more elaborated ways to make a definition, don't you agree? But never say never, he he.
2. Well...here's an explanation (more strange cases to follow) :
(a) Imagine 3 identical sets of data (in this case the main tube lines > truss is Modular by now, but this is user controlled). Say truss1, truss2, truss3. Structure of data is 100% correct - see, for instance - the secondary/diagonal truss items that are 100% correct.
(b) Imagine EXACTLY the same portion of code applied in the 3 sets as above (er...the "cut and paste" crude thing).
(c) It works...er...in 2 out of 3 cases > see notes (and Saved View) about where the problem is: appears that for some reason (that I can't imagine) GH fails - when working with the truss1 data, i.e 72 lines that belong to 3 branches each having 24 items - to create "properly" 3 branches of data.
(d) Data (the module connecting flanges/profiles for Loft etc etc) are collected "randomly" thus the Loft fails, the "grouping" per truss segment fails .. and in general chaos is the name of the game. But only in the truss1 case (is this an Omen of some sort?).
NOTE: Tree8 is used (but the cluster alternative fails as well, so it's not a Tree8 issue).
Compare EXACTLY the same thing working perfectly with the 2 other trusses
Morel1: Karma, what else?
Moral2: Path to glory is long (and hilly).…
h a loft operation later on.
I've read some topics in the forum regarding offsetting, but it seems that no one have had this problem (very surprisingly I'd say).
This is what I'm doing:
a) I have a non-convex, closed polyline in the XY plane (the native curve being referenced from rhino). Let's call it CURVE A
b) I rotate and move CURVE A to a different plane (obtaining CURVE B).
c) I offset CURVE B, and now it has more segments and points than CURVE A (basically, it creates the segments that would be required to close the shape if it had been offset segment by segment instead than as a whole)
d) when I loft these curves - CURVE A and CURVE B, it gets messy (since the different curves have different segment count)
I've tried a lot of workarounds:
1 - Offset CURVE A on XY a certain amount, and then offset it back, obtaining CURVE A 2.0. It doesn't work, since CURVE A and CURVE A 2.0 have the same topology, so the final loft is still messy
2 - Offset CURVE A on XY without offsetting it back: It works, but I need to maintain the original shape at the base of the resulting surface (after the loft operation described earlier). I thought that just scaling the resulting brep would do the trick, but then I realized it doesn't.
3 - Using CURVE B (the curve that later will be lofted with CURVE A) to finds its closest point on CURVE A, and then re-creating the original curve with this new points (CURVE A 3.0): Doesn't work on all cases...
So that's it I think. I'm really lost with this, so any help will be very much appreciated. …
. 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
…
cálculos de otra manera imposibles de llevarse a cabo. La idea es mostrar una introducción a estos plugins explicando su funcionamiento general, ventajas y características con una serie de ejercicios prácticos a modo de ejemplo.
De esta manera se hará hincapié en conceptos muy presentes en el diseño e ingeniería avanzada: topología, form-finding, optimización estructural, fractales, loop, algoritmos genéticos y repetitivos, etc.
También, se dedicará un tiempo para sacar partido a tus definiciones y hacer más atractivo el diseño. Esto es, con una correcta exportación, animaciones, vistas...
ESTRUCTURA
- Geometría interactiva flexible
- Diseño generativo
- Reacción difusión
- Geometría desde parámetros ADN
- Visualización de estrategias generativas
- Simulación de crecimiento con sub-D
- Algoritmos generativos genéticos
- Técnicas de visualización
Los plugins que se verán asociados a estos conceptos son:
> Kangaroo: El plugin de Grasshopper más conocido y descargado que ya viene instalado en Grasshopper para Rhino 6. Es un motor físico que permite visualizar en tiempo real simulaciones interactivas y estrategias de form-finding.
> Galapagos: viene ya instalado con Grasshopper, es una plataforma que viene ya incluida en Grasshopper, para aplicar algoritmos evolutivos que se puede usar en situaciones y cálculos sin necesidad de conocer programación.
> Biomorpher: Muy parecido a Galapagos pero más sencillo y visual, Es un optimizador heurístico de cálculo de algoritmos evolutivos y genéticos, obteniendo la mejor solución en función de los parámetros o condiciones impuestos.
> Anemone: Usando algoritmos repetitivos, permite crear loops o estructuras secuenciales como los fractales.
También en función de la dinámica del curso se pueden ver otras apps como Weaverbird (subdivisión de mallas), Firefly, etc…
ives that have been shared so far.
Intersect Shouldn't Punt When Encountering Areas of Intersection
Several posts talk about how Booleans are really just shortcut implementations of the Intersect/Trim/Split/Join (ITSJ) design pattern. Agreed. I realized this when trying to understand and resolve my first Boolean related problem. So when I broken down my characterization to the 4 component steps, I found is that it was the Intersect operation that was generating an erroneous (read: incomplete) set of intersection curves. I posted my findings along with a possible solution in an email to McNeel tech support and in this Rhino discussion an edited version of which I’ve quoted again below. But the only response I received from McNeel was that I shouldn't expect any changes in the product that improves Booleans.
The unexpected behavior I've been having with Rhino, and by extension Grasshopper, is that the current implementation of the Rhino Intersect command is generating an incomplete network of curves when given 2 surfaces having regions that are (almost) coincident. When Intersect determines that there's no single curve able to represent the intersection in those areas, but rather an area of intersection, Intersect erroneously doesn't generate any curve to represent that portion of the intersection — which is mathematically incorrect. This decision to "punt" in these situations renders the generated results to not be useful for subsequent steps of the ITSJ design pattern. Rather than not including these areas of intersection in the network of curves, Intersect should generate any non-kinky, non-looping curve(s) through a region of intersection that connects with all other intersection curves adjacent to the region. Any valid curve is far more useful — and mathematically correct — than no curve through these regions.
Informative and Detailed Error Reporting Will Save Users’ Time
A number of users feel as I do that the error information available when an operation fails is insufficient.
The Rhino Learning Curve Is Fractally Steep
While some responses have suggested that I’m just too new to Rhino, a number of long-time Rhino users have said that they are continually “learning” the product's idiosyncrasies, and expect that they will never really know what the product will do every time. What they’ve learned from their years of experience is how to hack their designs to work around Rhino’s quirks.
I conclude from these stories that, sure, I’m green, but that I, all of us, are destine to be forever “green” because the current development methodology results in a product that can never really be understood.
Wow.
In his reply above @Paul N Jeffies said…
One thing that's important to understand when using Rhino for this kind of thing is that Rhino does not have a particularly meaningful conception of a 'solid object' - solids are defined simply as a collection of (infinitely thin) NURBS surfaces joined together with no gaps between. That's part of the reason for the problems with booleans in Rhino, but it also means that you don't really need boolean operations since you can do everything by exploding the polysurface and using the Intersect/Trim/Split commands on the individual surfaces to build up the boundary surfaces you want, then rejoin into a solid afterwards.
As a software architect with ~40 years of tech experience, I would again suggest that the root cause of the product's unknowability is the lack of rigor so far exhibited in defining the layers of abstraction. If proper rigor were applied, then, from a user’s perspective, a solid really would be a solid. The proper way to reduce a solid to a set of adjacent surfaces would be to use a function like ExplodeSolid, and to get a set of curves from a surface we would have to use ExplodeSurface, and so on. So rigor doesn’t prohibit users from pulling back the curtain, but rather empowers the core development team to enforce encapsulation at the current layer of abstraction — whether point, curve, surface, solid, or whatever.
The Solution Begins With Changing The Conversation
With all this said, I don’t believe that Rhino is fatally flawed or impossible to fix. I also don't believe that the resulting loss of productivity is the users' fault. I do believe though that the first step is for all, McNeel and users, to name the condition, raise this as a high priority, work collaboratively to define a corrected abstraction stack, and add appropriate rigor to the implementation of the next major release.
About a month ago I spent about 1/2 hour searching through the Rhino discussions for topics related to The Boolean Problem. I found literally 100's of posting, with many noops like I am now saying they were giving up and going to another tool because Rhino’s learning curve was too steep. Yes, filleting and trimming are two other big Rhino problems that I believe have similar roots. Yet I wonder whether these deep-seated challenges could, in fact, be overcome — by first changing the conversation.
I’d again ask what other, more experienced users think.
- Bob…
Added by neobobkrause at 2:49pm on October 4, 2016
ld work.
For example there's a grid shell and I've got a number of control points (for example 3) that can move up and down.
Depending on the control points I get forms that are structurally good and some that are bad.
In my office we've got a GH-Component, which leads the geometry in structural members and solves the structural forces and so on through an external Software called Sofistik and afterwards gives back to GH some Values, for example maximum bending moments. (Like Karamba)
Now I want to create this optimization component or something like that to minimize e.g. the bending moments in the given geometry.
Let's start with the work of the component.
So when I've three control points that can only move in z-direction.
P1(0,0,Z1), P2(10,0,Z2), P3(5,5,Z3)
They only depend on Z, so everything depends on Z1 to Z3 which have a range between 0 and 10 f.e.
First I want to get some (between 9 and 15) random Particles, one particle consists of this 3 different Z's.
So for example the first particle Part1 is [Z1=10, Z2=5, Z3=7]
and the second particle Part2 is [Z1=7, Z2=1, Z3=9]
and so on.
I created these Start Particles in a Cluster. See attached file.
I also tried this in C#, but thought it is easier in GH.
After I've got the Start Particles I want to give out the first particle and evaluate with its including Z's the target value in GH. Therefore I had to take the first branch and graft this branch (Discussion before)
Afterwards I want to save this Target Value that depends on the first starting Particle. Then I want to give out the second starting Particle to evaluate its target Value and store it. And so on till the last target Value of the last Starting Particle got assigned.
Then I want to assign the particles with its target values. E.g. part1: t=0.9, part2: t=1.8...
Then I want to define neighborhoods or the count of the expected local minima.
These neighborhoods can look like: Each neighborhood has to include not less than 3 particles. And the particles have to be next to each other.
E.g. if there are 12 particles and I want to have a look for 3 local minima, I need 3 or 4 neighborhoods. Then I would take 3 neighborhoods, because the more particles in one neighborhood, the better.
So the Count of the neighborhoods would be N=min{(Count of Part/3)& N_min}
How to define these neighborhoods I don't know at the moment. I think it has to be searched for the distance between the particles. E.g. part1 with (9,9,9) and part2 with (9,9,8) are next to each other but part 3 with(1,1,2) is far away.
Then each StartParticle is set to Partx_localbest.
And in each Neighbourhood the best of these localbeststs is Part_NyBest. (The best ist the one with the smallest target Value)
Loop:
Now I want to create new Particles. These Particles don't change their Z-values randomly. They change their Z-Values depending on Part_NxBest and Part_localBest. Therefore it has to be evaluated a new velocityfactor with v_Partx_new=0,792*v_PartxOld+1,5*random(0,1)*(partx_localbest-partx)+1,5*random(0,1)*(part_NyBest-partx)
The new particles will then be partx_new=partx+v_Partx_new.
The new Particle partx_new will be set to partx and then set in the output.
then there has to be caught the targetValue of part1 afterwards part2 can be put out and its target value caught and so on.
Then it has to be looked for the Partx_localbest through comparing the partx_localbest and its target value with the new part_x and its target value. If the target value of the new partx is smaller than partx_localbest,
then partx_localbest is the new partx.
This has to be done for each partx. Afterwards the same for neighborhoods best (best of all partx_localbest in one neighborhood)
Endloop if velocity gets small.
Output all part_NxBest
Output all targetvalues of the part_NxBests.
So in the Input there have to be:
StartParticles if they are given through the cluster attached.
Device on the target Value like in the attached gh.file from David Rutten I found in the discussions
Count of neighborhoods
And in the output
Output particle for evaluation
Output all part_NxBest
Output all targetvalues of the part_NxBests
Hope didn’t forget anything. And hope it isn’t crushed to badly. Sorry for my bad English by the way ;-)
For more explanation, how the PSO works in other programs. There’s attached a workflow script (is it called like that?) I think for GH it should be a little bit changed like I tried in my explanations.
So if you can help me a in some parts or you have any advices would be great, otherwise thank you nevertheless!!!!
Thankfully there’s no limit for the words in the discussions :-D
Best, Heiko
…
ilion.
Then i sketched the outline curves in rhino with a few control points. The building is symetric so i only draw one side. But i'm not sure what is better for a voroni. a sharp or a soft surface? Or dose i need points?
So i have some questions:
1. how can i loft the curves correctly? My problem is that if i divide my curves for more control points, grasshopper automatically change my curve. thats ok but than i've the problem with a short curve, which fit bevor with the large one, but after the devision it can't connect.
So i tryed to duplicate the long curve and split it but with the shatter battery it dosen't work. It always cut the curve somewhere.
2. my next problem is, the curves in rhino should be my main construction, which is always visible. so i decided to offset the curves that i got a colum. but i don't know how to orient the offset curves in the xyz axis.
3. hopefully if i have the surfaces, how can i build a voroni which is offsetet, and has maybe some different thicknesses? :D
Would be really great if s.o. can help me. I tried a lot but not every thing is simple.
Sorry for my bad english.
Thx max
Here are my files:
FCP_MAX_GH_konstruktion_1.3dm
FCP_MAX_GH_konstruktion_1.gh
…
ing curve vertically, taken the end points of my now two curves and built a surface from four points
D) Used the Surface to define a plane to which I am applying 3D text
C) Projected the resulting text back to the original surface.
It seems to be working OK, however:
1) It currently only sets the plane in X/Y - Z is always taken as real world Z (so cant project to horizontal surfaces) *note I tried dividing the surface and fitting a plane but the plane was waaaay offset from the surface; and
2) Subject to the way the surface is oriented, the text can be upside down/back to front and I have to fiddle with rotating planes to make it right (so it wont work to bake text onto multiple planes at once). See below:
Top row are letters i baked manually (adjusting angles as i went). Bottom row is all applied at the same time.
I wanted to cast out for suggestions on how I might be able to rectify this so that Z+ is automatically taken as 'up' but text can be applied to horizontal surfaced to - and 'In/Out' somehow be defined to make it easier to set which angle the text should be legible from.
Grasshopper script is attached. Any suggestions are welcome, I will have a crack and update progress as I go.
Note: I have used FabTools for creating and baking the text in the attached .GH.
Thanks
LJ…
oftware connections built from the initial seed of the project. As always you can download the new release from Food4Rhino. Make sure to remove the older version of Ladybug and Honeybee and update your scripts.
This release is also special since today it is just about 3 years (3 years and 2 weeks) from the first release of Ladybug. As with any release, there have been a number of bug fixes and improvements but we also have some major news this time. In no specific order and to ensure that the biggest developments do not get lost in the extensive list of updates, here are the major ones:
Mostapha is re-writing Ladybug!
Ladybug for DynamoBIM is finally available.
Chris made bakeIt really useful by incorporating an export pathway to PDFs and vector-based programs.
Honeybee is now connected to THERM and the LBNL suite thanks to Chris Mackey.
Sarith has addressed a much-desired wish for Honeybee (Hi Theodore!) by adding components to model electric lighting with Radiance.
Djordje is on his way to making renewable energy deeply integrated with Ladybug by releasing components for modeling solar hot water.
There is new bug. Check the bottom of the post for Dragonfly!
Last but definitely not least (in case you’re not still convinced that this release is a major one) Miguel has started a new project that brings some of Ladybug’s features directly to Rhino. We mean Rhino Rhino - A Rhino plugin! Say hi to Icarus! #surprise
Before we forget! Ladybug and Honeybee now have official stickers. Yes! We know about T-Shirts and mugs and they will be next. For now, you can deck-out your laptops and powerhouse simulation machines with the symbology of our collaborative software ecosystem.
Now go grab a cup of tea/coffee and read the details below:
Rewriting Ladybug!
Perhaps the most far-reaching development of the last 4 months is an effort on the part of Mostapha to initiate a well structured, well documented, flexible, and extendable version of the Ladybug libraries. While such code is something that few community members will interact with directly, a well-documented library is critical for maintaining the project, adding new features, and for porting Ladybug to other software platforms.
The new Ladybug libraries are still under development across a number of new repositories and they separate a ladybug-core, which includes epw parsing and all non-geometric functions, from interface-specific geometry libraries. This allows us to easily extend Ladybug to other platforms with a different geometry library for each platform (ie. ladybug-grasshopper, ladybug-dynamo, ladybug-web, etc) all of which are developed on top of the ladybug-core.
Without getting too technical, here is an example of a useful outcome of this development. If you want to know the number of hours that relative humidity is more than 90% for a given epw, all that you have to code (in any python interface) is the following:
import ladybug as lb
_epwFile = r"C:\EnergyPlusV7-2-0\WeatherData\USA_CO_Golden-NREL.724666_TMY3.epw"
epwfile = lb.epw.EPW(_epwFile)
filteredData = epwfile.relativeHumidity.filterByConditionalStatement('x>90')
print "Number of hours with Humidity more than 90 is %d "%len(filteredData.timeStamps)
Compare that to the 500 + lines that you would have had to write previously for this operation, which were usually tied to a single interface! Now let’s see what will happen if you want to use the geometry-specific libraries. Let’s draw a sunpath in Grasshopper:
import ladybuggrasshopper.epw as epw
import ladybuggrasshopper.sunpath as sunpath
# get location data form epw file
location = epw.EPW(_epwFile).location
# initiate sunpath based on location
sp = sunpath.Sunpath.fromLocation(location, northAngle = 0, daylightSavingPeriod = None, basePoint =cenPt, scale = scale, sunScale = sunScale)
# draw sunpath geometry
sp.drawAnnualSunpath()
# assign geometries to outputs
...
Finally we ask, how would this code will look if we wanted to make a sunpath for dynamo? Well, it will be exactly the same! Just change ladybuggrasshopper in the second line to ladybugdynamo! Here is the code which is creating the sunpath below.
With this ease of scripting, we hope to involve more of our community members in our development and make it easy for others to use ladybug in their various preferred applications. By the next release, we will produce an API documentation (documentation of all the ladybug classes, methods and properties that you can script with) and begin making tutorials for those interested in getting deeper into Ladybug development.
LADYBUG
1 - Initial Release of Ladybug for Dynamo:
As is evident from the post above, we are happy to announce the first release of Ladybug for Dynamo! You can download the ladybug package from Dynamo package manager. Make sure to download version 0.0.6 which is actually 0.0.1! It took a number of trial and errors to get it up there. Once you have the file downloaded you can watch these videos to get started:
The source code can be find under ladybug-dynamo repository and (as you can already guess) it is using the new code base. It includes a very small toolkit of essential Ladybug components/nodes but it has enough to get you started. You can import weather files, draw sunpaths and run sunlighthours or radiation analyses.
There are two known issues in this release but neither of them is critical. You need to have Dynamo 0.9.1 or higher installed which you can download from here (http://dynamobuilds.com/). It is recommended that you run the scripts with ‘Manual’ run (as opposed to ‘Automatic’) since the more intense calculations can make Dynamo crash in automatic mode.
To put things in perspective, here is how we would map Ladybug for Dynamo vs Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper on the classic ‘Hype graph’. The good news is that what we learned a lot from the last three years, making development of the Dynamo version easier and getting us to the plateau of productivity faster.
We should also note that the current development of the Dynamo interface is behind that of the Ladybug-Core, which means there are a number of features that are developed in the code but haven’t made their way to the nodes yet. They will be added gradually over the next month or two.
If you’re interested to get involved in the development process or have ideas for the development, follow ladybug on Facebook, Twitter and Github. We will only post major release news here. Facebook, github and twitter will be the main channels for posting the development process. There will also be a release of a new ladybug for Grasshopper soon that will use the came Ladybug-Core libraries as the Dynamo interface [Trying hard not to name it as Ladybug 2].
2 - New Project “Icarus” Provides Ladybug Capabilities Directly in Rhino
Speaking of expanded cross-platform capabilities, the talented Miguel Rus has produced a standalone Rhino Plugin off of the original Ladybug code that has been included in this release. After writing his own core C# libraries, Miguel’s plugin enables users to produce sunpath and run sunlight hours analyses in the Rhino scene without need of opening Grasshopper or engaging the (sometimes daunting) act of visual scripting.
This release includes his initial RHP plugin file. It is hoped that Miguel’s efforts will extend some of the capabilities of environmental design to individuals who are unfamiliar with visual scripting, casting the network of our community into new territory. We need your help spreading the word about Icarus since the people who will benefit the most from it have probably not read this far into the release notes. Also, as the project is in the early stages, your feedback can make a great difference. You can download the current release from this link.
Once you download the zip file. Right click and unblock it. Then extract the files under C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\ folder. Drag and drop the RHP file into Rhino and you should be ready to go. You can either type Icarus in the command line or open it via the panels. Here is a short video that shows how to run a sunlighhours analysis study in Rhino.
3 - BakeIt Input Now Supports a Pathway to PDF +Vector Programs
As promised in the previous release, the BakeIt_ option available on Ladybug’s visual components has been enhanced to provide a full pathway to vector-based programs (like Illustrator and Inkscape) and eases the export to vector formats like PDFs.
This means that the BakeIt_ operation now places all text in the Rhino scene as actual editable text (not meshes) and any colored meshes are output as groups of colored hatches (so that they appear as color-filled polygons in vector-based programs). There is still an option to bake the colored geometries as light meshes (which requires smaller amounts of memory and computation time) but the new hatched capability should make it easier to incorporate Ladybug graphics in architectural drawings and documents like this vector psychrometric chart.
4 - Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) Now Available
Thanks to the efforts of Djordje Spasic, it is now possible to compute the common outdoor comfort metric ‘Physiological Equivalent Temperature’ (PET) with Ladybug. The capability has been included with this release of “Thermal Comfort Indices” component and is supported by a “Body Characteristics” component in the Extra tab. PET is particularly helpful for evaluating outdoor comfort at a high spatial resolution and so the next Honeybee release will include an option for PET with the microclimate map workflow.
5 - Solar Hot Water Components Available in WIP
Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic have built a set of components that perform detailed estimates of solar hot water. The components are currently undergoing final stages of testing and are available in the WIP tab of this release. You can read the full release notes for the components here.
6 - New Ladybug Graphic Standards
With the parallel efforts or so many developers, we have made an effort in this release to standardize the means by which you interact with the components. This includes warnings for missing inputs and the ability to make either icons or text appear on the components as you wish (Hi Andres!). A full list of all graphic standards can be found here. If you have any thoughts or comments on the new standards, feel free to voice them here.
7 - Wet Bulb Temperature Now Available
Thanks to Antonello Di Nunzio - the newest member of the Ladybug development team, it is now possible to calculate wet bulb temperature with Ladybug. Antonello’s component can be found under the WIP tab and takes inputs of dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure.
8 - New View Analysis Types
The view analysis component now allows for several different view studies in addition to the previous ‘view to test points.’ These include, skyview (which is helpful for studies of outdoor micro-climate), as well as spherical view and ‘cone of vision’ view, which are helpful for indoor studies evaluating the overall visual connection to the outdoors.
HONEYBEE
1 - Connection to THERM and LBNL Programs
With this release, many of you will notice that a new tab has been added to Honeybee. The tab “11 | THERM” includes 7 new components that enable you to export ready-to-simulate Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) THERM files from Rhino/Grasshopper. THERM is a 2D finite element heat flow engine that is used to evaluate the performance of wall/window construction details by simulating thermal bridging behavior. The new Honeybee tab represents the first ever CAD plugin interface for THERM, which has been in demand since the first release of LBNL THERM several years ago. The export workflow involves the drawing of window/wall construction details in Rhino and the assigning of materials and boundary conditions in Grasshopper to produce ready-to-simulate THERM files that allow you to bypass the limited drawing interface of THERM completely. Additional components in the “11 | THERM” tab allow you to import the results of THERM simulations back into Grasshopper and assist with incorporating THERM results into Honeybee EnergyPlus simulations. Finally, two components assist with a connection to LBNL WINDOW for advanced modeling of Glazing constructions. Example files illustrating many of the capabilities of the new components can be found in there links.
THERM_Export_Workflow, THERM_Comparison_of_Stud_Wall_Constructions
Analyze_THERM_Results, Thermal_Bridging_with_THERM_and_EnergyPlus
Import_Glazing_System_from_LBNL_WINDOW, Import_LBNL_WINDOW_Glazing_Assembly_for_EnergyPlus
It is recommended that those who are using these THERM components for the first time begin by exploring this example file.
Tutorial videos on how to use the components will be posted soon. A great deal of thanks is due to the LBNL team that was responsive to questions at the start of the development and special thanks goes to Payette Architects, which allowed Chris Mackey (the author of the components) a significant amount of paid time to develop them.
2 - Electrical Lighting Components with Enhanced Capabilities for Importing and Manipulating IES Files
Thanks to the efforts of Sarith Subramaniam, it is now much easier and more flexible to include electric lighting in Honeybee Radiance simulations. A series of very exciting images and videos can be found in his release post.
You can find the components under WIP tab. Sarith is looking for feedback and wishes. Please give them a try and let him know your thoughts. Several example files showing how to use the components can be found here. 1, 2, 3.
3- Expanded Dynamic Shade Capabilities
After great demand, it is now possible to assign several different types of control strategies for interior blinds and shades for EnergyPlus simulations. Control thresholds range from zone temperature, to zone cooling load, to radiation on windows, to many combinations of these variables. The new component also features the ability to run EnergyPlus simulations with electrochromic glazing. An example file showing many of the new capabilities can be found here.
Dragonfly Beta
In order to link the capabilities of Ladybug + Honeybee to a wider range of climatic data sets and analytical tools, a new insect has been initiated under the name of Dragonfly. While the Dragonfly components are not included with the download of this release, the most recent version can be downloaded here. An example file showing how to use Dragonfly to warp EPW data to account for urban heat island effect can also be found here. By the next release, the capabilities of Dragonfly should be robust enough for it to fly on its own. Additional features that will be implemented in the next few months include importing thermal satellite image data to Rhino/GH as well as the ability to warp EPW files to account for climate change projections. Anyone interested in testing out the new insect should feel free to contact Chris Mackey.
And finally, it is with great pleasure that we welcome Sarith and Antonello to the team. As mentioned in the above release notes, Sarith has added a robust implementation for electric light modeling with Honeybee and Antonello has added a component to calculate wet bulb temperature while providing stellar support to a number of people here on the GH forum.
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.
Enjoy!
Ladybug+Honeybee development team
PS: Special thanks to Chris for writing most of the release notes!…