ight be able to provide more insight). Whenever you run a new simulation in Radiance, it is not always necessary to re-write all of the initial simulation files from scratch. These initial simulation files include both a .rad geometry file as well as a separate .pts file that contains the test point locations. If all that you are changing in a given parametric run is the locations of the test points (like your case), it is not necessary to re-write (or reinterpret) the entire .rad geometry file. My guess is that there is some type of check for this built into either code Mostapha wrote or radiance functions that Mostapha is calling. As such, it seems that the rad geometry file is not being re-written (or re-interpreted by radiance) completely when all that you change is the test points and this actually seems to be saving you an extra 10 seconds each time that you run the component without changing the materials or the building geometry. Other times (like when you plug in custom radParameters), it seems that it re-writes (or re-interprets) the .rad geometry file from scratch since this file is probably affected by customized rad parameters.
So far, if this explanation is holding, it seems like there would be no concern on your end but I also recognize that the difference between these long and short simulations is giving you radiation results that are ever so slightly different from each other (by my estimates, they differ by about 0.2%). Compared to the other types of assumptions that the radiance model is making, though, these are mere rounding errors that probably originate from the number of decimal places in the vertices of the rad geometry file. Rather than worrying about whether your simulations are giving you the right rounding errors to give you matching results, I would encourage you to instead contemplate how much your radiance results are matching reality given all of the assumptions that you are making about the climate (with the epw file for a "typical" year) and with the number of light bounces in the radiance simulation. To give you an example, I ran your model with a higher quality of simulation type (3 ambient bounces) and this gives you results that differ by 1.1% from the original simulation that you were running with only 2 ambient bounces (this is practically an order of magnitude larger than 0.2%).
To address your unease I will say that, for a long time, I also felt uneasy any time that I encountered something that seemed unpredictable in software that I was using. Once I started coding my own stuff, though, I realized quickly that unpredictable behavior is an unavoidable aspect of all software. There is always a tradeoff between accurate results and the time it takes to get them, which produces a multitude of possible ways to arrive at a solution. Add into this complex situation the fact that you might have an almost infinite number of possible inputs to a given set of code.
Because of the unpredictable multitude of cases, there is no application that is completely free from limitations and assumptions. In this light, what ends up being more important than the actual calculation method used is the social infrastructure that is in place to help understand what is being run under the hood, hence why both Radiance and Honeybee are open source and why we try to build a robust community of support through forums like this one!
-Chris…
n due at the end of march. i am hoping to see if i can do this as a sort of "HIVE MIND" experiment with one or two or more posters to the forum. i have uploaded two files to http://www.formpig.com/nine_bar-FAR and I have the following goals:
1. To "kinematically iterate" various formal building envelopes based upon a 50' x 100' lot that "conform" to the nine bar linkage geometry.
2. This lot would have "setbacks" consisting of two 5' side setbacks, a 10' rear yard setback and a 25' front yard setback. max height on the structure is 32' and the allowable overhangs into the setbacks are 2'. I would like to find a way to use the "nine bar geometry" to construct a series of iterations for "floors", "walls" and "ceilings", which would then be tied to a volumetric (cubic volume), or a total square footage (perhaps based upon two horizontal section cuts) which was based upon a given number that I will provide per local building code.
3. Laid on top of this we would also have "mcmansion ordinance" requirements based upon the pdf enclosed. i expect to have this "tent restriction" data in digital form to upload to ftp shortly.
It would be up to you individually or collectively to determine how best to position this "in the real world" based upon the lot, setbacks, zoning requirements etc. For instance, perhaps the nine bar configuration has its vertices coplanar with the 50' x 100' x 32' envelope restrictions and then the chosen volume is "trimmed' by the setback requirements. Or perhaps the nine-bar configuration is generated completely within the setbacks, or perhaps it is generated 2' outside of the setbacks so as to take advantage of the 2' overhang allowance on the setbacks, etc.
*
Given an opportunity to develop the work in a second phase we would have an opportunity to tie this into various efficiencies such as Bill of Materials (wall floor and ceiling square foot calculations), envelope to volume calculations, solar panel efficiencies (solar orientation and envelope geometry) etc, etc (love to get suggestions for this).
*
I've become /really/ convinced that this would be a /really/ interesting entry based upon my just finishing up Kas Oosterhuis' Towards a New Kind of Building: A Designer's Guide for Non-Standard Architecture". In an ideal world I was hoping that it would be possible to hash this out discussion-wise and then literally passing it around on the list after someone eventually made the first move by tossing out a rough ghx script. My expectation would be to finalize it rapidly in the next two weeks. Something of a contemporary version of a design charette.
However, I realize this may not be workable so if you have experience in this arena and particularly if you think this is a brief that is straighforward enough to be almost literally implemented in Grasshopper, please contact me for any wage and/or contract fee requirements.
I'm getting a bit of a late jump on this but my hope is that with the right participant(s) that I can thrash it together quick enough for the first round.
info@formpig.com…
without a doubt that the design process encompasses many things. From ideation, 3D modeling, programming, and manufacturing to material testing, marketing, life cycle assessment, and cost analysis; the designer is often confronted with many challenges. Prototypes give the designer the ability to test or simulate how a given set of parameters will affect a particular design. Prototyping is inherently iterative in nature and we’re constantly searching for faster more powerful ways to build better prototypes. Interactive Prototyping is a process which strives to empower the designer – giving them the ability to build and prototype ideas in a more fluid and cost effective manner.
This workshop will focus on hardware and software prototyping techniques; primarily focusing on a wide range of sensing and actuation modalities and the creation of custom built tools in order to create novel interactive prototypes. Using remote sensors, microcontrollers (Arduino), and actuators, we will build virtual and physical prototypes that can communicate with humans and the world around them. There will be particular emphasis on the concept of prototyping – both digitally and physically – as a means to explore intelligent control strategies, material affects, and the parameters which effect dynamic systems. This fast-paced two day workshop will introduce a number of different topics relevant to the domain of prototyping including: introduction to physical computing and electronics, Arduino essentials, circuit design with Fritzing, interactive prototyping with Firefly, computer vision, soldering, and much more.
About the Instructor:
Andrew Payne is an architect and computational specialist who founded LIFT Architects in 2007 to provoke a broader concept of architectural practice in order to better address and shape a dynamic world. He is currently pursuing his Doctoral degree at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design where his research explores how recent advancements in technology can help architects create more intelligent spaces and systems that have a capacity to meet changing individual, social, and environmental demands.
Andrew’s work explores embedded computation and parametric design and he has published and taught extensively throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe. He is currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Architecture at Columbia University.
In 2010, Andrew and Jason Kelly Johnson published Firefly - a comprehensive software plug-in dedicated to bridging the gap between Grasshopper, the Arduino microcontroller, input/output devices, the internet and beyond. It allows near real-time data flow between the digital and physical worlds, and will read/write data to/from internet feeds, remote sensors and more. As of 2011, Andrew is the lead researcher and developer of Firefly’s new X control tools.…
mental studies and make it possible to run the analyses faster and more accurately.
Thanks to RADIANCE’s gendaymtx (and the awesomeness of Greg Ward, Ian Ashdown, and the help of Rob Guglielmetti) Ladybug is now using a brand new sky model which makes hourly and real time radiation analysis possible (Watch this video). SunPath is now improved and there are quite a few new components that work with SunPath including shadow mask, ray-tracing (short video), and view from sun (short video).
There are two new components for shading design and shadow studies that are not fully functional but are good enough to be released as a test version (This video shows the shadow study component).
I’m the most excited to introduce and welcome Chris Mackey as the new co-developer of the ‘bug who has developed the Humidity Ratio calculator for Ladybug which you can find under weather data analysis tab. People working with HVAC system design and thermal comfort may find it particularly useful and you can consider this component an initial step towards a Psychrometric chart for Ladybug.
There have also been a few enhancements to the analysis components. The parallel input is working properly now and the analyses are run much faster (here is the proof!). The orientation study is also modified so the legends are normalized and will stay at the same size and in the same location. And there’s much more to be explored when you install the components!
So far I couldn’t find a fast and accurate way to calculate the Vertical Sky Factor but both the viewRose (short video) and the shadow mask components calculate the values of VSF in 2d and 3d which can be used for your studies. I believe there should be a faster way to calculate the VSF based on view analysis.
You can download the new version from the same link and give it a try. I also updated the source code on GitHub and prepared some new examples to get you started. Don’t forget to update your GHPython to the latest release (Thanks Giulio) before updating the Ladybug.
Thanks again for all the support, great suggestions and the kind comments. Please keep the suggestions coming and stay critical to the ‘bug and the results of your studies.
Best,
Mostapha…
It was originally developed at NBBJ by the Design Computation Leadership Team over the course of about 10 months in 2015-2016.
Primary development by:
Andrew Heumann / andheum / @andrewheumann
Lead Developer
Marc Syp / marcsyp / @mpsyp
Product Manager
Nate Holland / nateholland / @_NateHolland
Contributing Developer
----
Gone are the days of faking a user interface by laying out sliders and text panels and hiding wires on the Grasshopper canvas. Human UI interfaces are entirely separate from the Grasshopper canvas and leverage the power of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a graphical subsystem for rendering user interfaces in the Windows environment.
OLD NEW
In other words: Human UI makes your GH definition feel like a Windows app. Create tabbed views, dynamic sliders, pulldown menus, checkboxes, and even 3D viewports and web browsers that look great and make sense to anyone--including designers and clients with no understanding of Grasshopper.
Download the plugin + sample files:
Food4Rhino
View the project on Bitbucket:
Bitbucket
We look forward to seeing where this project takes you, please share your projects made with Human UI!…
nts for Ladybug too. They are based on PVWatts v1 online calculator, supporting crystalline silicon fixed tilt photovoltaics.
You can download them from here, or use the Update Ladbybug component instead. If you take the first option, after downloading check if .ghuser files are blocked (right click -> "Properties" and select "Unblock").
You can download the example files from here.
Video tutorials will follow in the coming period.
In the very essence these components help you answer the question: "How much energy can my roof, building facade, solar parking... generate if I would populate them with PV panels"?
They allow definition of different types of losses (snow, age, shading...) which may affect your PV system:
And can find its optimal tilt and orientation:
Or analyse its performance, energy value, consumption, emissions...
By Djordje Spasic and Jason Sensibaugh, with invaluable support of Dr. Frank Vignola, Dr. Jason M. Keith, Paul Gilman, Chris Mackey, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Niraj Palsule, Joseph Cunningham and Christopher Weiss.
Thank you for reading, and hope you will enjoy using the components!
EDIT: From march 27 2017, Ladybug Photovoltaics components support thin-film modules as well.
References:
1) System losses:
PVWatts v5 Manual, Dobos, NREL, 2014
2) Sun postion equations by Michalsky (1988):
SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Gilman, NREL, 2014
edited by Jason Sensibaugh
3) Angle of incidence for fixed arrays:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
4) Plane-of-Array diffuse irradiance by Perez 1990 algorithm:
PVPMC Sandia National Laboratories
SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Gilman, NREL, 2014
5) Sandia PV Array Performance Module Cover:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
6) Sandia Thermal Model, Module Temperature and Cell Temperature Models:
Photovoltaic Array Performance Model, King, Boys, Kratochvill, Sandia National Laboratories, 2004
7) CEC Module Model: Maximum power voltage and Maximum power current from:
Exact analytical solutions of the parameters of real solar cells using Lambert W-function, Jain, Kapoor, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, V81 2004, P269–277
8) PVFORM version 3.3 adapted Module and Inverter Models:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
9) Sunpath diagram shading:
Using sun path charts to estimate the effects of shading on PV arrays, Frank Vignola, University of Oregon, 2004
Instruction manual for the Solar Pathfinder, Solar Pathfinder TM, 2008
10) Tilt and orientation factor:
Application for Purchased Systems Oregon Department of Energy
solmetric.com
11) Photovoltaics performance metrics:
Solar PV system performance assessment guideline, Honda, Lechner, Raju, Tolich, Mokri, San Jose state university, 2012
CACHE Modules on Energy in the Curriculum Solar Energy, Keith, Palsule, Mississippi State University
Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0, Hammond, Jones, SERT University of Bath, 2011
The Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) of Photovoltaics: Methodology and Comparisons with Fossil Fuel Life Cycles, Raugei, Fullana-i-Palmer, Fthenakis, Elsevier Vol 45, Jun 2012
12) Calculating albedo: Metenorm 6 Handbook part II: Theory, Meteotest 2007
13) Magnetic declination:
Geomag 0.9.2015, Christopher Weiss…
large scale prototyping techniques. The programme continues to build on its expertise on complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. Autumn DLAB brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
The research generated at Autumn DLAB has been published in international media – ArchDaily, Archinect, Bustler – and peer-reviewed conference papers, including SimAUD (Simulation in Architecture and Urban Design), eCAADe (Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe).
Autumn DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation and prototype making. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by the use of robotic fabrication techniques, with the aim of integrating of form-finding, material computation, and structural performance.
The programme is structured in two stages:
PART 1 – participants are introduced to core concepts of material processes, computational methods and digital fabrication techniques. Basic and advanced tutorials on computational design and analysis tools are provided. The programme performs as a team-based workshop promoting collaboration, research and ‘learning-by-experimentation’.
PART 2 – participants propose design interventions based on the skills and knowledge gained during phase 1 and supported by scaled study models and prototypes. The fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques will then unify the design goals of the programme.
Applications
1) A limited number of 10 places are available. To apply, please send a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.2) PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE. Please send a letter of intent and a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.3) As this programme has a limited number of places it requires a selection process, if you are offered a place on programme, the Visiting School Office will inform you of how you can complete the registration process.
The deadline for applications is 13 AUGUST 2021.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 6. No prior knowledge of software tools is required for eligibility.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £975 per participant, which includes a £60 Digital Membership fee.Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools.
…
rrect, the heat balance of a zone is always 0 = Qcool/heat + Qinf + Qvent + Qtrans + Qinternalgains + Qsol. These parameters also correspond with the readEPresult element. However, if i sum up these values there is a slight deviation.
The deviation is greater during daytimes and in winter, suggesting it has something to do with the heating values.
Attached you'll find an image of the energy plus outputs that I use and the resulting -.CSV file that I constructed. In this you'll see that the balance does not add up.
Am i missing some energy flows?
Thanks for the help.
Hour[H]
Qbal{kWh]
Qint[kWh]
Qsol[kWh]
Qinf[kWh]
Qvent[kWh]
Qtrans[kWh]
Tair[°C]
Tdrybulb[°C]
DIFFERENCE
1
3,039357
0,137702
0
-0,253218
-0,321929
-2,000028
20
5,1
0,601884
2
3,107099
0,125462
0
-0,247457
-0,315484
-1,881276
20
4,6
0,788344
3
3,181073
0,119342
0
-0,261765
-0,334485
-2,473788
20
4,3
0,230377
…
So it's not true that Bounds.X is only a getter. However it does behave as though it is. This is because RectangleF is a Value Type instead of a Reference Type. When you assign a variable of one value type to another variable of the same type, you always assign a copy of the first value. So when you request the Bounds from an attributes class, what you get is a copy of the actual bounds. Changing the X on this copy would be a useless operation which is why Visual Studio catches this mistake.
Let's assume that Dog is a class (a reference type) and it has a get/set property for fur type. Then, if I type:
Dog A = new Dog();
A.Coat = Long;
Dog B = A;
B.Coat = Short;
At the end of these lines, both A and B have a short coat, because the act of assigning A to B (line 3) means that both A and B now point to the same instance of Dog in memory. In effect, A and B are the same. If Dog were a struct (a value type), then at the end of this code A and B would have different coats, because assigning A to B means creating a copy of A. Any changes made to B will not affect A.
The one place where this causes annoying situations is exactly where you ran into it. If a property returns a value type then it's typically not useful to call properties and methods on that returned data, as it would only affect the copy of the actual data instead of the original data. That's why, if you want to change the Bounds of an attribute, you need code like this:
RectangleF box = Bounds;
box.X +=10;
Bounds = box;
On to the second problem, which is that doing it this way won't help you one bit. Laying out a component is a difficult job and the size of the Bounds depends on many things:
The display mode of the component (icon or text).
The size of the text (depending on which Font to use).
The maximum number of input and output parameters.
The maximum width of the longest input/output parameter name.
The maximum number of state icons to draw on the input/output parameters.
Changing the Bounds after the layout has occurred will basically just invalidate the parameter layout, resulting in parameter names and grips being drawn in the wrong places.
If you want to affect the size of the Bounds for a GH_Component class, you're going to have to dive in and do the laying out yourself. As mentioned before, this is not trivial.
There are static methods on GH_ComponentAttributes which are helpful when doing this, have a look at:
LayoutComponentBox()
LayoutInputParams()
LayoutOutputParams()
LayoutBounds()
Unfortunately they are undocumented.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
Added by David Rutten at 1:39pm on January 31, 2014