to program this myself. The first goal would be to create a few components that could handle various serial tasks, one to open/close port, one to read from port and one to write to it. This is not unlike how I got it to work in python, and is also similar to the logic in Firefly's serial components.
The thing that has me stumped with C# is how one shares the port between components? If one component is responsible for creating and opening/closing the port, how do the read/write components address the instance of the port created in the other component? Python has the sticky dictionary, is there something similar in C#? I'm a novice when it comes to C# and how it works within grasshopper, so maybe I'm missing something simple.
I've attached a klunky definition that uses C# to open/close a serial port. I've tried accessing the port with other components, but I don't know enough to make it work. Again, I'm mainly interested in the mechanics of how one component can access the serial port instance created in another component. If I could get some user objects going for now, I'd be happy. In the future, I want to roll my own components. If anyone has any suggestions, code snippets, or any other forms of enlightenment, I'd be greatly appreciative!
Rhino5 x64 + GH version 0.9.0056
Thanks,
~BB~
…
ace Syntax." eCAADe 2013 18 (2013): 357.
http://www.sss9.or.kr/paperpdf/mmd/sss9_2013_ref048_p.pdf
The measure Entropy is newer. I hereby explain it (from my PhD dissertation):
Entropy values, as described in (Hillier & Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, 1984) and specified in (Turner A. , “Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis, 2007), intuitively describe the difficulty of getting to other spaces from a certain space. In other words, the higher the entropy value, the more difficult it is to reach other spaces from that space and vice-versa. We compute the spatial entropy of the node as using the point depth set:
(11)
“The term is the maximum depth from vertex and is the frequency of point depth *d* from the vertex” (ibid). Technically, we compute it using the function below, which itself uses some outputs and by-products from previous calculations:
Algorithm 4: Entropy Computation
Given the graph (adjacency lists), Depths as List of List of integer, DepthMap as Dictionary of integer
Initialize Entropies as List(double)
For node as integer in range [0, |V|)
integer How_Many_of_D=0
double S_node=0
For depth as integer in range [1, Depths[node].Max()]
How_Many_of_D=DepthMap.Branch[(node,depth)].Count
double frequency= How_Many_of_D/|V|
S_node = S_node - frequency * Math.Log(frequency, 2)
Next
Entropies [node] = S_node
Next
…
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
…
nette for years.. but without the nice GUI. It also allows combining constraints solving to be part of the DAG.
What is parameterics? Or parametric associative as GC has been described. Can't remember. History or procedural modeling? Even constraints solving or rules based solving all use parameters. Is it generative or merely parametric? I guess the difference is a parametric door doe not generate other parameteric doors?
BIM has opened the door to a more data centric view and manipulation of the design model. To old skoolers a wall is a linear construct that can be abstracted into parameters... beginning and end points of wall in plan + height and thickness. But start adding other stuff and need to ineteroperate with others and things get problematic.
Pretty soon, all those abstractions (parametric or otherwise) need to be structured and you end up talking about schemas etc to control the format of the parameters using rules as checks or constraints..so that your parameters can interface with parameters from others without causing data quality issues. It all gets very database thinking like.
So, I would say parametrics as GH does it is more free form and ad hoc and at some point if it goes BIM, the parametrics will be need to be (re)structured..
BIM is dependent on IFC development which is not very fast. IFC4 is only beginning to think about parametrics and 'Design Transfer'.
…