, presso la sede Manens-Tifs, nei giorni 26,27 e 28 maggio 2016.
Il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico diventano sempre più rilevanti per una progettazione innovativa degli edifici. Ad esempio, il nuovo protocollo LEED 4 riconosce crediti per le simulazioni di daylighting e conferma l’importanza degli aspetti progettuali per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre i consumi di energia elettrica per l’illuminazione artificiale con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”. Senza strumenti software per la simulazione della luce non è possibile ottenere risultati di qualità. Radiance è un software validato, utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che dai progettisti ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale e artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Queste ultime facilitano le procedure di programmazione. Le principali e più versatili saranno oggetto del corso (DIVA4Rhino e Ladybug+ Honeybee, plug-in per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros 3D).
Il corso è rivolto a progettisti e ricercatori che vogliano acquisire strumenti pratici per la simulazione con Radiance al fine di mettere a punto e verificare le soluzioni più adatte alle proprie esigenze. Sono previste lezioni di teoria e pratica con esempi ed esercitazioni volte a coprire in modo dimostrativo ed interattivo i concetti trattati.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 12 maggio 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Pellinindustrie.…
eded to calculate many Waterplane Areas and the GH Area component was bogging things down. I looked to Basic Ship Theory and the use of Simpson’s Rule which in this case mirrors an intersection between a Half Hull and a waterline and then divides up the enclosed waterplane into an even number of equally spaced segments to calculate the area. The result of which is 99.997% of the Rhino and GH area and about a thousand times quicker (more actually). But when checking my method I lofted the simple section curves and fed this into an Area component and had a result a hundred times quicker than the original. This got me thinking that it was the complexity of the Surface that was a problem so I rebuilt the curve with the same number of points as used in the Simpson’s Rule calculation… This was even worse now taking 4 minutes as opposed to 2.8. Wondering why, I realised that the original surface and my Simpson’s surface where created 90º to each other. One lofted from one side of the vessel to the other whereas the quicker method lofted along the length. So I swapped the UV of the original and low and behold 4.3s….
The methods, results and images of the different area calculations are shown below with Simpson’s Rule at the top followed down by: Simpson’s Surface, Original, Swapped UV, and Simplified at the bottom. Also I attach the Definition AreaQuestion.gh
It’s also interesting to note that Rhino Itself does not take anywhere near as long to calculate.
All achieve as fast as I can select a surface and right click
I know the Area component does a lot more than what Simpson’s rule can achieve i.e. 3D surfaces with complex shapes but it would appear that some sort of evaluation of the surface regarding the UV direction might speed things up or if there was a check for planar surfaces to implement a numerically faster approach such as Simpson’s Rule.
I hope this was all of some use.
Slaynt vie!
Danny
…
nteraction in the design of an enclosed volume.
Revolutions have occurred through architectural history and vary widely in terms of design methods and fabrication techniques. Focusing on inspiring natural form‐finding techniques, AA Athens VS works towards producing a large‐scale interactive prototype that alters in real‐time the perception of interior space.
Technology and architecture are coupled for the third year in Athens with a novel agenda of transforming an enclosed area and creating internal contrasting city‐life characteristics that transcend the local conditions. In collaboration with the National Technical University of Athens, Cipher City: Revolutions explores participatory design and active engagement modeling and continues building novel prototypes upon horizontal planes.
The toolset includes mainly ‐among others‐ Rhino Grasshopper, Processing and Arduino platforms. With the completion of the Programme participants receive the AA Visiting School Certificate. In 2013, the design agenda of AA Athens will connect with the agenda of AA Greece VS in the city of Patras. Participation in both Programmes will allow for a more extensive learning experience through additional tools like Autodesk Maya, Autodesk 3D Studio Max and more.
Discounts
The AA offers several discount options for participants wishing to apply as a group or participants wishing to apply for both AA Athens and AA Greece Visiting Schools:
1. Standard application
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £600 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership. If you are already a member, the total fee will be reduced automatically by £60 by the online payment system. Fees are non-refundable.
2. Group registration
For group applications, there will be a range of discounts depending on the number of people in the group. The discounted fee will be applied to each individual in the group.
1. 3-6 people group: £60 (AA Membership fee) + 540*0.75 = £465 (25 %)
2. 6-15 people group: £60 + 540*0.70 = £438 (30%)
3. more than 15 people group: £60 + 540*0.65 = £411 (35%)
3. Participants attending AA Greece VS and AA Athens VS | 40% discount
For people wishing to attend both AA Greece VS and AA Athens VS, a discount of 40% will be made for each participant. (The participant will pay the £60 membership fee only once.)
£60 (AA Membership fee) + (540*0.60)*2 = £708
Eligibility The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Applications
The deadline for applications is 24 March 2014. A portfolio or CV is not required, only the online application form and payment. The online application can be reached from:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/athens
Contact:
Alexandros.Kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…
n complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. The programme brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
Taking place at the unique atmosphere of AA’s London home, the three-week long programme is formulated as a two-stage process. During the initial stage, participants are introduced to core concepts related to material processes, computational methods, and various digital fabrication techniques. During the second stage, the fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques unifies the design goals of the programme.
Prominent Features of the programme:
• Teaching team: Participants engage in an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
• Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms.
• Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Processing, Grasshopper, and various analysis tools.
• Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
• Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
• Robotic Fabrication: According to the specific agenda of each year, scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools, followed by the fabrication of one-to-one scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots.
• Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1900 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details.
The deadline for applications is 17 July 2017. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=460
For inquiries, please contact:
elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)
alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)…
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…
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.
…
eated testing shows that it's just doing a Rhino Boolean Union internally, first, and thus fails whenever a normal Boolean fails, which is all the time if you have dozens or hundreds of bodies:
It's exactly the deal killer of failed Booleans that is driving my quest here, since using them ruined my original MeshMachine tension membrane relaxed modeling system, every time a casual user of it point edited a surface or a single sphere object until two faces nearly coincided and then the Boolean failed and it was hard to know where. This is totally robust, I believe.
$13K Materialise Magics has real Shrink Wrap which will wrap things nicely, and tightly, even perforated solids so it retains the holes, while closing off small gaps you can control the sensitivity to.
Microsoft has a rolling ball algorithm that does exactly what it sounds like it does, along the outside surface.
Once you have a fine mesh from my system, one offset by a fixed distance from each point, you could just offset the mesh inwards by that distance (after isolating it from the inner artifacts you can see on the left in green) and thus have a real hull, the need to smooth it to remove marching cube anti-aliasing affording some transition smoothing:
You could ramp up the number of points vastly, and set the radius of influence way down, to get a tighter initial result that would sharpen up even the transition, but this is pretty fast the way it is (1 second).…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015
sistance of radiative and convective heat transfer through the _filmCoefficient input on the "Create Therm Boundaries" component. This filmCoefficient in W/m2K represents the "U-Value" of the air film between the edge of the THERM materials and the surrounding environment that is at the specified _temperature. The extra resistance from this air film is why the full construction U-Value that you are getting out of THERM is a lower than just the (conductivity of material) / (depth of the material). Accounting for air films is particularly important when you get constructions that have a high overall conductivity (like a single pane window), since almost all of the resistance of such a construction is due to the air films.
To elaborate further, you might have noticed that, in the example files on hydra, I set this filmCoefficient to be either "indoor" or "outdoor", which basically uses some code that I wrote to autocalculate the film coefficient for you. I take into account both the emissivity of the material at the boundary (which gives you more air film resistance for lower emissivities) as well as the orientation of the boundary in the 3D space of the Rhino model. The code I wrote will take these parameters and match them to those published in ASHRAE Fundementals, which you can see in table 1 of the first page of this PDF:
http://edge.rit.edu/content/C09008/public/2009%20ASHRAE%20Handbook
I interpolate between these values in the event that your emissivity is not 0.05, 0.2, 0.9 or the orientation of your boundary is not any one of the 5 that they give.
I know that THERM also has the capability to actually run the radiative and convective formulas that you posted, Mauricio, as opposed to just using a single film coefficient to account for all of this resistance. The running of these formulas is particularly useful is the radiant temperature at the boundary is different than the air temperature. However, as long as you are ok with this assumption that the air and radiant temperatures are the same (which is the case for all of the situations that I have encountered), the film coefficient is perfectly sufficient. If anyone ever has need for this capability of running boundary conditions that have different radiant and air temperatures, please post here and I can think of a way to implement it. I rather like the simplicity of the current interface, though, and I think that I will keep it this way until we understand the purposes for why someone would need separate radiant and air temperatures.
-Chris…