as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011
e. (C1 or C0)
In the case of C0: I have four other cases
In the case of C1 I have three other cases
If C0:
Pt1-Pt2 = 1 = 0
2-Pt1 = PTC1
2-Pt2 = PTC2
4-No Equal
if C1
1-Pt1 = PTC1
2-Pt2 = PTC2
3-No Equal.
Its become difficult to manage these conditions..
Thanks…
Added by Rémy Maurcot at 10:38am on April 18, 2012
occur more than once in the same list, and different elements with identical values can occur more than once. Also, a list may contain lack of elements, referred to as "nulls".
Sets. Strictly speaking a Set is a mathematical construct which adheres to a strict collection of rules and limitations. Basically, a Set is the same as a List, with the exception that it cannot contain the same element more than once, or indeed two or more different elements with the same values. You see, in mathematics there is no difference between a value and an instance of that value, they are the same thing. In programming however it is possible to store the number 7 in more than one spot in the RAM. Grasshopper does not enforce this rule very strongly though, you can use a lot of Set components on lists that have multiple occurrences of the same value. The big difference between Lists and Sets in Grasshopper is that Sets are only defined for simple data types that have trivial equality comparisons. Basically: booleans, integers, numbers, complex numbers, strings, points, vectors, colours and intervals. Lists can contain all kinds of data.
Strings. Strings are text. There's nothing more to it. I don't know why early programmers chose to call them strings, but I suppose it's a better description of the memory representation of them. Strings are essentially sequences of individual characters.
Trees. Trees are the way all data is stored in Grasshopper. Even when you only have a single item, it will still be stored in a tree. A tree is a sorted collection of lists, where each list is identified by a path. A specific path can only occur once in a tree, when you merge two trees together, lists with identical paths are appended to each other. Trees are an attempt to losslessly represent not just the data itself, but also the history of that data. Imagine you have 4 curves {A,B,C,D} and you divide each into 3 points {X,Y,Z}. Then, for each of those points you create a new line segment {X',Y',Z'} and then divide each of those line segments again into 5 points each {K,L,M,N,O}. The way data is stored in trees, it should be possible to figure out whether a point M belongs to X' or to Z', and whether that X' or Z' came from A, B, C or D. This is why paths are often quite long after a while, because they encode a lot of history.
Paths. A Path is nothing more than a list of integers. It's denoted using curly brackets and semi-colons: {A;B;...;Z}. A Path should never be empty {} or have negative integers {0;-1}, but it is certainly possible to create a path like this and it probably won't even crash Grasshopper. Paths are 'grown' by components that (potentially) create more than one output value for a single input value. For example Divide Curve. It creates N points for every single input curve. In cases like this a new integer is appended to the end of the path.
In the next release the Path logic in Grasshopper is somewhat different. I fixed a number of obscure bugs (hopefully without introducing new fresh bugs) and special cased certain operations to somewhat reduce the speed at which paths grow. This may well break files that rely on a specific tree layout, but I hope the temporary sacrifice will be worth the long-term benefits.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
n fact) according a vast variety of "modes" PLUS the required clash detection (ALWAYS via trigonometry). In plain English: outline any collection of Breps and "apply" a truss that is topologically sound (planarization in case of quads etc is an added constrain). PLUS outline/solve what comes "next" after that truss (like the planar glazing "add-on" brackets of yours [ the ones that need redesign, he he], or some roofing/facade skin system [secondary supports, corrugated sheet metal, insulation, final cladding, dogs and cats])
2. Imaging doing this in real life (nothing to do with "abstract" formations of "lines" or "shapes" or whatever). This means primarily adopting a BIM umbrella: in plain English AECOSim, Revit or Allplan (I'm a Bentley man so I use AECOSim + Generative Components). This also means using "in-parallel" a top MCAD app for 1:1 details, FEA/FIM and the vast paraphernalia required for real-life studies destined for real-life projects (made with real-life money by real-life people). My choice: CATIA/Siemens NX.
3. What to send to Microstation (if not using Generative Components, that is) and/or CATIA? In what "state"? To do what exactly? For instance even if you could design this feature driven tensile membrane anchor custom node in Rhino (you can't) it could be 100% useless in CATIA:
4. Imaging masterminding ways to send them nested instance definitions of ... er ... a coordinate system (all what you need). In plain English: since is utterly pointless to send them nested blocks that can't been parametrically controlled (variations/modifications/PLM management/BOM/specs etc etc)... send them simply the "instructions" to place coordinate systems of components that ARE parametrically designed within Microstation and/or CATIA (classic feature driven design approach blah blah). So GH solves topology et all (working on data imported via, say, Excel sheets related with sizes of components etc etc) and sends to Microstation simply this (a myriad of "this" actually):
I do hope that the gist of the "method" (the ONLY way to invite GH to the party) is clear.
best, Peter…
use I don't agree with the practice of using site EUI as a metric to evaluate the thermodynamic performance, environmental impact, or monetary value of a building. I disagree with this practice for the same reason that there are no "totalThermalLoad" and "thermalLoadBalance" for simulations run with full HVAC. I can summarize these reasons in the following way:
When we run a simulation with ideal air loads, the heating/cooling values we get are THERMAL ENERGY that is directly added to or removed from the zone. In this way, we can draw a rough parallel between these two types of energy since they are are generally of a similar type and quality. As such, I am ok with adding them together to get total thermal load or subtracting them to get a sense of thermal load balance.
However, when we run a simulation will full HVAC, the heating/cooling values that we get are usually HEATING FUEL ENERGY and ELECTRICITY respectively. Fuel energy and electricity are fundamentally two different types and qualities of energy. To cite the second law of thermodynamics, the exergy (or the capacity to do work) of electricity is much greater than that of fuel. This is evident in the fact that, to produce a given unit of electricity, I often have to burn at least 3 units of fuel energy (though this can be much more for inefficient plants). With each step in a power plant - making steam, turning a turbine, turning a generator - there are significant energy losses. This difference in exergy is also evident in the fact that there are so many more things that I can do directly with a unit of electricity than I can do with the same unit of fuel energy. I can use electricity to directly refrigerate, produce light energy or power a motor just as easily as I can use to to cook, produce hot water, or heat a space. While I can cook, make hot water, or heat a space directly with fuel energy, refrigeration and lighting are much more difficult. For this reason, I do not feel comfortable adding electricity and fuel together either in the totalThermalLoad output or in a site EUI metric.
Still, the use of site EUI has become so ingrained in the industry that I have to acknowledge it and at least show users how it's calculated. In my view, it's an ad-hoc metric that was invented to deal with previously limited amount of information on energy sources.
Instead of using site EUI, I would recommend using the following metrics depending on what you are trying to evaluate:
Utility Cost / Square Meter - to measure the monetary value of a building to an owner or user
Kg CO2 / Square Meter - to measure the environmental and climatic impact of a building
Emergy / Square Meter - to measure the overall thermodynamic performance of a building
The first two are actually fairly easy to calculate these days just by researching your site's utility rates or grid energy mixture and multiplying the building electricity or fuel by their respective rates. I will add in some capabilities to Honeybee soon to make it even easier for you to get these values from your EPW file and databases of utility rates/grid mixture. Emergy is much harder to calculate as you have to trace all your energy sources all of the way back to the sun but there are a number of experts at work to make this calculation possible (probably in the next few years, we may have much easier ways to calculate it).
Hope this helps explain the current setup.
-Chris…
ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
I tell you what I had to do and how I did it.
I have the following situation. A urban context with a square plot 40m x 40m surrounded by buildings.
If I extrude the plot I get 4 surfaces and I need to calculate the minimum daily quantity of direct sunlight hours each test point receives in the period from 22nd of April to 22nd of August. For example for the test point at index 21 of surface with index 1 (I am just creating these numbers in my mind) the minimum is on 27th of April and the test point receive 8 hours (this is also invented for the sake of the example) of direct sunlight. All the other days it receives more. So the values I have to found are these minimums for all the test points. Now how to calculate these minimum quantities is a different issue of the topic of this post and actually I manage it.
Continuing with the explanation of what I had to... so I have only the initial plot that generate 4 surfaces, then I want to test smaller plots generated by an offset of 4 m of the original one, and the relative 4 surfaces for each smaller plot.
So in this case I think I cannot use your suggestion because the object don't exist yet.
I managed creating a loop with Anemone, the loop generate an offset starting from the original at 0 until 4 (then I multiply it by 4 to obtain the offset at 0, 4, 8, 12 and 16. Then I did like you also suggest I record every time the result with the DataRecorder and I create for each result a different branch with the index coming from the loop (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) with the Flatten component.
In this image you can see all the surfaces saved in the same way as described above and in white the test points that receive minmum or equal than 2.5 hours per day of direct sunlight in the period from from 22nd of April to 22nd of August and in dark gray the test points that receive less.
The main point of this discussion is just the fact that instead use this tricky way I used, or the one you suggest, to analyze separately (because they shade each other) 20 geometries (in this case 20 they could be many more) it would be good if it would be possible just to input all the geometries at the same time and they would not shade each other so to get directly all the results with one run and in a more simple way.
Francesco
…
requires four weather data inputs: air temperature (_dryBulbTemperature), relative humidity (relativeHumidity_), wind speed at 1.1 meters from the ground (windSpeed_) and mean radiant temperature (meanRadiantTemperature_).You can add values to the first three inputs from the Ladybug "Import Epw" component. For the last (meanRadiantTemperature_), you can add it from Ladybug's "Outdoor Solar Adjusted Temperature Calculator" component, or let "Thermal Comfort Index" component to calculate it. Both use different methods to calculate the final values.
I attached an example file below with second option.For more precise calculations you can use Honeybee and Chris' microclimate maps.An icing on the cake for the end: one of Ladybug developers yesterday released a set of Ladybug components for modelling in ENVI-met application. ENVI-met is cutting-edge microclimate software, which can be downloaded for free. It opens a number of advanced new analysis in outdoor domain, which couldn't have been done with the current Ladybug+Honeybee tools. So you can perform the simulation in ENVI-met 4 free software, and then add mean radiant temperature values from ENVI-met simulation to "Thermal Comfort Indices" component. Here is an example file.If you would like to go with the last approach, then the best would be to post a question about it in this topic.
1) You can make a polygonized tree.I haven't subtracted the trunk from the crown, but I guess it makes sense that it can be done.2) In most solar related simulations, a default albedo value of 0.2 is used. This corresponds to average albedo value taken from materials surrounding the urban or countryside location (concrete, grass, gravel, sand, asphalt...). However the presence of snow can significantly magnify the average albedo value several times. "Sunpath shading" components albedo_ input has an ability to calculate albedo due to presence of snow, if nothing is added to it (to albedo_ input). As you are performing the analysis of PET in a horizontal plane, it will not affect your calculations.3) Most thermal comfort indices will require performing analysis at 1.1 meters above the ground. This is considered to be height of standing person's gravity center.The same goes for PET index. So you are correct: you should place the analysis grid at 1.1 meters above the ground before adding it to the "Sunpath Shading" component.It is worth mentioning that "Thermal Comfort Indices" component used in this topic's PET_on_Grid2.gh and PET_on_Grid3.gh files is from last year, and much slower than the newest one (VER 0.0.64 MAR 18 2017) used in the example attached below. Just a remainder if you have been using older version of this component.Let me know if I misunderstood some of your questions, or if I missed to answer some of them.
EDIT: sorry for posting a double reply. When I posted it the first time, I only got links visible, with no text. Something has been wrong with grasshopper ning forum for the last couple of months.…
search for residential type and surprisingly there are none. This can be, but i'm surprised.
The location in example is the Financial District of Manhattan. I assume there might not be too many purely residential buildings there. If you increase the radius to 300meters it will find one.The OSMobject "Residential building" will look for mostly purely residential buildings. For example those in Chinatown or Lower East Side.However most of the time a building might be a multi-purpose: shops on the ground floor, offices above, and above them residential apartments. Users can sometimes avoid tagging these kind of buildings, and may just tag them with "buildings"="yes", not the type of the building too (for example: "building"="multiuse"). So this may be the problem why you might not get too many residential buildings.I guess the only solution to this issue is to add these tags by yourself. Then Gismo will instantly make use of them.I mentioned previously that I will create a couple of video tutorials, but I seemed to never found enough time. I apologize for that. The process is actually quite simple.
Here is small step by step tutorial on how to do that. It may take you about 2 minutes to tag your building and use that tag in Gismo.
Also office buildings. I imagine this is not up to you, but can be kind of disappointing. I wanted for example to do some Ladybug analysis only on residential or office buildings ... pitty.
"Office building" has not been added to "OSMobjects" dropdown list. I have just added it.However, whenever some sort of object is not defined in "OSMobjects" dropdown list, one can use the _requiredKey and requiredValues_ inputs of the "OSM tag" component:
I just tried looking for office building for the same location we have in the create_legend_example.gh file and it found 3 of them. There would probably need to be more, but it may be that nobody tagged those with "building"="office"
The legend is nice, though i think is not completely synchronized with the LegendBakeParameters: You need to provide a point for the LegenPlane input and another for the titleOriginPt output of the CreateLegend.
Unlike Ladybug, Gismo threats the title and the legend separately. So the legend's color bar would have its own starting point (plane) while the title will have its own. I found myself puzzled sometimes in Ladybug, why this wasn't possible.Or did I misunderstand you?…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 12:33pm on May 8, 2017