uld draw, lets say opening locations which would then trigger certain code. Its fairly easy to convert formating, a cell with a certain color, to code, so in a way I would be using excel as a super basic cad program to manage lists of data. In order to do this I need to be able to call some Excel commands from Rhino and to add some functionality to LAN's rhino to excel script (http://www.livearchitecture.net/archives/1516) I would like to be able to get the Ubounds and dimension of an array or a list. . . ie somehow get the equivelenat number of rows and columns of an incoming list of data and then use this to generate some graphics in excel but . . . . It seems that the sytax for excel Vb script via interoperability
marshaling is a bit different:1)I can not use
the set command ie Set range 2) it does not allow me to use the typical excel
syntax such as:
Worksheets("Sheet1"). Range("A1:D4").BorderAround
ColorIndex:=3, Weight:=xlThick
I get the following errors
Error: Method arguments must be enclosed in parentheses. (line 114)
Error: Name 'xlThick' is not declared. (line 114)
Is their an alternate way to write the Excel commands? Or is there something I need to do in Rhino? Any advice would be appreciated.
Best,
Ben…
Added by Ben Fortunato at 11:10am on February 27, 2010
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…
hino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper. I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali. Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Argomenti trattati: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2914…
the Butterfly_Solution component to visualize only the last value, during the simulation.
With this setting, the optimization through Galapagos seems to start in a good way, but after some iterations it stops due to this error on blockMesh component:
Runtime error (ArgumentException): Environment variable name or value is too long.Traceback: line 420, in __setitem__, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\os.py" line 80, in getShellinit, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 69, in containerId, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 260, in _RunManager__command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 316, in run, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 716, in command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\case.py" line 748, in blockMesh, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\case.py" line 112, in getContainerId, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 215, in command, "C:\Users\mmel\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\butterfly\runmanager.py" line 47, in script
Anyone know how to fix it?
Thank you
…
essors. And their counter-attitude is not made because of some real reasons - it's just some kind of fear, that time will overrun them and that they will become useless in comparison to the new generation of "computer architects". That is why they are giving false replies on this subject you mentioned: about boring and soulless architecture.
But! I also need to agree that you can not be an architect if you can not draw that by hand, also and imagine the object and it's parts in 3d, in your head, without even using the 3d model from PC application.
I used to draw around 80% of all my projects on university during studies, by hand! And that part helped a lot, and gave me pretty decent base for usage of PC applications later. Drawing by hand develops a bit investigating spirit, and enables you to think about the shape, the way it looks, and the way it will look.Even today, I first do a dozen number of sketches and drawings, before going onto the drawing on PC.The same goes related to some details, that I am already drawing on PC - sometimes I feel it much more comfortable to solve them by hand, and then draw back to PC.
So my opinion on this is a bit mixed - I think that an architect needs to have a solid basis in hand drawing, in order to become a better architect. But I also think that using technology in process of creating architecture is inevitable and reasons for not using it, are pointless.
Just my two cents on this issue.…
Added by djordje to Hiteca at 4:22am on August 7, 2012
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.…
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 …