precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…
s (and God knows how many in the next case) that's why (other than the colossal amount of time (for no reason) required for creating them ... try to bake them and measure the file size).
3 .Most non pros believe that the thing that matters the most in engineering is the geometry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is about the 5% (complex real-life cases etc etc - but this one is very simple geometry wise and not that simple with regard the whole "ideal" AND effective strategy required).
4. So I've included in this Rhino file attached a small portion of your frames as input for the second C#: CAREFULLY study what it does and most importantly why: it gives you the clear indication about why you should attack this on an assembly/component basis by using instance definitions INSTEAD of recreating 14++ K "solids". The difference in performance is COLOSSAL, not to mention the baked Rhino file size.
5. Using instances is IMPOSSIBLE whiteout code (as is the case in 99% or real-life engineering tasks).
6. Geometry was never an issue on that one (is the 5% max of the whole puzzle no matter requirements you may have).
Bad news:
1. Zoom extends doesn't work after importing your data (maybe a NVidia Quadro K4200 driver issue - who knows?): use saved views stored.
So ...the choice is yours, best, Lord of Darkness…
ponents, among other functionalities, is significantly widening the relevance of the toolset.
Meanwhile having used the tools for some time now and have gone through the forum, in my opinion a few critical system controls is still missing - unless I'm missing some understanding.
In order to really make the hourly energy analysis valuable in early massing studies etc. the consideration of indoor climate can be more detailed. The HVAC capacities, max. airrate and min. inlet temperature should be within comfortable ranges and hardsized by user input to reduce internal draft problems. If not considered I find that the analysis could possibly demonstrate good energy behavior and reasonable operative temperature but in reality could cause a bad indoor environment - and when "rectified" at a later stage the energy consumption will increase.
I would like to know how it is possible in HB to set-up a HVAC system with these ventilation controls and a "unlimited" convective/radiant heating system, and how to deal with the issues mentioned below. The inputs parameters exists in the components, but I can't seem to get the right system behaviour.
In the attached file I have gone through 4 scenaries, each with seperate issues in setting up the system (As no template appearantly supports the combined setup the heating system is simulated using an inlet temperature of 99 degrees).
HVACSystem: "ideal air loads" - Issue: no hardsized airrate, no cooling supply air temperature
HVACSystem: "VAV w. reheat" - Issue: no regulation of airrate, no use of input heat supply temperature in heating mode
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" -> issue with duplicate zone names
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" on multiple zones -> issue with duplicate zone names
Thanks a lot!
Jon…
ace Syntax." eCAADe 2013 18 (2013): 357.
http://www.sss9.or.kr/paperpdf/mmd/sss9_2013_ref048_p.pdf
The measure Entropy is newer. I hereby explain it (from my PhD dissertation):
Entropy values, as described in (Hillier & Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, 1984) and specified in (Turner A. , “Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis, 2007), intuitively describe the difficulty of getting to other spaces from a certain space. In other words, the higher the entropy value, the more difficult it is to reach other spaces from that space and vice-versa. We compute the spatial entropy of the node as using the point depth set:
(11)
“The term is the maximum depth from vertex and is the frequency of point depth *d* from the vertex” (ibid). Technically, we compute it using the function below, which itself uses some outputs and by-products from previous calculations:
Algorithm 4: Entropy Computation
Given the graph (adjacency lists), Depths as List of List of integer, DepthMap as Dictionary of integer
Initialize Entropies as List(double)
For node as integer in range [0, |V|)
integer How_Many_of_D=0
double S_node=0
For depth as integer in range [1, Depths[node].Max()]
How_Many_of_D=DepthMap.Branch[(node,depth)].Count
double frequency= How_Many_of_D/|V|
S_node = S_node - frequency * Math.Log(frequency, 2)
Next
Entropies [node] = S_node
Next
…
starting as soon as possible.
We're offering challenging projects, insights and contact to leading industry companies, project responsibilities according to abilities and initiative, great work environment and laid-back atmosphere, room to play and evolve,...
Our ideal candidate:
- is passionate about construction, engineering and (computational) design
- is proficient in Rhino / Grasshopper / (GH-)Python
- knows his ways around the Adobe Suite and MS Office
- has a current work permit for Germany
- is a German speaker (other native speakers also welcome, with excellent English skills)
- has an architectural background (Student / BA / MA /...), ideally with work experience
- is interested / has experience in digital manufacturing and prototyping
- will be able to join us shortly
We're looking forward to your applications / inquiries / CVs to: mpelzer@fat-lab.de
View our past projects here: www.fat-lab.com
(Current projects, unfortunately, are non-disclosed)
…
ysim.ning.com/
When you run the simualtion you will notice on the batch terminal that Daysim is also being called, so you may want to consider how Daysim uses Radiance files & data.
Regarding your current problem, I think you stumbled onto something weird and interesting.
Interior and exterior readings appear to differ by 40 in the best case scenarios. Even setting the transmittance to 1 yields similar results. I tried changing from cummulative sky to climate sky and got similar values. Changing the test points did nothing either.
I think, (yet I'm too lazy to prove this) that the difference in values stems from diffuse radiation over the sky dome.
If you delete everything except the glass you'll notice that interior values are like 80-90% of the exterior values (this seems like the expected behaviour with a transmittance of 1). So, if we consider that a vertical window, part of an opaque box, is receiving radiation from 25% of a sphere, as you start to inset the interior test points the radiation they receive will be a fraction of the 25%.
Let me try to explain this better...The exterior surface receives radiation from a section of a sphere calculated by 180degrees on the xy plane (let’s call this angle theta) and by 90degrees (let’s call this angle phi) in azimuthal elevation. If you integrate this over spherical coordinates (theta from 0 to pi; phi from 0 to pi/2) you will find that it comes to a quarter of a sphere. By comparison, the interior surface will not integrate theta from 0 to 180degrees,nor phi from 0 to 90degrees, instead it will be the subtended angle from the exterior surface as a function of their separation; the farther in you go the smaller the view of the outside.
If my hypothesis is correct there shouldn't be that much difference since the separation is only 10cms...the subtended angle would be like 170 instead of 180 for theta and 85 instead of 90 for phi...overall if you integrate both spherical areas there should only by a difference of 10%.
In conclusion, I believe the unexpected behaviour stems from the previous subtended angle thing. If direct radiation was the only factor the difference would be the aforementioned 10%, which suggests that an additional source of energy is also affected by this. Perhaps indirect and diffuse radiation from other areas of the sky dome.
I’m definitely intrigued on why this is happening. Please post if you figure it out.
Regards,
Mauricio
…
rld.wolfram.com/EnnepersMinimalSurface.html
when i type the equations for z,y,z it says a syntax error so i obviously do not understand how to construct an expression. (screen capture attached)
Any help/explanation of using this function would be greatly appreciated
thanks so much
Capture.JPG…
hen you determine their position and number by the "precision_" input. Their number is equal to "precision_ - 1".They are essentially mesh edges, not curves. To hide them, in Rhino application menu choose: Tools -> Options -> View -> Display Modes -> choose your current display mode, and uncheck the "Show mesh wires":
b) How do you change the x- and y-scale of the chart? For instance displaying every 10 degrees of azimuth?
Can you be a bit more precise?You would like to change the labeling of the azimuth directions from 30 degrees step to 10 degrees step? If this is so, you can not do that.
c) My input surface is a hyperbolic paraboloid, facing south symmetrically. How does the component calculate its tilt and azimuth?
All Ladybug Photovoltaics components calculate the amount of AC energy generated by a planar (flat) surface. Tilt and azimuth angles are calculated based on surface normal at 0.5, 0.5 surface parameters. So you can not use the hyperbolic paraboloid as the _PVsurface (or _PV_SWHsurface) input, as it will yield incorrect results. You need to planarize that hyperbolic paraboloid surface first.I attached below an example with default grasshopper components, but the size of the panels is not equal. If you want them to be equal use some paneling Grasshopper plugin like Lunchbox or Paneling tools.…
r "virtual partitions" as follows:
What I mean "air walls" here, is derived from the description of the E+ documentation with the header of "Air wall, Open air connection between zones". (Page 17, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/tips_and_tricks_using_energyplus.pdf)
As I understand, the term "air wall" used in E+ here refers to a description of something like "boundary condition" between adjacent interzone heat transfer surfaces, but not a kind of "construction or material" (like air space resistance or air gaps within a wall/double glazing window).
The main purpose of introducing the "air wall", is to simulate or approximate the airflow/convection/natural ventilation effect between multiple thermal zones which are connected by a large opening.
In my previous tests, using HBzones and GB, I managed to create the gbXML file which can be successfully imported to DB (without assigning any constructions within HB). And the adjacency condition can be recognized automatically by DB, even when I did not use the "Solve adjacencies" component in HB - shared surfaces between multiple thermal zones are recognized automatically by BD as "internal - partition"(which are standard partitions, but not virtual partitions).
In order to create/approximate "virtual partition", I need to manually draw a "hole" in the standard partition surface (fig.1&2). Again, the reason why we want to use "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") is that it allows airflow between multiple thermal zones which are connected by large openings and we could get different temperature of the each subdivided thermal zone which compose a large thermal zone.
My question is, if there is a possible way to simulate/approximate this kind of "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") in HBzones or in GB? If so, I would like to test if DB recognizes it or not. Actually, we expect that there is no need to involve any manual operations (like drawing a "hole" in the standard partition surface) in DB, due to an automatic optimization loop.
Thank you!
Best,
Ding
fig.1
fig.2
…