bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
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.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
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.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
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.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the
ating to new speakers.
For more information: https://medium.com/@carspeakerland/a-guide-to-the-simple-way-difference-in-car-speakers-2-way-3-way-4-way-25e0bf215b00
Adding new speakers for your automobile could improve the sound quality dramatically. Some sound technicians say it is the number-one update you may make to improve the overall quality of your vehicle.
"They do not care how it sounds. Speakers are often form of continue on the list. Updating to new speakers offers you a much fuller sound."
There is a whole lot to pick from in regards to car speakers. (Photo from Eldon Lindsay)
"New speakers will make a greater fidelity and clarity of sound," states Robert Nevitt, proprietor of Audio Electronics at Indianapolis. "The audio is more different without distortion. People will not get bored listening to it."
Cook says customers need to pick the type of sound they enjoy. The very first thing Cook does having a customer is sit in the car together to talk about their personal taste.
"Everybody's ear is different," he states. "That which I believe sounds great, you might believe is dreadful. It is a fantastic idea to get outside and listen to everything you enjoy and do not like about doing it."
When you've discovered a sound you want, you are going to discover the sky's actually the limitation in regards to purchasing car speakers. There are scores of manufactures and models, sizes and power levels to select from.
Columbus Car Audio & Accessories offers three types of automobile speakers to pick from: complete array speakers, component speakers along with coaxial speakers.
• Total range speakers arrive with a tweeter to make to your high-pitched sounds along with a woofer for those lows. This option offers a number of different sizes.
• Unit speakers, nonetheless, include separate tweeters and woofers.
• Coaxial speakers arrive with a tweeter plus motorist.
When you've selected a type of automobile speaker, you are going to want to determine how many you desire. Cook states some cars arrive with as little as just two speakers, whereas bigger, luxury vehicles might have too many 32. He adds a normal sedan generally has four. What are The Speaker Sizes in My Car | Speaker Size for My Car
"It simply depends if you would like to replace all of these," Cook says. "I would advise doing all of four. If you are budget-minded, I'd begin with the ones at the front. That is where you are at. And you are likely to be at the automobile 100 percent of their moment."
Subwoofers are designed to reproduce low bass frequencies also may be included with new speakers or could be added separately to existing car speakers.
"Many speakers can not play down low in these frequencies such as a subwoofer may," Cook says.
Related Article
Wondering about speakers? Below are a few techniques to establish a home entertainment experience whatever your budget.
A speaker update might charge as little as $100 up to a few million dollars depending on the scope of job and type of speaker.
Cook states that the price of a subwoofer can operate as low as $37. Columbus Car Audio & Accessories sells a subewoofer bundle that includes an amplifier and a enclosure for about $ 299.
To get a set of automobile speakers, Columbus Car Audio & Accessories begin prices at $39, with an average price tag of about $70 for setup. Adding an anti-vibrator into a set of speakers prices an additional $25.
Nevitt, meanwhile, fees as little as $99 to get a set of "some good speakers." The price of one hour of installion, that is typically how long it takes to put in a set of speakers, is 67.
However, most customers spend far more.
"Paying a total amount of 800 to $1000 isn't from this world of possibility," Nevitt states. "A price somewhere in the center could be $400 or $500."
Cook says several vehicle speaker technicians began with DIY projects and adds there is nothing wrong with trying to set up car speakers all on your own. But you are going to want the correct tools for your job along with just a little understand. Installing speakers requires carrying out your car door.
See Also: https://www.scoop.it/t/how-to-choose-best-car-speakers-6x9-inch-6-5-inch-6x8-inch-4-inch
Choosing a professional to set up speakers ensures that the job is done correctly.
"If you do it yourself, then you might wind up breaking something. That is some thing we do everyday. I am not planning to inform you we will not violate something. But we will look after it if we perform. We all do so with being honest and up front with people."
If you are getting speakers set up, experts say to expect to place an appointment to the setup. …
This blog post is a rough approximation of the lecture I gave at the AAG10 conference in Vienna on September 21st 2010. Naturally it will be quite a different experience as the medium is quite…
Added by David Rutten at 3:27pm on September 24, 2010