tions or components.
Participants will learn concepts of object oriented programming and essential syntax of C# to endeavour into personally extending cad toolsets. The workshop will focus on introducing the .NET language C# and the Software Development Kit (SDK) RhinoCommon.
Topics
- use of Script Component within Grasshopper
- explanation to the .NET Framework
- introduction to RhinoCommon SDK
- basics of imperative / object-oriented programming
- data types, operators, properties
- variables, arrays, lists, enumerations
- methods
- objects, classes
- control structures: conditional statements (if, else, switch)
- control structures: loops (for, foreach, while, do)
- walk-through iterative und recursive code-samples
- use of RhinoCommon Geometry class library: creation, sorting, editing of Geometry (Points, Vectors, Curves, Surfaces)
- adding (baking) geometry to the active Rhino 3DM Document, including attributes (Name, Layer, Colors etc.)
- introduction to the Integrated Development Environment MS Visual Studio Express Edition
- compiling code to dll/gha files (plug-ins) / making your own Grasshopper custom components
Grasshopper wird auf der .NET Softwareplattform entwickelt, und kann ebenso wie das CAD Programm Rhinoceros mit "RhinoCommon", einem Software Development Kit, erweitert werden.
Dieser Kurs richtet sich an Designer, Architekten, Ingenieure und Techniker, welche mit dem grafischen Algorithmus-Modellierer "Grasshopper3d" sowie dem CAD-Programm "Rhinoceros" bereits vertraut sind und einen Einstieg in die Programmierung von Geometrie erlernen möchten.
Der Kurs Grasshopper II folgende Grundlagen:
Kennenlernen der Script Componente
Erläuterung zum .NET Framework
Einführung in RhinoCommon SDK
Grundlagen d. imperativen / objektorientierten Programmierung
Datentypen, Operatoren, Eigenschaften
Variablen, Reihen, Listen, Aufzählungen
Methoden
Objekte und Klassen
Kontrollstrukturen: Bedingte Ausführung, Schleifen
praxisnahe iterative und rekursive Code-Beispiele für generatives Design unter Verwendung der RhinoCommon Geometrie Klassenbibiliothek - Punkt- und Vektorgeometrie erstellen, sortieren, bearbeiten, Flächen und Netze erstellen - Geometrie in das Rhino 3DM Dokument baken, einschließlich Attribute (Name, Layer, Color)
Einführung in die Entwicklungsumgebung MS Visual Studio Express Edition
Kompilieren von Programmerweiterungen (plug-ins) als Komponenten (custom components)
Details, Anmeldung:
www.vhs-stuttgart.de
Trainer Peter Mehrtens
Kursdauer: 3 Tage x 8 h
Freitag, 21.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Samstag, 22.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Sonntag, 23.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Ort: VHS Stuttgart, Fritz-Elsas-Str. 46/48
Teilnahmegebühr 510,00 €…
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
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.
…
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
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …
lC_UtilEigenSystemSym (level 1) { Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. TargetInvocationException }
Object: MillC_UtilEigenSystemSym (level 2) { Could not load file or assembly 'Sawapansolversnet, Version=1.0.4490.29339, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. FileNotFoundException }
Object: MillC_Topostruct2D (level 1) { Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. TargetInvocationException }
Object: MillC_Topostruct2D (level 2) { Could not load file or assembly 'Sawapansolversnet, Version=1.0.4490.29339, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. FileNotFoundException }
Object: MillC_Topostruct3D (level 1) { Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. TargetInvocationException }
Object: MillC_Topostruct3D (level 2) { Could not load file or assembly 'Sawapansolversnet, Version=1.0.4490.29339, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. FileNotFoundException }
Object: MillC_FEASystem (level 1) { Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. TargetInvocationException }
Object: MillC_FEASystem (level 2) { Could not load file or assembly 'Sawapansolversnet, Version=1.0.4490.29339, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. FileNotFoundException }
Object: MillC_UtilFFT1D (level 1) { Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. TargetInvocationException }
Object: MillC_UtilFFT1D (level 2) { Could not load file or assembly 'Sawapansolversnet, Version=1.0.4490.29339, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. FileNotFoundException }
Object: MillC_UtilFFT2D (level 1) { Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. TargetInvocationException }
Object: MillC_UtilFFT2D (level 2) { Could not load file or assembly 'Sawapansolversnet, Version=1.0.4490.29339, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. FileNotFoundException }
EDIT: Even with COFF disabled in GrasshopperDeveloperSettings this still happens (Thanks Jon)
Is millipede not compatible with Rhino version 5? Or is there a different .dll to use?
Having loaded some of the components:
I congratulate you on following Rutten's 3rd law of Grasshopper :)
Although I hope the Solver and especially the Stress lines get further refinement in order to differentiate them as I find it hard to read the small label at the bottom. Maybe the Chimney's can have different numbers 3 = 3D, 2 = 2D etc.
…
. 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
…
erning how to do that on a sphere.
So I know already all the different approches of how to get a relaxed voronoi pattern on a free-form open surface, but still don't know how to obtain the same elegant effect on a sphere (or an ellipsoid closed surface, whatever), or how to relax the facet dome cells.
Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere the cells of which have been planarized later on, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome.
The trick is to:
1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells) on a sphere
2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on.
Here is what I have by now.(files: matsys spore lamp attempt)
That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design.
Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it's certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation.
1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01)
2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02)
3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03)
The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this:
You can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-releasedgroupUrl=kangaroo&x=1&groupId=2985220%3AGroup%3A120977&id=2985220%3ATopic%3A972434&page=2#comments
Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar...
The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve.
So to sum up:
Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever).
Goal no 2: How to keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later, obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily
Have you got any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?
Cheers, and thanks in advance…