cussions.
The heart of the problem was a math domain error that was occurring in the function that calculates indoor air stratification, which is ironic as this was a simulation that did not have any indoor test points. This has now been fixed in the attached file and on the github.
The second issue was that the month was off by 1 when you connected up an HOY and this has also been fixed now.
https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/commit/d45ac37bc8b9db3f76aa5d9fcc00687394b9ef5d
My last comment is a suggestion to break up the ground top surface into several surfaces as this allows the temperature maps to account for spatial differences in ground temperature across the scene. This is what I do in this file here:
http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Outdoor_Microclimate_Map&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0
Thanks for getting down to the cause of issues like this one. It really makes these bugs much easier to fix. Between the both of you, I feel you can take credit for over 90% of the bug fixes in the community.
Great job, as always,
-Chris…
aybe cause this problems.
.
maybe we can rotate this vectors in a slight angle to produce smooth principal curvature lines.so i set a point to test my thought. and i put following codes into yours,but it did work to specific curve. it cannot apply to several curves.
can you give me some advice?
.
thanks a lot!
.
If (Not IsNothing(PrevDir)) Then
If (dir.IsParallelTo(PrevDir, 0.5 * Math.PI) < 0) Then
dir.Reverse()
End If
if (dir.IsPerpendicularTo(PrevDir,rAngle) then
dir.rotate( fAngle ,crv.Normal)
End If
End If
…
this:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal pt1 As List(Of Point3d), ByVal pt2 As List(Of Point3d), ByRef A As Object)
Dim myLine As New Line
Dim arrLines As New List (Of Line)
For i As Integer = 0 To pt1.Count - 1
myLine = New Line (pt1(i), pt2(i))
arrLines.Add(myLine)
Next
A = arrLines
End Sub
I then get this error:
Error: Overload resolution failed because no accessible 'New' is most specific for these arguments: (line 90)
If I rewrite (and change the access to Items NOT List) to:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal pt1 As Point3d, ByVal pt2 As Point3d, ByRef A As Object)
Dim myLine As New Line
myLine = New Line (pt1, pt2)
A = myLine
End Sub
..then it works pefectly!Is there a bug with accessing list items? Or have I been staring at the screen for too long and I'm missing something very obvious?!Thanks,Toby…
nal vector.(see pic 1)
Second: Holding an abstract mesh or surface with a 3D grid structure. Basically creating 90 degree vectors on an uneven surface coming out of the object, sort of like a cactus with a grid pattern. (see Pic 2)
Third: I think #1 answers this issue: when the lines hitting the rough surface go in two different grid directions, their intersecting points are too close together. Structurally these points can be united and the vectors would be reduced. Manually deleting these lines after being baked is currently the only option. It would be so cool if there was a mathematical arrangement that would connect points that are within a certain distance to one another. (see pic 3)
…
. since there are going to be multiple units facing different directions, each unit will be calculated differently based of their respective plane.
The following screenshots can explain the situation a little better
So Lets say the vector is pointing from the operating unit to the position of the sun, an the plane underneath is where I would like to measure the angle from
this second picture shows how each unit should function, so the measured angle doesn't exceed 90 degrees. what I did is zeroed the z value for the sun position to get a project vector. The problem with this solution is that it only works for XY planes, where I need to have a lot of planes that are specific for each unit and its orientation.
Help would be much appreciated…
problem is that the values of the isocurves are plotted not always in the same way: sometime parallel to the curves, sometime perpendicular.
In the following case, for example, i would like to turn the values of 90°(to get them parallel to the curves).
in order to have something like this:
How can i do that (without baking them)??
Thanks in advance
Claudia…
till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
le with you.
I am trying to achieve the minimal path algorithm of Steiners tree in Python using the minimal path algorithm.The syntax would be as followsFirst I need to create a cube of any dimension.
Then I need to specify one origin say point A and destination point say B.
Now for this point A,B I need to create a machine based network which will automatically enroute A to B.
Where the angle will be constant i.e 120, length can be a variable, triangular node(steiners tree)using these constraints it will create a network.
Now, I should iterate the program in such a way that I should specify the further points say like A1 and B1 so on.The program will contain a limit constraint where it will come out of iteration loop and start a new loop,forming the network.
By this I will get a dense network of 120 deg branches.
The branching gets denser the moment I add source and destination points.
There can be 100 iterations to reach from A to B but the algorithm chooses the one following the minimal path.
I would be highly thankful to you if you would please share the python syntax and grasshopper definitionCapture.JPG for the same
Thank you for your time in advance
I would be highly grateful if you help me through
warm regards
Arya
12.gifShortest%20path%20algorithm.gh
min-paths.jpgcc.henn.studyimagesminimalpaths.jpg …