curve or locus] of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment, AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.
When you construct l'arc capable —by using compass— you obviously need to find the centre of this arc. This can be easily done in GH in many ways by using some trigonometry (e.g. see previous —great— solutions). Whole circles instead of arcs provide supplementary isoptics —β-isoptic and (180º-β)-isoptic—. Coherent normals let you work in any plane.
Or you could just construct β-isoptics of AB by using tangent at A (or B). I mean [Arc SED] component.
If you want the true β-isoptic —the set of all the points— you should use {+β, -β} degrees (2 sides; 2 solutions; 2 arcs), but slider in [-180, +180] degrees provides full range of signed solutions. Orthoptic is provided by ±90º. Notice that ±180º isoptic is just AB segment itself, and 0º isoptic should be the segment outside AB —(-∞, A] U [B, +∞)—. [Radians] component is avoidable.
More compact versions can be achieved by using [F3] component. You can choose among different expressions the one you like the most as long as performs counter clockwise rotation of vector AB, by 180-β degrees, around A; or equivalent. [Panel] is totally avoidable.
Solutions in XY plane —projection; z = 0—, no matter A or B, are easy too. Just be sure about the curve you want to find the intersection with —Curve; your wall— being contained in XY plane.
A few self-explanatory examples showing features.
1 & 5 1st ver. (Supplementary isoptics) (ArcCapableTrigNormals_def_Bel.png)
2 & 6 2nd ver. (SED) (ArcCapableSED_def_Bel.png)
3 & 7 3rd ver. (SED + F3) (ArcCapableSEDF3_def_Bel.png)
4 & 8 4th ver. (SED + F3, Projection) (ArcCapableSEDProjInt_def_Bel.png)
If you want to be compact, 7 could be your best choice. If you prefer orientation robustness, 5. Etcetera.
I hope these versions will help you to compact/visualize; let me know any feedback.
Calculate where 2 points [A & B] meet at a specific angle is just find the geometrical locus called arco capaz in Spanish, arc capable in French (l'isoptique d'un segment de droite) or isoptic [curve or locus]
of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment,
AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.…
lly it should not make much of a difference - random number generation is not affected, mutation also is not. crossover is a bit more tricky, I use Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX-20) which was introduced already in 1194:
Deb K., Agrawal R. B.: Simulated Binary Crossover for Continuous Search Space, inIITK/ME/SMD-94027, Convenor, Technical Reports, Indian Institue of Technology, Kanpur, India,November 1994
Abst ract. The success of binary-coded gene t ic algorithms (GA s) inproblems having discrete sear ch sp ace largely depends on the codingused to represent the prob lem variables and on the crossover ope ratorthat propagates buildin g blocks from pare nt strings to childrenst rings . In solving optimization problems having continuous searchspace, binary-co ded GAs discr et ize the search space by using a codingof the problem var iables in binary st rings. However , t he coding of realvaluedvari ables in finit e-length st rings causes a number of difficulties:inability to achieve arbit rary pr ecision in the obtained solution , fixedmapping of problem var iab les, inh eren t Hamming cliff problem associatedwit h binary coding, and processing of Holland 's schemata incont inuous search space. Although a number of real-coded GAs aredevelop ed to solve optimization problems having a cont inuous searchspace, the search powers of these crossover operators are not adequate .In t his paper , t he search power of a crossover operator is defined int erms of the probability of creating an arbitrary child solut ion froma given pair of parent solutions . Motivated by t he success of binarycodedGAs in discret e search space problems , we develop a real-codedcrossover (which we call the simulated binar y crossover , or SBX) operatorwhose search power is similar to that of the single-point crossoverused in binary-coded GAs . Simulation results on a number of realvaluedt est problems of varying difficulty and dimensionality suggestt hat the real-cod ed GAs with t he SBX operator ar e ab le to perform asgood or bet t er than binary-cod ed GAs wit h t he single-po int crossover.SBX is found to be particularly useful in problems having mult ip le optimalsolutions with a narrow global basin an d in prob lems where thelower and upper bo unds of the global optimum are not known a priori.Further , a simulation on a two-var iable blocked function showsthat the real-coded GA with SBX work s as suggested by Goldberg
and in most cases t he performance of real-coded GA with SBX is similarto that of binary GAs with a single-point crossover. Based onth ese encouraging results, this paper suggests a number of extensionsto the present study.
7. ConclusionsIn this paper, a real-coded crossover operator has been develop ed bas ed ont he search characte rist ics of a single-point crossover used in binary -codedGAs. In ord er to define the search power of a crossover operator, a spreadfactor has been introduced as the ratio of the absolute differences of thechildren points to that of the parent points. Thereaft er , the probabilityof creat ing a child point for two given parent points has been derived forthe single-point crossover. Motivat ed by the success of binary-coded GAsin problems wit h discrete sear ch space, a simul ated bin ary crossover (SBX)operator has been develop ed to solve problems having cont inuous searchspace. The SBX operator has search power similar to that of the single-po intcrossover.On a number of t est fun ctions, including De Jong's five te st fun ct ions, ithas been found that real-coded GAs with the SBX operator can overcome anumb er of difficult ies inherent with binary-coded GAs in solving cont inuoussearch space problems-Hamming cliff problem, arbitrary pr ecision problem,and fixed mapped coding problem. In the comparison of real-coded GAs wit ha SBX operator and binary-coded GAs with a single-point crossover ope rat or ,it has been observed that the performance of the former is better than thelatt er on continuous functions and the performance of the former is similarto the lat ter in solving discret e and difficult functions. In comparison withanother real-coded crossover operator (i.e. , BLX-0 .5) suggested elsewhere ,SBX performs better in difficult test functions. It has also been observedthat SBX is particularly useful in problems where the bounds of the optimum
point is not known a priori and wher e there are multi ple optima, of whichone is global.Real-coded GAs wit h t he SBX op erator have also been tried in solvinga two-variab le blocked function (the concept of blocked fun ctions was introducedin [10]). Blocked fun ct ions are difficult for real-coded GAs , becauselocal optimal points block t he progress of search to continue towards t heglobal optimal point . The simulat ion results on t he two-var iable blockedfunction have shown that in most occasions , the sea rch proceeds the way aspr edicted in [10]. Most importantly, it has been observed that the real-codedGAs wit h SBX work similar to that of t he binary-coded GAs wit h single-pointcrossover in overcoming t he barrier of the local peaks and converging to t heglobal bas in. However , it is premature to conclude whether real-coded GAswit h SBX op erator can overcome t he local barriers in higher-dimensionalblocked fun ct ions.These results are encour aging and suggest avenues for further research.Because the SBX ope rat or uses a probability distribut ion for choosing a childpo int , the real-coded GAs wit h SBX are one st ep ahead of the binary-codedGAs in te rms of ach ieving a convergence proof for GAs. With a direct probabilist ic relationship between children and parent points used in t his paper,cues from t he clas sical stochast ic optimization methods can be borrowed toachieve a convergence proof of GAs , or a much closer tie between the classicaloptimization methods and GAs is on t he horizon.
In short, according to the authors my SBX operator using real gene values is as good as older ones specially designed for discrete searches, and better in continuous searches. SBX as far as i know meanwhile is a standard general crossover operator.
But:
- there might be better ones out there i just havent seen yet. please tell me.
- besides tournament selection and mutation, crossover is just one part of the breeding pipeline. also there is the elite management for MOEA which is AT LEAST as important as the breeding itself.
- depending on the problem, there are almost always better specific ways of how to code the mutation and the crossover operators. but octopus is meant to keep it general for the moment - maybe there's a way for an interface to code those things yourself..!?
2) elite size = SPEA-2 archive size, yes. the rate depends on your convergence behaviour i would say. i usually start off with at least half the size of the population, but mostly the same size (as it is hard-coded in the new version, i just realize) is big enough.
4) the non-dominated front is always put into the archive first. if the archive size is exceeded, the least important individual (the significant strategy in SPEA-2) are truncated one by one until the size is reached. if it is smaller, the fittest dominated individuals are put into the elite. the latter happens in the beginning of the run, when the front wasn't discovered well yet.
3) yes it is. this is a custom implementation i figured out myself. however i'm close to have the HypE algorithm working in the new version, which natively has got the possibility to articulate perference relations on sets of solutions.
…
e chosen to dive into Grasshopper. I’m about 6 months in. If some of my comments are completely off, please take that to mean that a feature is too inaccessible to a newish user rather that it’s just missing, as I may have stated.
One of my primary pain points is this. Things that can be done in other programs are invariably easier in other programs. This is a big enough issue that I doubt there’s an easy solution that an armchair qb like myself can offer up.
The interface:
I’ve used a lot of 3D programs. I’ve never encountered one as difficult as grasshopper. What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design. Yet PTC (Parametric Technology Corp.) has been doing parametric design software since 1985 and has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others.
In the early 2000's, when parametric design software was all the rage, McNeel stated quite strongly the Rhino would remain a direct modeler and would not become a parametric modeler. Trends come. Trends go. And the industry has been swinging back to direct modeling. So McNeel’s decision was probably ok. But I have to wonder if part of McNeel’s reluctance to incorporate some of the tried and proven ideas of other parametric packages doesn't have roots in their earlier declaration to not incorporate parametrics.
A Visual Programming Language:
I read a lot about the awesomeness and flexibility of Grasshopper being a visual programming language. Let’s be clear, this is DOS era speak. I believe GH should continue to have the ability to be extended and massaged with code, as most design programs do. But as long as this is front and center, GH will remain out of reach to the average designer.
Context sensitivity:
There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them.
Sliders:
I hate sliders. I understand them, but I hate ‘em. I think they should be optional. Ya, I know I can r-click on the N of a component and set the integer. It’s a pain, and it gives no feedback. The “N” should turn into the number if set. AAAnd, sliders should be context sensitive. I like that the name of a slider changes when I plug it into something. But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly. I shouldn't be able to plug in a “50” and have everything after turn red.
Components:
Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings.
And this item I’m guessing on. I’m not yet good enough at GH to know if this may have adverse effects. Reverse, Flatten, Graft, etc.; could these be context sensitive? Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?
Tighter integration with Rhino:
I'm not entirely certain what this would look like. Currently my work flow entails baking, making a few Rhino edits, and reinserting into GH. I question the whole baking thing, btw. Why isn't it just live geometry? That’s how other parametric apps work. Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset. I have to bake, offsetserf, and reinsert the geometry. I’m currently looking at the “Geometry Cache” and “Geometry Pipeline” components to see if they help. But I haven't been able to figure it out. Which leads me to:
Update all of the documentation:
I'm guessing this is an in process thing and you're working toward rolling GH from 0.9.00075 to 1.0. GH was being updated nearly weekly earlier this year. Then it suddenly stopped. If we're talking weeks before a full release, so be it. But if we're looking at something longer, a documentation update would help a lot. Geometry Cache and Geometry Pipeline’s help still read “This is the autogenerated help topic for this object. Developers: override the HtmlHelp_Source() function in the base class to provide custom help.” This does not help. And the Grasshopper Primer 2nd Ed. was written for GH 0.60007.
Grasshopper is fundamentally a 2D program:
I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen? Pretty much every 3D program in existence has this. I’m sure I can probably figure out how to deconstruct the breps, join the curves, loft, trim, and so forth. But does writing an algorithm to do what all other 3D programs do with a dialog box seem reasonable? I'm sure if you go command by command you'll find a ton on such things.
If you look at the vast majority of things done in GH, you'll note that they're mostly either flat or a fundamentally 2D pattern on a warped surface.
I've been working on a part that is a 3D voronoi trimmed to a 3D model. I've been trying to turn the trimmed voronoi into legitimate geometry for over a month without success.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/question-voronoi-3d-continued
I’ve researched it enough to have found many others have had the exact same problem and have not solved it. It’s really not that conceptually difficult. But GH lacks the tools.
Make screen organization easier:
I have a touch of OCD, and I like my GH layout to flow neatly. Allow input/output nodes to be re-ordered. This will allow a reduction in crossed wires. Make the wire positions a bit more editable. I sometimes use a geometry component as a wire anchor to clean things up. Being able to grab a wire and pull it out of the way would be kinda nice.
I think GH has some awesome abilities. I also think accessing those abilities could be significantly easier.
~p…
re are major changes and enhancements.
HONEYBEE
More Flexible Workflow - Many small modifications were made to support a more flexible workflow, such as the ability to separate a zone created with masses2Zones into editable HBSrfs that can be recombined. For the energy components, it is now possible to plug custom constructions directly into the components that set the zone constructions without writing them first into the library. For the daylighting components it is now possible to change all of the materials of specific surface types at once.
Support for Complex Geometry - Many small bugs for complex geometry have been fixed including the ability to import energy results correctly for curved NURBS surfaces as well as unconventional window configurations. Also, the intersectMasses component now almost always succeeds in splitting all of the surfaces of adjacent zones, no matter how complex the intersection is.
Automatic Download Issues Fixed - Many users who faced issues with not having “gendaymtx.exe” or who had trouble syncing with our github know that we faced an issue with automatic background downloads.
Air Walls - Honeybee EnergyPlus models now officially support air walls (or virtual partitions) in a basic implementation. Now, any time that you use the air wall construction or set a surface type to “air wall,” the air between adjacent zones will be automatically mixed. At present, this mixing is just a constant flow based on the surface area between zones connected by air walls multiplied by an adjustable “flow factor.” It is important to stress that this basic air mixing is not with the EnergyPlus Airflow Network, although the groundwork laid in this release will eventually allow for the implementation of the Airflow Network in future releases. As such, this present air mixing is only suitable for multi-zone conditions where there is not significant buoyancy-driven flow between zones.
Natural Ventilation - To go along with the new potential introduced by air walls, there has been a basic implementation of EnergyPlus’s natural ventilation objects in a new component called “Set EP Airflow”. The current setup allows for three possible types of natural ventilation: 1) natural ventilation through windows (with auto-calculated flow based on window area, outdoor wind speed/direction, and stack effects), 2) custom wind and stack objects that can be used to model things such as chimneys off of single zones, and 3) constant, fan-driven natural ventilation.
Additional Thermal Mass - The capability to add additional thermal mass to zones has been added. This is useful for factoring in the mass of indoor furniture or heavy interior objects such as chimneys.
New Utility Components - Abraham has added a couple of useful components to help calculate lighting loads based on bulb types and target lighting levels as well as a converter from ACH to the m3/s-m2 that the other HB components accept. Along this vein, there is also a component for adding in the resistance of Air Films to HB constructions.
Improved and Editable Ideal Air Loads System - The EnergyPlus Ideal Air System now goes through an automatic sizing period at the start of the simulation based on the extreme weeks of the weather file. Furthermore, the ability to adjust many of the parameters of the ideal air loads system have been added with a new “Set Ideal Air Loads Parameters” component. The component allows you to add in heat recovery, air side economizers and demand-controlled ventilation.
OpenStudio Export Update - The OpenStudio workflow is still largely under development but this release includes a version with a working VAV and PTHP system template for those curious with experimenting. Note that not all of the new features available for the basic “Run Energy Simulation” component are available for the OpenStudio component (such as air walls, natural ventilation, or additional thermal mass).
Microclimate/Indoor Comfort Maps - Blossoming from initial experiments with the radiant temperature map, a workflow for looking into sub-zone microclimate and indoor comfort has been initiated. All components for this are presently under the Honeybee WIP tab but, over the next month, they will be completing their development phase and moving into the rest of the tabs. If you are interested in testing when they are ready, please let Chris know. For a teaser video of the intended capabilities, see this video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNylb42FPIc&list=UUc6HWbF4UtdKdjbZ2tvwiCQ)
LADYBUG
Monthly Bar Chart - After much demand from multiple parties, a new component to create monthly bar and line charts has been added. The component is particularly useful for plotting the outputs of the “Average Data” component like monthly EPW data or averaged monthly-per hour data. It also supports daily data and any type of Energy simulation results.
Wind Profile - To go along with the new capabilities of natural ventilation in Honeybee, Ladybug now has a fully fleshed-out Wind Profile component that allows you to visualize how wind speed changes with height in relation to your building geometry. The component is geared to understanding the conditions of prevailing wind and will be useful in the future for setting up CFD models. Credit goes to Djordje Spasic for adding in all of the new capabilities. In a similar vein, the appearance of the wind rose has also been improved thanks to suggestions from Alejandra Menchaca.
Faster Solar Adjusted Temperature - Thanks to the SolarCal method from the Center for the Built Environment at UC Berkeley (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89m1h2dg), the solar adjusted temperature component now includes an option for a much faster calculation that produces results that are very close to those originally obtained with the genCumSky component. Instead of using the cumulative sky, the component can now accept the direct and diffuse radiation from the ImportEPW component. Over a whole year, this essentially takes a calculation that used to be a half-hour and shrinks it down to 10 seconds. Thanks again to those at UC Berkeley for keeping their work open source!
Instructions - Last but not the least, [It took me almost two years to understand this but finally] we have a text file that describes the installation step by step and is way easier to modify than a video. You can find it in the zip file. Credit goes to Chris!
We also want to welcome Anton, Patrick and Sandeep to the team. Anton has kicked off his development by working on a component to import and visualize epw ground temperature data and he will be continuing to develop components to bring in reliable precipitation data to Ladybug. With this basis, he will continue to implement Honeybee components for ground heat storage, earth tubes, rain collection and hot water systems. Patrick and Sandeep are working on integration of Honeybee to Energy Performance Calculator.
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.
Enjoy!…
the data structure of the input.
I'll create a component that aims to write all the GH_Paths inside the input data structure into separate output parameters. I'll add a menu item to the component that allows users to synch the number of outputs with the current data.
Note that there are some bugs I found related to Undo here, but I'll attempt to fix those asap. The mechanisms employed in this example are correct.
Let's start with the Component class definition and the constructor:
Public Class GH_ExampleComponent_VarOutput
Inherits GH_Component
Public Sub New()
MyBase.New("Extract Paths", "ExPath", "Extract all the paths from a tree", "Sets", "Tree")
End Sub
End Class
Now, the RegisterXXXXParams methods:
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterInputParams(ByVal pManager As GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager)
pManager.Register_GenericParam("Tree", "T", "Data tree to examine", GH_ParamAccess.tree)
End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterOutputParams(ByVal pManager As GH_Component.GH_OutputParamManager)
'We'll add one output parameter, just to not have a jagged output.
pManager.Register_PathParam("Path 1", "1", "1st path in tree")
End Sub
SolveInstance() is somewhat special, but not very complicated:
Protected Overrides Sub SolveInstance(ByVal DA As IGH_DataAccess)
'We have only one input parameter and it is set to Tree,
'so SolveInstance will only be called once for every solution.
'We don't actually need the data inside the input, we're only interested in the paths.
'So we don't actually need to call DA.GetDataTree, we can just go in and extract the
'paths directly:
Dim paths As IList(Of GH_Path) = Params.Input(0).VolatileData.Paths
'Abort if there is no tree.
If (paths.Count = 0) Then Return
'Post a warning if the number of output parameters does not
'equal the number of paths in the tree.
If (paths.Count < Params.Output.Count) Then
AddRuntimeMessage(GH_RuntimeMessageLevel.Warning, "There are more outputs than paths in the tree.")
ElseIf (paths.Count > Params.Output.Count) Then
AddRuntimeMessage(GH_RuntimeMessageLevel.Warning, "There are fewer outputs than paths in the tree.")
End If
'Iterate over all paths and assign to output parameters.
For i As Int32 = 0 To Math.Min(Params.Output.Count, paths.Count) - 1
DA.SetData(i, paths(i))
Next
End Sub
Adding a menu item to the component menu is relatively straightforward, however handling the menu command requires a fair bit of logic:
Protected Overrides Sub Menu_AppendCustomComponentItems(ByVal iMenu As System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripDropDown)
'Add a single item to the component menu.
Menu_AppendGenericMenuItem(iMenu, "Synch outputs", AddressOf Menu_SynchOutputClicked)
End Sub
Private Sub Menu_SynchOutputClicked(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As EventArgs)
'Here we have to synch the number of output parameters with the number
'of paths in the volatile data tree in the input parameter.
'This requires a few steps:
'1. Determine whether something needs to happen at all.
'2. Record an undo event.
'3. Remove excess outputs or add missing outputs.
Dim paths As IList(Of GH_Path) = Params.Input(0).VolatileData.Paths
If (paths.Count = Params.Output.Count) Then Return 'yay, nothing needs to be done.
'Something needs to be done, record an undo state.
RecordUndoEvent("Synch output")
'We either have too few or too many outputs, determine which is the case.
If (paths.Count > Params.Output.Count) Then
'Add the missing outputs
For i As Int32 = Params.Output.Count + 1 To paths.Count
Dim param As New Grasshopper.Kernel.Parameters.Param_GenericObject()
param.Name = "Path " & i.ToString()
param.NickName = i.ToString()
If (i.ToString.EndsWith("1")) Then
param.Description = i.ToString() & "st path in tree"
ElseIf (i.ToString.EndsWith("2")) Then
param.Description = i.ToString() & "nd path in tree"
ElseIf (i.ToString.EndsWith("3")) Then
param.Description = i.ToString() & "rd path in tree"
Else
param.Description = i.ToString() & "th path in tree"
End If
Params.RegisterOutputParam(param)
Next
Else
'Remove excessive outputs
Do
If (Params.Output.Count <= paths.Count) Then Exit Do
Dim param As IGH_Param = Params.Output(Params.Output.Count - 1)
Params.UnregisterOutputParameter(param)
Loop
End If
Params.OnParametersChanged()
ExpireSolution(True)
End Sub
Finally, we must make sure that the component properly (de)serializes. This means we have to override the Write and Read methods and add additional information to the GHX archive:
Public Overrides Function Write(ByVal writer As GH_IO.Serialization.GH_IWriter) As Boolean
'We must make sure that the number of output parameters is correctly stored.
'We'll use a special function on the GH_ComponentParamServer to accompish this
'without too much sweat.
Params.WriteParameterTypeData(writer)
Return MyBase.Write(writer)
End Function
Public Overrides Function Read(ByVal reader As GH_IO.Serialization.GH_IReader) As Boolean
'Very important, we must make sure all parameters exist before we
'start with the main deserialization.
Params.Clear()
Params.ReadParameterTypeData(reader)
Return MyBase.Read(reader)
End Function
I attached a VB file that contains the code outlined above.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Seattle, WA…
Added by David Rutten at 11:43pm on October 27, 2010
me of course!So I'll try to be as clear as possible.I have two problems.The form we have is a shade. I would like to close the shape of the top so she cancling to a bulb socket. For this, I want to keep a planar surface (the same surface asthe top of the basic shape without distortion but reduced (scale)), then connect themodified form (with the attractors points) to this surface. However, it must be dividethis surface on triangle to succeed have flat surface (because the shade is made of paper and then cut out of planar sheets).I managed to do it but very complicated and non-automatic by taking each point oneby one through lists items.Do you know a way to do it automatically and it still works even if we increase the number of facets of the form?I also have a problem with attractors points to 2 different places, to distort the basic shape and create the holes.
I could wish to create as many attractors points what I want in my program but it is limited.Do you think it is possible to group all attractors points in only component (point) to make this automatic?In my program, I have managed to use several (3) points attractors to distort the basic shape using dispatch order if I want attractors for example 24 points, I wouldcreate 24 pieces of program which is quite disturb!For holes, the problem IS exactly the same.Do you have any ideas? (If you have time).
Thanks a lot.Ines
…
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…