Search Results - 📍 trx兑换到usdt👉【TG：@trxHomeBot】，btc最新投资情况.k

Comment on: Topic 'Hoopsnake Iterations - Data carries across ?': t the MERO style at this scale, I mean I like the impossible but the improbable?? Do they extrude carbon rod? they must? I cant google ne more atm, I'll waste time with that vid tomorrow. Carbon & Polycarbonate would be for the kickstarter campaign as they are more then double what I paid per meter (I brought alot X.[ ). Kangaroo wise: very cool application for the abstract shapes. It turned pingu into a dinosaur (also cool) stegosaurus style. …; Added by James at 5:34pm on April 1, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Weaving Catenary/Funicular Meshes': ected curve. Imagine some magic that allows you to create a List (as persistent data) out of these points and each time that you pick anther curve the slider that controls the position of the point is automatically set to the corresponding value . In fact Imagine Lists sampled in a data tree where branches are variations insofar exploited (where variation = one collection of your interactively placed points).Close GH go vacations and reopen the def: the data tree is still there. How to do that? I''ll ask THD, that is. 2. Make priorities: IF this is a brep thingy DON'T convert anything to mesh. IF is a mesh (meaning K for doing some relaxation) then all these are NOT required (Daniel does this for you: takes a "boxy" thingy and delivers a "relaxed" thingy [ thus all these Breo cones are off-topic]). Time for Soap_opera_V1A (soon). …; Added by peter fotiadis to Kangaroo at 12:53pm on April 10, 2016

Comment on: Group 'Biomorpher': u need the Lunchbox, Weaverbird and Kangaroo plugins for the examples. Maybe even Meshpipe. Next release we'll ensure to include examples that have 'raw' gh components to avoid these errors. Indeed, in the pipeline is integrating automatic optimisation for specific objectives, with more artificial selection methods (hence the large populations + K-means actually). These are the kind of nice ideas that we need to steer direction, so thanks for the suggestions! You can double click on a design to display it within grasshopper itself. No trait working yet, and yes this means that mapping has to be pretty direct for meaningful evolution. Actually, measuring the directness of mapping would be an interesting future development, i.e. comparing parameter space to objective (phenotype) space.…; Added by John Harding to Biomorpher at 10:30am on March 29, 2017

Topic: Image Sampler Crashing Grasshopper&Rhino: crashes. I am tried to reinstall grasshopper completely and well as just opening the component alone in a definition with nothing connected and it still does it. When only a week ago it was working perfectly and I can still open old GH files with image samplers imbedded in them and they work but then crash if I try and change the image. Any ideas on why this might be happening? and if so how I might be able to fix it? Thanks for your help Best K…; Added by Kate at 10:52am on April 1, 2015

Topic: relocating the mesh's vertices: drag the mesh vertices onto the grid but I wonder how I could do so on grasshopper. Thank you K…; Added by K YANG at 3:04pm on March 13, 2017

Photo: exhibition3: e, and yet, it doesn't fall into the normal categories of basic geometric shapes as we know them. The exhibition shows two different ways to approach this challenge. Part one: A plywood strip, twelve meters long, curled and twisted into a double loop shape. This geometry is a result of the material trying to resist, and thereby minimize, the forces of bending and torsion. Part two: A computer generated surface, curling and twisting according to user input. Two lists of values control the curvature and the direction of the surface. The resulting single-curved surface will always be developable and unroll to a straight strip. Question: Is there a simple mathematical solution that will produce the same geometry as in the plywood loop? The search continues. Special thanks to David Rutten, McNeel Andy Payne & Jason K. Johnson, Firefly Experiments Grasshopper Forum…; Added by Mårten Nettelbladt at 2:05pm on April 15, 2011

Comment on: Topic 'Wind boundary profile - questions and wishlist': e represents wind flow more accurately in lower heights. The general formula for the log wind profile is: U(z) = (u*/k)[ln((z-d)/zo)] + psi(z, zo, L) (1) where U(z) is the mean horizontal wind speed at heigh z, u* is the friction velocity (velocity scale representative of velocities close to a solid boundary), k is the von karman constant (empirically set at 0.41 for rough and smooth surfaces), d is the displacement height, zo is the specific surface roughness, and psi is a stability term. Most cases assume neutral stability in the atmosphere to eliminate the psi term (i.e. z/L = 0) If not there are much more complex calculations required between temperature and wind speeds, essentially requiring numerical simulations to calculate the profile. With eliminating the psi term, it is easy to calculate the wind speed at any height z, provided we know the wind speed at reference heigh z1, like so: U(z)/U(z1) = ln((z-d)-zo)/ln((z1-d)-zo1) -> U(z) = .... (2) where z is the height we are interested in, zo is the roughness height in our case area, z1 is the reference height and zo1 is the reference roughness of the measurements. These are the measurements in the EPW file. The added information so far compared to the power law is that we also need the roughness level of the EPW data (usually near airports where roughness is very low, like 0.0002). Another simpler way is to calculate the friction velocity first by: u*=kU(z)/ln(z/zo), (3) assuming d=0 and z is the reference height of the measurements. Then we can use this to calculate the wind profile. While d=0 is an assumption I can understand, I do not really agree with accounting for a similar roughness level between the area of measurements and the case area. This is highliy problem and context specific. Especially in urban environments in my opinion it is almost always wrong. The displacement height (d) is usually calculated as 2/3 of the average height in the area of interest (sometimes "average" has a qualitative connotation as "characteristic"). Accounting for displacement height does introduce a problem though, the wind profile below d meters is undetermined, since ln(x) is undefined for x<0. In order to solve there is a two-step approach which forms these two equations: U(z) = (u*/k) x ln(z/zo1) for z < a*d and U(z) = (u*/k) x ln((z-d)/zo), for z > a*d Literature mentions that the choice of zo1 and a (i.e. the boundary of the 2 profiles) is quite arbitrary and not very influential in the results. Usually, zo1 is much lower than zo since lower roughness is expected on a higher height, especially in urban zones. The way I understand it, I think even implementing the simple formula (1) and then using (2) to calculate the profile is enough. For the inclusion of the displacement zone I imagine additional inputs would be required from the users and it would be their responsibility to conduct some sort of sensitivity analysis on the results. Equation (3) would be ok if no data on roughness level of the EPW measurement is available. Anyways, that's my 0.02c. Bear with me and the mistakes herein, this isn't my specialty by a long shot and I'm just delving into all of this. Some references: Wikipedia ofc. sts.bwk.tue.nl/drivingrain ( a nice page with a lot of additional references. The two-method was mentioned here). wind-data.ch/tools/profile.php? (a nice online tool that calculates log-wind profiles) and gives the most commonly reproduced values (in the literature) for zo. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD (this is more related to CFD but it gives some background on the physics of the log-law) Argain et al. 2008, Estimation of the Friction Velocity in Stably Stratified Boundary Layer Flows Over Hills (an example of the complicated calculations when not assuming a neutral stability in the atmosphere) American Society of Civil Engineers (1999), Wind Tunnel Studies of Building and Structures (as always very good reference, provides the standard categories for zo values)…; Added by Theodoros Galanos to Ladybug Tools at 12:27am on March 16, 2015

Topic: Key/Value User Text Within Grasshopper Document?: ocument: def SetDocumentUserText(key, value=None): """Sets or removes user text stored in the document Parameters: key = key name to set value[opt] = The string value to set. If omitted the key/value pair specified by key will be deleted Returns: True or False indicating success """ if value: scriptcontext.doc.Strings.SetString(key,value) else: scriptcontext.doc.Strings.Delete(key) return True (source) The intention is to be able to write custom metadata elements (in addition to existing field like "Description" or "Copyright") to a Grasshopper file. I'm able to reference this volatile data from a document (e.g. rhinoDependency = rh.RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc.Path) but I'm not certain of a way to internalize this data to the document. In this example the key would be "rhinoDependency" and the value would be the string returned by rh.RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc.Path. Thanks!…; Added by Brian Ringley at 8:26am on July 18, 2014

Comment on: Group 'Space Syntax': ese explanations help (we will also look at your file) asap. About your question regarding the Tutte graph drawing algorithm (also known as topological embedding): The Tutte algorithm can be viewed as a special case of Spectral Graph Drawing, which is a mathematical solution for topological embedding formulated as an optimization problem. The formulation of the topological embedding (e.g. as in Tutte algorithm) is in fact quite similar to the so-called force-directed drawing that is often solved by heuristic methods like the one we have made for the SYNTACTIC plugin. You can read more about Force-Directed Graph Drawing (a.k.a. coin-graph drawing and kissing disks drawing) and Spectral Graph Drawing and Spectral Graph Theory in my dissertation. The functionality of the Tutte algorithm is only guaranteed for graphs that are 3-connected, i.e. graphs with more than 3 vertices which cannot be torn apart unless at least two vertices are removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-vertex-connected_graph Speaking of the conditions for the Tutte algorithm to work properly: Practically, this implies, for instance, that there should not be rooms connected only to one other room. Anyhow, long story short, we have decided to continue with Spectral Graph Drawing and 3D force-directed graph drawing. These algorithms are ready and with a couple of adjustments for maximum speed and stability we will release them shortly. Some conditions for these algorithms are easier to ensure, but in general if a node(room) is connected to only one space or the graph is not well connected one cannot expect a good graph drawing from neither of these methods. The other issue that is also common is that the force directed graph drawing will not work if one forces a big bubble to be squeezed in the middle of smaller bubbles. Stay tuned. …; Added by Pirouz Nourian to Space Syntax at 2:47am on October 25, 2017

Topic: Jitter component without repetiton of branches?: C} n=3 I want to obtain: {A,B,C}; {A,C,B}; {C,A,B}; {B,C,A}; {B,A,C}; {C,B,A} I know that the possible arrangements will be given by n! (see *) that means 3! = 3x2x1 = 6 I will have 6 possible arrangements. So, I tried using the Jitter component with 6 different seeds values but I obtain a set of values with some kind of repetition (B,C,A is missing and C,B,A is repeated twice). Why is this happening? Is it wrong to use the jitter component with different seed values? Many thanks! kiara *(or n!/(n-k)! if the size k of the permutation needs to be different from the number n of values in the set) …; Added by kiara at 8:21am on August 12, 2011