nputs to run (please refer to the image)
Currently, here is how I set the data:
protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager pManager) { //Create default size
double defaultBaySize = 0; pManager.AddTextParameter("LotLib", "Llib", "Lot Library", GH_ParamAccess.tree); pManager.AddCurveParameter("BoundaryCrv", "BC", "Boundary Input", GH_ParamAccess.list); pManager.AddIntegerParameter("Direction", "D", "Direction of gridLines", GH_ParamAccess.item, 0); pManager.AddNumberParameter("CCsize", "S", "Distance from column to column", GH_ParamAccess.item, defaultBaySize); pManager.AddCurveParameter("GridCrv", "GC", "Take in curves input for gridlines", GH_ParamAccess.list);
}
protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) {/* Setup */ GH_Structure<GH_String> LotLib = new GH_Structure<GH_String>(); DA.GetDataTree(0, out LotLib); List<Curve> BoundaryCrv = new List<Curve>(); if(!DA.GetDataList(1, BoundaryCrv)) { return; } int Direction = 0; DA.GetData(2, ref Direction); double CCsize = 0; DA.GetData(3, ref CCsize);
List<Curve> GridCrvs = new List<Curve>(); DA.GetDataList(4, GridCrvs); if (!DA.GetDataList(4, GridCrvs)) { return; }}
Is there a way can set data in the way if the component does not receive inputs for BoundaryCrv but only GridCrvs, the BoundaryCrv List will empty.
Thank you very much …
the Butterfly_Solution component to visualize only the last value, during the simulation.
With this setting, the optimization through Galapagos seems to start in a good way, but after some iterations it stops due to this error on blockMesh component:
Runtime error (ArgumentException): Environment variable name or value is too long.Traceback: line 420, in __setitem__, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\os.py" line 80, in getShellinit, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 69, in containerId, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 260, in _RunManager__command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 316, in run, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 716, in command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\case.py" line 748, in blockMesh, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\case.py" line 112, in getContainerId, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 215, in command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 47, in script
Anyone know how to fix it?
Thank you
…
essors. And their counter-attitude is not made because of some real reasons - it's just some kind of fear, that time will overrun them and that they will become useless in comparison to the new generation of "computer architects". That is why they are giving false replies on this subject you mentioned: about boring and soulless architecture.
But! I also need to agree that you can not be an architect if you can not draw that by hand, also and imagine the object and it's parts in 3d, in your head, without even using the 3d model from PC application.
I used to draw around 80% of all my projects on university during studies, by hand! And that part helped a lot, and gave me pretty decent base for usage of PC applications later. Drawing by hand develops a bit investigating spirit, and enables you to think about the shape, the way it looks, and the way it will look.Even today, I first do a dozen number of sketches and drawings, before going onto the drawing on PC.The same goes related to some details, that I am already drawing on PC - sometimes I feel it much more comfortable to solve them by hand, and then draw back to PC.
So my opinion on this is a bit mixed - I think that an architect needs to have a solid basis in hand drawing, in order to become a better architect. But I also think that using technology in process of creating architecture is inevitable and reasons for not using it, are pointless.
Just my two cents on this issue.…
Added by djordje to Hiteca at 4:22am on August 7, 2012
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
izes like 0.6m, 0.8m, 0.9m and 1.2m are the most "common": In cases where mechanical floors are a must (hospitals for instance) a 2.4/2.4 is quite handy (habitable/mechanical per floor). You can try 1.8/2.7 as well (floor/habitable) since 1.8 floor thickness can host HVAC and some decent W truss size. Also 1.6/2.4 (floor/habitable) is used in small buildings. NOTE: see next.
3. Don't forget to include corrugated metal height + concrete screed height + raised floors height: for the latter, say, something like 0.3m (modules + adjustable mounts + free space for electric stuff [boxes etc]).
4. As regards exteriors, Laurent Buzon is a close friend of mine. Contact him directly on my behalf:
http://www.buzonuk.com/
http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sourc...
5. LBS Structural ability and "monolithic" floor behavior (humans don't like vibrating habitable spaces) ARE not the same animal.…
ybee_EnergyPlus Window Shade Generator" component.
3. SolveAdj component has the input to set BC for interior surfaces.
If you want to set them to adiabatic then you can use setToAdiabatic components.
4. For natural ventilation Chris has provided extensive answers including this one.
If the component doesn't work then you need to download the files manually from github and replace the userObjects with the old ones. You have to do it separately for Ladybug and Honeybee which can be painful. Is there anyway to change the firewall settings?
…
Refinement component at first, possibly using MeshMachine instead which is slow but actually gives many fewer triangles and adaptive meshing for tight curves too. Neither are easy to adjust on a deadline!
Then you have to sneak up on workable settings, using only a few lines, or Grasshopper will freeze perhaps indefinitely for 200 lines with extreme settings, especially the CS (Cube Size) setting that can blow up into a huge number if your scale is big.
Cocoon gives lots of nearly flat split quad faces so I quadrangulated those for fun:
Or MeshMachine can refine the mesh to make it efficient:
Whereas the Cocoon Refine component will merely return an equally fine mesh with more equilateral triangles but no serious remeshing to rid so many tiny triangles where they are not needed? Actually, it does seem to remesh also:
David said he used some of Daniel's MeshMachine code in there.…
ey provide all the means to what I try to achieve.
What I need is to get a fast (as possible) evaluation of passive heat/solar gain from a certain facade. I know my building can cool to a certain degree (lets say 80 W/m2 - now lets forget other internal gains) and I want to be sure my facade is not letting excessive amounts of heat into the room/building. Normally I would make a full blown simulation to count my overheating hours and thereby evaluate my facade. To speed up the process, the idea is just to evaluate overheating hours in a faster way. So what I am thinking is that excessive amounts may estimated by counting high intensity irradiation patches in a critical sky-component or whatever such thing would be called that surpasses my sensible cooling load. My hope is that any facade visible to the sky-patches would very similar to the number of overheating hours if properly calibrated to a simulated model. However I have no idea right now, if this can be done.
Why do this? Speed, convenience, whole building thermal analyses.
@Chris and @Abraham The critical sky-component is made with LBs radiance component radiation and filtering the beam-components with highest effects from a yearly epw-file.
@Chris Conductive heat gains are also important especially if the facade is badly insulated, so the next step is to filter the outdoor temperature parallel with that critical sky-component and then do a static heat transfer analysis and combine that with the effect from direct sun influence. Again, no idea if it works.
Hope it makes sense. I a little embarrassed I drew you into this little experiment. This was not at all the point of the discussion. But now we are into it I like to know what you think. If it works its kinda neat, at least i think it is.
/K…