ces are distorted (second). What is going on?
Surfaces in the second are a rhino cage edit of the surfaces in the first image. They were originally all closed polysrfs exploded just to input into grasshopper.
In the definition attached, each surface is compared to an original (its the small box in the far left of the top image) The point there is the ability to select for more than just the 6 faces of a cube, but find the closest match to more complicated inputs. In the second image, distorted surfaces are being compared to a distorted original.
If I have my math right, two parallel unitized normal vectors should have a dot product of 1, and the further away from 1 their dot product the further away from parallel, no? Why does it fail when I leave the comfy land of 90 degrees?…
Added by Peter Stone at 2:39pm on January 28, 2015
e to constrains, I HAVE to do it like this (I can't 3D print everything or opposite).
First
I have no idea how to make the panels, without so many duplicate Edges, Faces etc.
Second
I can't figure out how to align the triangle panels to fit in the construction, so it can be assembled ideally without glue. This problem is both conceptual (I can't figure out how to do it fiscally) and grasshoper-wise - I don't know how to organize data list and produce a global movement, so that the triangle parts do not intersect with each other, BUT intersect the 3d printed construction part (where they fit fix in or just fit and can be glued).
Triangles will be milled out from 3mm Plexiglas, BUT I will not have an option to mill at an angle, so only 90° edges.
3D printed parts will be executed by a high level production powder printer, so it should hold good.
Any ideas?
best,
cuki
…
File) 2. I have designed a curved Trichordal-Truss from one curve in Rhino.
The Truss is lying in the XY direction and the footer is placed on the zero point.
3. And now my problem:
I want to put the Truss-object on the feet, move 90°
(from the XY axis to Z axis, see sketch 1).
4. Then copy / move the truss to all 36-points of ellipse (see sketch 1).
5. Align the 36 trusses with the center of the triangle .
pointing at the center of the ellipse (see sketch 2).
6. Using a slider to change the position of the 36-Trusses at der ellipse.
Variable distance between Truss and ellipse (see sketch 3).
Thanks for you Answer.
Best regards
Noureddine…
multiply of variants from Galapagos, to have a chance for better analysis and comparability after. I also would like to use more then one solution in my design after.
In old topics i found kind of 3 solutions.
1.Change Galapagos to octopus ( what don t really want to do, i am kind of happy with Galapagos)
2. Use Slingshot! and MySQL Database ( it s look a little bit too complicated from the first view)
3. Use Colibri and Design Explorer Platform (looks kind of pretty way to solve my problem)
So i tried to add Colibri components to my definition , but have some mistake in the Colibri Aggregator after adding the Genome "An item with the same key already been added". I think it comes because for some steps i am using the "Gen Pool" and not a normal slider. Is it a way to connect Gen Pool and Colibri (i really prefer to have it, then a lot of sliders in some cases)?
And the second question (if i will get it solved with gen pool), could i somehow controll the recording process? For example i would likte to record only variants wit fitness over 90% or start recording just after 20. generation and record till the end?
I also opend for all other possibilities to reach the same goal (record/save/bake multiply variants from galapagos)
…
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
…
he example file to this file so you can give it a try with any version of Honeybee that you're already using. The only requirement is to have OpenStudio installed as the component is using OpenStudio libraries to parse gbXML files. If you're using the latest version available on github the component is also available under WIP tab.
Why?
The main purpose of developing this component is to save time and effort for importing Revit models for energy and daylight analysis. It bothers me to see a lot of smart people spend a lot of time to just come up with solutions just to get the geometry from Revit to Honeybee for analysis. This component is not solving all the issue but is a first step forward. In an ideal world, the future version of Honeybee, which works both under DynamoBIM and Grasshopper should address this issue but that can take some time to be fully ready!
How?
To use this component you need to Export your Revit model as gbXML and then use the file path to load the file into Grasshopper. There are several resources available online on how to prepare the analytical model in Revit and export the gbXML file. Here is an image for importing the Revit 2017 sample model using the default settings. As you can see the model will be just as good as what your original gbXML file from Revit is.
What can be improved?
Well, there are several items that can be improved and they are mostly not on us. To get it started I add what I think are the 3 main shortcomings and my thoughts on how they can be addressed in the future. Feel free to add what you think needs to be added to this list in the comments section.
1. Revit analytical models and as the results gbXML files, by design, are not intended to be clean. Watch this presentation from the Autodesk University to see the logic behind this approach which in short is it doesn't matter for a large scale early stage energy model. Well, This will be quite a problem for studies that you can do with Honeybee. Included but not limited to daylight and comfort analysis.
The best solution that I can think of, until Autodesk fixes their exporter, is to use Revit Rooms and Spaces and generate a clean model from the scratch. We have already tried this approach in Revit but since the Revit API doesn't provide access to Room openings we had a very hard time to get it to work.
That's why that I opened an idea on Revit ideas to get over this issue. With your support we already have 81 votes, but it hasn't been enough to make them to consider the idea for an official review. If you haven't voted already and you think this will be a helpful feature take a moment and vote so we can have it implemented at some point in the future.
2. There is no way (that I know) to export only part of the model. The way export gbXML is set up in Revit is to export the whole model once together. As a result, if you have a huge model with 100 rooms and you want to get one of the rooms into Honeybee using this component you have to export the whole model, which can take some time, and then import them all back into Grasshopper. To partially address this issue I added an input to the component that allows you input a list of names for rooms that you're interested to be loaded into Grasshopper. You can use the name of the room/space in Revit as an input for the component.
3. The component doesn't import adjacencies, loads, schedules and HVAC systems. I wasn't able to export a gbXML file from Revit with any of this data except for the adjacency, but even if you can do that, the component currently can only import geometries and constructions. I hope we get access to 1 and so we don't have to use the xml file approach at all, but if that takes a very long time then we will add these features to the component.
Happy 2017!
Mostapha…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
unity in Ukraine, which is orientated to contemporary architecture.
The results of CANactions will be published in ACC magazine (link), on the web-sites of “Architectural club” (link), AB "ZOTOV&CO" (www.zotov.com.ua),
Theme
Theme of CANactions 2009 is emergent design techniques.
This theme could include following architectural branches as Digital design, sustainable architecture and other sectors, which by the participants’ opinions, could be EMERGENT.???
Any architectural projects made earlier of specially for the CANactions’09 are allowed for submission.
Presentation
All the projects will be submitted in two phases:
Phase 1 – selection of 10-15 participants of CANactions.
Project has to be sent by e-mail to: (__) in PDF (not less then 300 dpi, not more then 10 Mb).
Phase 2 –the CANactions participants prepare 15-20 min presentation of their projects (screen projector, microphone) and materials for the exhibition in House of Architect, Kyiv. The project has to be presented by author. -> exhibition is the first architecture biennale
Presentation requirements: file should be composed in PDF format on A0 sheets, placed horizontal (not more then 1 sheets). This file should contain sufficient amount of the presentation graphic material, including text explanation up to 300 words.
The raster images should have printing definition not less then 300 dpi. It’s recommended to avoid solid black fillings, because the projects will be printed on ink-jet printer.
The presentation requirements could be changed after phase 1 results.
The presentation materials should be made in Ukrainian (or Russian) and English. Verbal part can be presented in any language.
Tarek Naga, Naga Studio, Los Angeles / USA (I can contact him - he will do it for free)
Awards
DIA (Dessau Institute of Architecture), Germany gives a prize: certificate for the education for 1 (2) semesters of Master-program in DIA for students and young architects (up to 30 years) from Ukraine. The decision about the prize winners will be made by selection board.
Guests presentations
- Daniel da Rocha DIA /Germany/ (flights, accommodation?). Theme: (scripting???)
- Aleksandr Kalachev DIA /Riussian Federation/, Tudor Cosmatu DIA /Romania/, Irina Bogdan DIA /Romania/ - "Parametrically Defined Urban Patterns".
- Grygorii Zotov DIA /Ukraine/ - “The Multicultural Columbarium”.
- Armen Menendian /USA/ - "Blending Parametric Methods With Traditional Design:
"The Danish Pavilion at Shanghai EXPO 2010".
Exhibitions
1. Projects of 10 (15) CANactions participants
2. other projects: Zotov+Co
Bollinger+Grohmann - structural eng.
the very many
C-Space Pavillon / alvin huang
ala _ amanda levete studio
anOtherArchitect
student work, Charles Walker, AA Unit Pavillon
Event schedule
Phase 1: 01.07.2009 – start of the CANactions 2009 and beginning of projects submission.
16.08.2009 - dead-line of the project submission of phase 1.
Phase 2: 17.08.2009 – announcement of the CANactions 2009 participants.
30.08.2009 – dead-line of submission of the CANactions 2009 exhibition materials.
14-26.09.2009 – exhibition of the CANactions 2009 projects in House of Architect, Kyiv.
25-26.09.2009 – CANactions 2009.
26.09.2009 - finnissage / announcement of competition winners for DIA study
Contacts: canactions2009@gmail.com…
Added by Grisha Zotov at 6:32am on August 10, 2009
50 and reduced the 'cell size' slider to 0.5. When the 'Azimuth' angle is changed to 180 +- 90 (dawn or dusk), the points are widely dispersed, reducing the density and increasing the number of cells in the "sparse grid". Under these conditions, the number of cells was ~2000 and the Profiler time for 'Boundary' went up to a full minute or more each time 'Altitude' or 'Azimuth' was changed.
So I created this code to benchmark some alternatives and found two interesting things:
'Boundary' surface performance (v.1) is not linear. As the number of surfaces goes from 1000 to 2000, the time per surface goes up dramatically.
I tried three alternatives for creating a rectangular surface at a given point that are all substantially faster: v.2, v.3 and v.4. For 2000 points, v.4 is 150 times faster than v.1 !!!
Performance of v.2, v.3 and v.4 are similar and all scale up very well. To benchmark beyond 2000 points, I recommend disabling the VERY SLOW v.1. At 5000 points the 'Pop2D' component takes ~11.3 seconds but v.3 and v.4 take less than one second to generate 5000 surfaces!
See boundary_2015Nov19a.gh attached.
So I replaced the 'Rectangle' and 'Boundary' components in my sun reflection model with v.4 in focus_2015Nov19b.gh (also attached) and the performance is amazing.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this performance issue with 'Boundary' on the forum before but as with many things, I didn't realize what a major obstacle it can be until I discovered this for myself.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:16pm on November 19, 2015