nted" in space (at instance definition creation phase): indicates the obvious fact that if garbage in > garbage out (try it).
2. Load the GH thing. Task for you: Using Named Views locate the points of interest as described further and make a suitable view. That way you can navigate rather easily around (hope dies last).
3. Your attractors are controlled from here:
The slider in blue picks some attractor to play with. You can use this while the K2 is running.
4. Don't change anything here (think of it as a black box: who cares how it works? nobody actually):
5. Enable the other "black box": job done your real-life stuff is placed:
6. Enable the solver: your "real-life" things start to bounce around:
7. Go there are play with the slider. A different attractor yields an other solution:
8. With real-life things in place if you disable the C# ... they are instantly deleted and you are back in lines/points and the likes:
9. Either with instance definitions or Lines/points change ... er ... hmm ... these "simple" parameters and discover the truth out there:
10. Since these are a "few" and they affect the simulation with a variety of ways ... we need a "self calibrating" system: some mini big Brother that does the job for us. Kinda like applying safely the brakes when it rains (I hate ABS mind).
NOTE: the rod with springs requires some additional code ,more (that deals with NESTED instance definitions) in order to (b) bounce as a whole and at the same time (b) elongates or shrinks a bit.
More soon.
…
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …
ng/702/30
EDIT: DK2 works, not with positional tracking yet (14/09/15)
Source is here:
https://github.com/provolot/RhinoRift
Steps:
1) Download these files (also attached below):
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/oculus-grasshopper_v0.4.ghx
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/OpenTrackRiftGrasshopperUDP.ini
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/oculus-grasshopper-test_v0.1.3dm
2) Download OpenTrack - http://ananke.laggy.pk/opentrack/, and setup/install. Once installed, double-click to open.
3) In OpenTrack, load the 'OpenTrackRiftGrasshopperUDP.ini' profile. Click the 'Start' button and move your Rift around - make sure that it looks like the Yaw/Pitch/Roll data is being sent. TX/TY/TZ will all be 0, as Oculus doesn't have absolute positioning data.
4) In Rhino, open the test 3dm. You'll notice that there are two viewports - called 'LeftEye' and 'RightEye'. These have been placed to mimic where the screens should be for the Oculus Rift --- but only when Rhino is in fullscreen mode, with the command 'Fullscreen'. The placement needs to be tweaked, but should work.
If you want to use your own model, you can load your own .3dm file in Rhino, then you can right-click on the viewport name, and go to Viewport Layout > Read from File. If you then load my test file, Rhino should open my two viewports, sized correctly, onto your model.
The placement of these viewports need to be tweaked; if you find a better viewport layout, upload an empty Rhino file with your viewports, and we can share eye-layout 'templates'!
5) In Grasshopper, open the .ghx definition. Everything that is multiple-grouped is a value that can be changed. Two things here:
- IPD: Set this and convert it to the proper units for your model.
- Left/right viewport names. In this case, leave this as-is, since you're using my example file.
6) Turn on the Grasshopper Timer, if it isn't on already.
7) In the GH definition, toggle 'SyncEyes' to be True. Then, in the left viewport, try orbiting around with the mouse. The 'RightEye' viewport should move around as well, pretty much simultaneously.
8) In OpenTrack, click 'Start', then toggle 'ReadUDP' to be True. You should see the 'OpenTrackInfo' panel fill with data that's constantly changing.
9) Move around the landscape with your camera, and when you set on a starting view that's ideal, click the triangle of the Data Dam component to 'store' the data.
10) Finally, toggle 'OculusMove' to be true. If all works correctly, both viewports should move based on the Rift's movement.
Let me know if you have any problems!
Cheers,
Dan…
Added by Dan Taeyoung at 11:47pm on December 10, 2013
radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…
. From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e)
with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input
Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...?
MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw,
2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11).
In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results.
Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method?
3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component?
Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12
Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
Thanks a lot for your helpRegards,
Aymeric
…
hope this number will grow in future. Currently available features are:
1) Creation of 2d or 3d context for any kind of building related analysis: automatically generate the 2d/3d surrounding buildings for the location where you would like to perform visibility, solar radiation, cfd or any other type of analysis. You need some other plugin for the last three, like Ladybug. It only creates the context=surroundings! The "automatic generation" process also includes creation of the local topography (terrain) along with buildings.
2) Identification of certain 2d or 3d elements in the created context. For example: selection of all hotels, parks, hospitals, restaurants, residential buildings etc.
3) Performing direct terrain analysis (hillshading, slope, ruggedness, roughness, water flow...)
4) Creation of terrain shading masks and horizon files for further solar and photovoltaics analysis.
Gismo will be very grateful if he could get any suggestions, improvements, bug reports and testing in the following period. In case you are willing to provide any of these, the requirements, installation steps and .gh example files can be found here, here and here.
Thank you in advance !!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 9:10am on January 29, 2017
Karamba.
I am using your plug-in for normal forces evaluation in the transvere wires and spreaders of a sailboat. Mast is solved in another way, so I am not taking forces from Karamba in that case.
Basing on the forces value an adequate wire size (diameter) is choosen. Then masses of wires are being calculated. Loads (forces) on longitudinal wires are calculated without Karamba. The problem is when choosing transverse wires’ mass minimization as a criteria, the Octopus doesn’t get any results - is changing the sliders (genes) too fast for Karamba to calculate the forces (so Octopus gets only nulls):
When minimization of a e.g. longitudinal wires’ mass (calculated without Karamba) is taken as a criteria Octopus works fine.
Which suggests that the problem is in interaction of two plug-ins.
Any ideas how to avoid that problem?
Thanks,
M.
Below some screenshots of definition part with Karamba:
1675×807 200 K
image.png1680×789 398 KB
Despite the ‘orange warning’ the values are correct (double checked with other software).However I don't know why does it say that there is a part that can move freely without deformation,as the model looks like this:
image.png1239×343 55.5 KB
…
option, after downloading check if .ghuser files are blocked (right click -> "Properties" and select "Unblock"). Then paste them in File->Special Folders->User Object Folder. You can download the example files from here. They act in similar way, Ladybug Photovoltaics components do: we pick a surface, and get an answer to a question: "How much thermal energy, for a certain number of persons can my roof, building facade... generate if I would populate them with Solar Water Heating collectors"? This information can then be used to cover domestic hot water, space heating or space cooling loads:
Components enable setting specific details of the system, or using simplified ones. They cover analysis of domestic hot water load, final performance of the SWH system, its embodied energy, energy value, consumption, emissions... And finding optimal system and storage size. By Dr. Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic, with invaluable support of Dr. Willian Beckman, Dr. Jason M. Keith, Jeff Maguire, Nicolas DiOrio, Niraj Palsule, Sargon George Ishaya and Craig Christensen. Hope you will enjoy using the components! References: 1) Calculation of delivered energy: Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, John Wiley and Sons, J. Duffie, W. Beckman, 4th ed., 2013. Technical Manual for the SAM Solar Water Heating Model, NREL, N. DiOrio, C. Christensen, J. Burch, A. Dobos, 2014. A simplified method for optimal design of solar water heating systems based on life-cycle energy analysis, Renewable Energy journal, Yan, Wang, Ma, Shi, Vol 74, Feb 2015
2) Domestic hot water load: Modeling patterns of hot water use in households, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Lutz, Liu, McMahon, Dunham, Shown, McGrue; Nov 1996. ASHRAE 2003 Applications Handbook (SI), Chapter 49, Service water heating
3) Mains water temperature Residential alternative calculation method reference manual, California energy commission, June 2013. Development of an Energy Savings Benchmark for All Residential End-Uses, NREL, August 2004. Solar water heating project analysis chapter, Minister of Natural Resources Canada, 2004.
4) Pipe diameters and pump power: Planning & Installing Solar Thermal Systems, Earthscan, 2nd edition
5) Sun postion and POA irradiance, the same as for Ladybug Photovoltaics (Michalsky (1988), diffuse irradiance by Perez (1990), ground reflected irradiance by Liu, Jordan (1963))
6) Optimal system and storage tank size: A simplified method for optimal design of solar water heating systems based on life-cycle energy analysis, Renewable Energy journal, Yan, Wang, Ma, Shi, Vol 74, Feb 2015.…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…
hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…