ing illuminance and limiting exposure (lux hours). Hours with direct solar irradiance are likely to exceed the limiting illuminance thresholds, which range from (200 to 50 lux as per Table 3.4 in CIE 157:2004). It makes sense to consider direct illuminance (an ab=0 simulation in Honeybee) separately from a normal illuminance calculation.
Assuming that the museum exhibits have low to high responsivity to light, an ideal solution would minimize direct sunlight. For daylight from the sky and reflected light, it might be enough to keep the illuminance levels below the recommended thresholds and then sum up lux-hours.
Daysim, the annual daylighting engine used by Honeybee and DIVA, is not very accurate for direct-sun calculations. You will get more accurate results if you run your analysis with Radiance directly.
Instead of considering the horizontal illuminance grids, one can create grids that correspond to the dimensions of the exhibit and then average those values. I think single points, as shown in your gh file might not suffice. Calculating lux-hours is by far the simplest part of such a simulation. It will only require averaging these points, extracting them into an array and then summing up that array.…
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
…
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! :)
…
thought that architect's love for drawing comes from the necessity of translate abstract ideas into built 3D reality, and the technology behind that 2D representation has not evolve so much until some decades ago. Our teachers come from that times: times when computers try to find their place in the reality representation world. If you try to imagine that people that have always drawn with pencils adapting to this new tools...some become fan of new methods, other just keep the old fashion workflow (like Andrew said in the article, Schumacher VS Graves)
We've bear (at least Andrew and me :P) in 80's with first video games, computers (I still remember my old x286 with 1Mb RAM and 20Mb of HD and that MS-DOS interface)...New technology was natural for us...But there is a big difference between traditional drawing and new computer aided tools: the learning curve. To draw you only need to take a pen and put over a paper (that interface is understood by children easily) , but traditional computational tools (new touch interfaces are out of this group) are based in a complex logic and environment that is not easy to understand for some people.
In the workshops I'm teaching in, I try to put all that tools (new and old one) in my students hands and motivate them to mix and use them together (Andrew knows a little bit about that :P). Why not to make a lines sketch with GH and then print it and render with some markers?; the last step could be scan the result and enhance it in Photoshop adding textures, vegetation, some background...There are no rules, only a bunch of tools to explore and use to develop your ideas, evolve and finally represent them.
I bet to the touch interfaces (with some augmented reality sauce) like that one that will be able to blend both worlds, analog and digital, offering that fluidity and natural interaction that Grave miss in digital tools. And our generation attached to this "not natural" interfaces will need to change its mind and adapt to that new and amazing interface that our children will love.
Only to complete:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aXV-yaFmQNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>…
Added by Ángel Linares at 5:40pm on September 10, 2012
e volume. The yellow line above.
This volume, green on the above image
So with this there was an intersection with the Brep volume of the chair and the lattice.
After that I used cocoon. Here the parameters I used for the Brep and curve. So The Brep was offsetted.
The model is 80 unit height and cell size is 0.2 so roughly there are 400 divisions in Z. If cubic it will give 6.4 millions of cells. To my point of view it is important to choose well the cell size in order to have not hundred of million of cells. Here 6 millions was usable. The general thing with Cocoon is alwas to test it on small objects first.
A close view of mesh. Edge length is 0.1 unit. There are 6 millions of triangles.
…
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
…