s: [Mesh Brep] which used the Rhino mesher, [Mesh Surface] which create a rectangular grid of mesh faces on a single surface and [Simple Mesh] which attempts to represent each face in a Brep using a single Tri or Quad and accuracy be damned. Let's focus on the easy ones first...
[Simple Mesh] is a first attempt at providing a completely reductionist meshing engine. It was born out of a skype discussion I had with Brian James one night during the weekly Seattle RMA developer meeting. It only handles very simple cases at the moment so it's probably not all that useful, but it's there anyway just in case. If this mesher cannot handle a certain Brep face because it's too complicated it will use the native Rhino mesher for that face.
The purpose of [Mesh Surface] is to provide a single surface mesh that isn't distorted by the underlying parameterization of a surface. My approach for this actually turned out to be really slow, which is why the [Q] input is set to false by default. This mesher was never designed to take trims into account, however you get a single option [H] to control how trims interact with the mesh.
[Mesh Brep] merely channels the native Rhino mesher. You can supply meshing settings that look a little bit like the meshing settings that Rhino itself exposes. With these settings you can control how seams in breps are handled, how much the mesh is allowed to deviate from the underlying geometry, how many quads you want etc. This is the most customizable option, but even here it's totally possible you can't get what you want. For example, there is no way to enforce a mesh that contains only quads. As soon as seams are stitched or whenever trims are present, you're going to get triangles along the edges of meshes.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
.
as you can see I devided it into 3 parts.
part1: when I try to connect the new shape to the rest of your definition,the plan z,which gives the panels individually when baked(so I can work them individually)doesn't work,apparently there is something missing when I want to explode it.
that is why I connected it to the definition that I already had(part2)( the only cool part about that one is the attractor point)well it kind works,but not really(if you zoom in you can see that there are some parts overlapped and really not looking good).however I much rather your definition because of the option it gives me to work with individual panels when baked(planz).
however it's around 4 am. and I have decided to make some major changes in design (to prepare some closed and open space,I'm talking about part3 that works with the fibonacci like shape,I know it doesnt look really good,but seriously 4am.!).the major problem is that I tried to make a form like that with kangaroo so the shape would be smoother but I wasnt really able to make it with kangaroo,that's why I made it manually in rhino.I was wondering if you can help me make something like this ( not exacly like this) with kangaroo or (if impossible to be made with kangaroo)even helping me optimizing it so it doesnt look as bad,as you can see when I try to work the grasshopper definition on this shape,it gives me different panel sizes for each surface and all of them are to small compared with the overall size of the so-called pavillion(give it 200-500 sq feet (20-50 sq.m).and any suggestions about the shape would be appreciated,please forgive my basic knowledge of rhino and grasshopper,and let's say I wanted to make a shape like these(don't laugh please!)
u promised not to laugh!!!
please help me find the right way!
…
are hotter than the least overlapped parts.
I'm trying to create gradients when overlapping between closed surfaces occur. The gradient goes from the center of the most overlapped figure to the edges of the least overlapped figures.
To help understand how I'm thinking it, I will first show you my solution for one figure.
As I said in the title, it's kind of a pseudo gradient. It's a way of organising areas (rings) inside of the geometry. To achieve this I thought in creating a series of rays that then can be divided in segments, in this case 3 segments of same lenght per ray, I could get more resolution in the gradient by dividing in more thus creating more rings...
in this picture the rays are in dark red and go from the center to 4 points in the perimeter, if I wanted more resolution I could have more rays, but with this simple figure 4 is enough
the rings are in a gradient of colors from the center to the perimeter, lighter in color each time:
so when I have 2 overlapping geometries
the center of the gradient should be on the center of the most overlapped part (in red) and go to the perimeter of the pink parts
for the red figure I draw the rays from the center to its perimetry. and for the pink figures the gradient should go from the parts that are in contact with the red figure to the perimeter, something like this:
still that is something I did with rhino and it's pretty intuitive...
the problem gets worse when i have more figures and more "heat centers"
like in these examples
maybe the approach should not be with rays to create the rings... maybe with offsets..
not sure if it's not too complicated to achieve in grasshopper and maybe there's another way of creating a gradient with multiple focuses...
would aprecciate any help
cheers…
x geometry which will be the basis in plan for a building facade. The problem is as follows:
I am generating a series of arcs using 3 different ranges for radii. Each segment of the geometry is assigned one of the radii. The length of each arc segment is controlled by a specific number, also within a range -- the end goal is to divide this geometry into perfectly equal segments.
(Parameter Ranges)
I am building these arcs in such a way that they are tied to the arc drawn before it - meaning that as the length of the previous arc is adjusted, the arc in question will still begin where the previous arc ends, and be tangent from said previous arc.
This approach works well until I get to the final segment of the form. I want to be able to close the form in a way that the final arc both meets the first arc at its tangent point and is a length divisible by the desired segment length.
Through a series of trial and error by means of adjusting the radii, panel size, and arc lengths, I have been able to get the geometry to being very close to closed, but there is always some sort of remainder, or the last arc is not tangent to the first arc.
My thought is that this would be a perfect scenario to use Galapagos, but my attempts to do so have resulted in an almost immediate crash of rhino. I'm not sure if I'm feeding too many inputs into galapagos (the radii ranges and segment length ranges), or that the number I'm telling it to minimize is incorrect (distance between the end of the final segment and the start of the first segment), or if there is a larger issue with the definition I've written, but I haven't been able to figure out the issue.
Are there any thoughts out there on how I might be able to reach a possible solution? Or at the very least is there any precedent for a geometric shape similar to what I am trying to create which follows the same number of parameters I'm using?
I've attached the GH definition as well as a rhino model for your visual reference. To preview the GH form in rhino, simply assign the only curve in the attached rhino model to the crv node in grasshopper:
This simply locates everything that's being generated in grasshopper in space in rhino.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts, and also apologies for a somewhat potentially messy definition.
…
Added by Ray LeChase at 11:12am on August 31, 2016
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
nd the challenge "Building the Invisible: Informing Digital Design with Real World Data". Information about each Workshop Cluster can be found here:
Cyber GardensUse the ForceUrban FeedsSuspended DreamsInteracting with the CityAgent ConstructionAuthored SensingPerforming SkinsResponsive Acoustic SurfacingHybrid Space Structure Typologies
The SmartGeometry 2011 Workshop will take place at CITA http://cita.karch.dk/
Applications to attend the SmartGeometry 2011 Workshop in Copenhagen will close on 31st January 2011. General Conference registration will open within 1 month.
We hope to see you there!
****************************************************
Workshop 28th-31st March
Shop Talk 1 April
Symposium 2 April
Reception 2 April
These events follow the highly successful previous SG events in Barcelona 2010, San Francisco 2009, Munich 2008, New York 2007, Cambridge/London, UK 2006 and multiple preceding events.
Click here for more info...
This year's Challenge is entitled:BUILDING THE INVISIBLEInforming Digital Design with Real World Data
THE PREMISEVast streams of data offer a rich resource for designers. By incorporating external information into our design processes the autonomy of the design is challenged. User data, energy calculations, embedded sensing, material and structural simulation, human behaviour and perception, particle flows and force fields allows design to be situated and responsive. From the simulation of megacities to the solid modelling of material systems, design has the potential to be informed by the real. Design sits not separate from is environment but inhabits an ecological system, open, dynamic and interdependent, diverse, partially self-organising, adaptive, and fragile. Across scale and within time we now have the chance to instil architecture with an immanent intelligence creating new relationships between the user, the built and its ecosphere.THE OPPORTUNITYSystems theorists suggest that data is only a raw material. It can be differentiated from information, knowledge and wisdom. Understanding is multi-levelled: understanding of relations, understanding of patterns, understanding of principles. As digital designers our challenge is in harnessing the power of computation to assist us in informing our design process. Computers help us collect, manage and analyse the environment and inform us about an abundance of data. Our challenge is to use these inputs in a meaningful way to help us make better informed design decisions.THE AIMSG 2011 explores how the incorporation of real world data challenges existing design thinking. The SG 2011 workshop aim is to create physical prototypes of design systems to be exhibited in the SG2011 exhibition.
The SmartGeometry Group is a not-for-profit educational organization dedicated to the use of computational tools in architecture and engineering. SG brings professionals, academics, and industry together to explore the next generation of digital design. SG Workshops are non-platform specific, believing it is the methodology, not the tool, that matters.
…
Added by Shane Burger at 11:23am on January 6, 2011
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.…
t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…