umbrella of Urban Heat Island (UHI) and I am going to try to separate them out in order to give you a sense of the current capabilities in LB+HB.
1) UHI as defined as a recorded elevated air temperature in an urban area:
If you have access to epw files for both an urban area and a rural area, you can use Ladybug to visualize and deeply explore the differences between the two weather files. Ladybug is primarily a tool for weather file visualization and analysis and it can be very helpful for understanding the consequences of UHI on strategies for buildings or on comfort. This said, if you do not have both rural and urban recorded weather data or you want to generate your own weather files based on criteria about urban areas (as it sounds like you want to do), this definition might not be so helpful.
2) UHI defined by air elevated air temperature but viewed as a computer model-able phenomenon resulting primarily from urban canyon geometry, building materials, and (to a lesser degree) anthropogenic heat:
This definition seems to fit more with they type of thing that you are looking for but it is unfortunately very difficult and computationally intensive such that we do not currently have anything within Ladybug to do this right now. I can say that the state-of-the art for this type of modeling is an application called Town Energy Budget (TEB) and this is what all of the advanced UHI researches that I know use (http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/surfex/spip.php?article7). Unfortunately for those trying to use it in professional practice, it can take a while to get comfortable with it and it currently runs exclusively on Linux (this does mean that it is open source, though, and that you can really get deep into the assumptions of the model). A couple years ago, a peer of mine translated almost all of TEB into Matlab language making it possible to run it on Windows if you have Matlab. He wrapped everything together into a tool called the Urban Weather Generator (UWG), which can take an epw file of a rural area and warp it to an urban area based on inputs that you give of building height, materials, vegetation, anthropogenic heat, etc. I would recommend looking into this for your project, although, bear in mind that is it not open source like the original TEB tool and that you may need to get a (very expensive) copy of MATLAB (http://urbanmicroclimate.scripts.mit.edu/uwg.php).
3) UHI as defined by a thermal satellite image of an urban area depicting an elevated average radiant environment that reaches a maximum a the city center and changes by land use:
This is the definition of UHI that I am most familiar with and was the basis of much of my past research. I feel that it is also a definition of UHI that is a bit more in line with where a lot of contemporary UHI research is headed, which is away from the notion of UHI as a macro-scale meteorological phenomena that is averaged as an air temperature over a huge area towards one that accepts that different land uses have different microclimates and (importantly) different radiant environments. While the air temperature difference between urban and rural areas usually does not change more than 1-4 C, the radiant environment can be very different (on the order of 10-15 C differences). The best way to understand UHI in this context is with Thermal satellite images, for which there is ha huge database of publicly available data on NASA's glovis website (http://glovis.usgs.gov/) or their ECHO website (http://reverb.echo.nasa.gov/reverb/#utf8=%E2%9C%93&spatial_map=satellite&spatial_type=rectangle). I tend to use thermal data from LANDSAT 5-8 and ASTER satellites in my research. Unfortunately, there is a lot f bad data with a lot of cloud cover mixed in with the really good stuff and it can take some time to find good images. Also, there aren't too many programs that read the GeoTiff file format that you download the data as. I know that ArcGIS will read it, a program called ENVI will read it (I think that the open source QGIS can also red it). I have plans to write a set of components to bring this type of data into Rhino and GH (I may get to it a few months down the line).
4) UHI as a computer model-able notion of "Urban Microclimate" with consideration of local differences and the local radiant environment:
This is where a lot of my research has lead and, thankfully, is an area that Honeybee can help you out a lot with. EnergyPlus simulations can output information on outside building surface temperatures and these can be very helpful in helping get a sense of the radiant environment around individual buildings. Right now, I am focusing just on using this data to fully model the indoor environments of buildings as you see in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNylb42FPIc&list=UUc6HWbF4UtdKdjbZ2tvwiCQ
I have plans to move this methodology to the outdoors once I complete this initial application to the indoors. For now, you can use the "Surface result reader" and the "color surfaces based on EP result" components to get a sense of variation in the outside temperature of your buildings.
I hope that this helped,
-Chris
…
ce issue with Rhino and shouldn't make an issue with EnergyPlus but just to have cleaner geometries, I untrimmed base surfaces so zones are closed brep now.
I also noticed that when you are adding multiple openings to a surface, the surface doesn't show-up in the output of createHBZoneFromHBSurfaces. The surfaces are there though and show up once you explode the zone! Again should be a tolerance issue for join. I need to take a closer look to both of these.
Also, in a number of the zones you had wall surfaces connected to createZoneFromHBSurfaces both before and after adding glazing. I removed parent surfaces so you don't end up having duplicate surfaces.
Back to adjacency which was your question, the issue happens since you have couple of zones with the same name so component was assuming them to be the same zone so it wouldn't solve the adjacency (Yes! it shouldn't. That was a bug which is fixed now). I changed the names and now it should find the surfaces that you are looking for.
Moreover, once you solve the adjacency, next solveAdjacency won't overwrite the BC unless you set remCurrentAdj to True.
Mostapha…
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…
rection: there's no visible demand. Explanation: a lot of AEC oriented people (Smart Geo daydreamers) they think - potentially - about GH but they are rejecting it for more than obvious reasons: our job is 1% about the smart thing and 99% about the structured aspect of the smart (or stupid thing).
Back to that "hangar" : The primary role of this GH definition provided herein (and hopefully some future updates) is NOT to outline some academic solution (via some abstract collection of pipes/lines/points/surfaces) ...but to place in 3d space - properly structured - all the real-life (hmm, he he) bits that can compose the actual project. Of course if the bits could be parametrically driven assemblies ...well...you get the gist of the message.
All in all: I think that Engineers who are GH skeptics could see GH with a totally new perspective if, say, a collection of similar examples/test cases could be available for demo/evaluation/whatever > Ah! at last : this appears to be a real thing > what software did it? > say it again - Grass Components you said? > what sort of name is this? ... etc etc etc.
But since a similar development is quite expensive (and requires a team of several gurus), maybe this is rather a future potential task for the GH/Rhino people if they think that the AEC market segment could be beneficial for their products. Combine a similar capability with tools like yours and/or Evolute (planar quads are "a-la-mode" these days).
PS: forget trivial stuff > what about Stefanie? (plan B : better something than nothing)…
e case pictured already: don't bother how this truss is made and never mind that the def attached looks like an "add-on" (no components) - because it could be (so don't get stuck on that, it's irrelevant). In fact since the critical part (the 99% of the whole) if only doable with code ... it makes sense to do the rest with code as well (but that's my personal preference anyway, he he). Note: Balls are excluded from the demo.
You can toggle what "class" of struts is gonna being made with these booleans:
You can vary the sliders and if the code thinks that you make a valid input ... it obeys, he he.
But the big questions are:
1. Can you work with this in some interactive way? I mean vary any slider and ... wait ... for some change. Although the MERO components here are created ONCE and then placed around (minus obviously the tubes) ... they are placed as copies of the "donor" object (not instance definitions) creating a vast "pool" of "unnecessary" data.
2. What happens if you bake these little thingies? What file size you get? Is it OK?
But the bad news are that as I said ... this is ... NOT a task for a novice ... nor you can handle this get-a-truss-and-make-a-MERO-thing goal with half-measures: either you should do it properly ... or abandon ship.
NOTE: Load R file first (nothing is internalized).
Moral: even if this was made with components ... it wouldn't serve much.
best, Peter…
H are automated by using them as an ActiveX, the C# script object fails on the simplest tasks. That is, when initiating Rhino and GH externally (as by the following C# code):
Rhino5Application rhino_app = new Rhino5Application();
dynamic grasshopper = newRhino.rhino_app.GetPlugInObject("b45a29b1-4343-4035-989e-044e8580d9cf", "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000") as dynamic;
The following very simple C# script component fails because it cant cast its input:
The c# code at the component is only:
Line 89 is simply casting of the input. Clearly, this makes the usage of C# component, under automation, impossible which is a major loss.
As said, when initiating Rhino and GH manually , all works well as in the following:
Any ideas why it misbehaves under automation (as an Active X ) ?
I added the gh file of this example.…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
alidated the entire RhinoCivil Engineering solution and migrate to a purely Rhinoceros solution.
85 components for Grasshopper among other analysis of a field study of linear project or study platform. Dedicated to the construction and engineering firms using topographic data.
FoodForRhino
Look to YouTube
Blogger
Support email: rhinodeveloppements@gmail.com…