he TOF and TSRF indices. They show, how "distant" is your _PV_SWHsurface from the optimal _PV_SWHsurface surface in terms of tilt and azimuth angles.However, in your case we are not interested in TOF and TSRF indices. We would just like to know what are the _PV_SWHsurface optimal tilt and azimuth angles, regardless of the supplied _PV_SWHsurface.
So the circular surface supplied to the "TOF" component's _PV_SWHsurface input is irrelevant. It can be of any area, and any tilt/azimuth angle.The PV_SWHsurfacesArea output of the "PV SWH system size" component depends on a couple of factors:moduleActiveAreaPercent_ (leave it at 90%).
moduleEfficiency_,
systemSize_.Calculation of systemSize_ depends on your electricity demand, cost of the PV system, type of the object, country, local regulations etc. This is something that an engineer needs to determine.For example, in USA for a residential house in the Sunbelt, depending on finances, a household would try to cover 100% of its annual electricity needs with their PV system. Which means that the systemSize_ you chose needs to cover the annual electricity consumption. You can perform EnergyPlus simulation or use any other way to get the annual electricity consumption.
Ladybug "Photovoltaics Performance" component can calculate the optimal systemSize_ by given the annual electricity consumption.However the component is made to address fixed tilt and azimuth PV systems only.An approximate way to overcome this is to calculate the optimal systemSize_ for fixed tilt and azimuth PV system, and then multiply it with the "difference in %s" panel at the very right of the fixed_vs_tracker_PV2.gh file. Again, this is not what Ladybug "Photovoltaics Performance" component is made to do, but it will probably get you in a ball park.
Inputted 32 degrees for north_ direction is actually 328 degrees.This is due to Ladybug Photovoltaics being based on NREL model which uses clockwise angles convention. This convention is also most commonly used in solar radiation analysis.
Dubai weather data files are uploaded in here.
…
them can be addressed before winter.
Bugs:
. Vector preview is great, but it doesn't refresh (clear) when you disconnect components. You must delete the component or reconnect to refresh the vector previews.
. When passing values through a note pad, note pad fails to update continuously. Moving the notepad updates the display.
. Cannot pass a notepad integer into an fx1
. Point preview in RH5 appears as large red blocks, not as red crosses. (This is an old bug, may have been fixed with RH5 update in the meantime.)
. After adjusting Graph in dialog box, graph appears to be a solid grey object until moved.
. After copying and pasting, a lot of components are broken, return nulls. Requires reconnect to recompute (haven't had this problem in a while, will see if I can find a file that recreates it)
. BIG ONE: Loading a graph mapper with a file not found creates broken file... graph mapper disappears off canvas and the output wire appears turns orange and appears to be coming from the 0,0 pixel of the canvas. This happens any time you try to port a .ghx file to another system with different drive letters/paths, etc.
Wish list:
Mass addition for vectors
Interactive domain control for Image Sampler (like with Gradient Mapper)
Allow Addition Component to handle String values (A + B = AB)
BIG ONE: Request Override for Icon display for Parameters, Wireless receiver, and script components if you change the name
BIG ONE: Add new behavior for Stream Filter and Stream Gate: Allow multiple index numbers. The Index number picks the value/object in the corresponding index position in the selected list.
For instance:
List 0: A, B, C, D, E
List 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
List 2: .1, .2, .3, .4, .5
Index Stream: 0, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1
Results: A, .2, .3, 4, 5 (This is new behaviour and more useful than Weaving)
I have attached a GHX that includes VB components that do this, but it would be better to have GH components with I/O manager options and data matching behavior, etc.
Thanks,
Marc Syp
Knowlton School of Architecture
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH…
curves A and B.
For each point pA on curve A,
you need the corresponding tangent vector tA on curve A, and the lists of "cone" vectors pB(j)-pA and tangent vectors tB(j) on curve B. so you have three vectors tA, tB(j) and AB(j)
these three vectors define a parallelogram thas varies along j
3d determinant of the three vectors above gives you the volume of this parallelogram. When 3dDet = 0 then it means it's flat, the vectors are coplanar. Thats what we're looking for.
So you just need to plot the curve 3Ddet = f(pB) , still for each point on A
'pB is the parameter here'
graphically solve these cuves to find the zeros and you feed back the resulting parameter in curve B. draw te line, done.
You can manage double solutions or cusps directly on the plot by using clostest point and >= conditions to kill unwanted results.
I do it twice, from crv A to crrv B and from B to A to make sure I catch start and end generatrices each time.
The videos you posted are interesting. I don't understand how it works with just 2 slider to tune the curves.
…
as passing this extra check and because of that it was running faster. It doesn't mean that the first analysis is totally wrong as it depends on the analysis case and should be checked and optimized before running the final analysis.
You can read more about radiance parameters here (http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/Notes/rpict_options.html), and here (http://radiance-online.org/community/workshops/2011-berkeley-ca/pre...). Since you have a light-shelf I suggest you to add to the number of ambient bounces (ab).
Now back to your wish to have the analysis run faster you can comment the line hb_writeRADAUX.checkInputParametersForGridBasedAnalysis() inside Honeybee_runDaylightSimulation and it won't overwrite the initial values but make sure that you run a number of test cases and compare the results between the runs.
Back to your definition, it looks good to me. You could have saved yourself some time by using MassToZone component and then just adding the ceiling separately but there's nothing wrong with your approach.
The main place in the definition that can change is how you're generating the vertical fins. I imagine you can use a single set of components to generate every group of the fins but again your definition will work.
I updated your file to the latest version, which means you also need to update Honeybee and Ladybug in case you're looking to modify the file.
Hope it helps,
Mostapha…
ace when I start running Galapagos/Octopus (below is "room orientation optimization" shared at http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=mostaphaRoudsari&fork=hydra_1&id=Room_Orientation_Optimization&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0) It may take quite some time to see some results. That's fine for the above simulation. But my real challenge is, when I am going to optimize room dimension with respect to ASE and sDA calculations, either Galapagos or Octopus goes wildly and never come up with a solution. I believe the time-consuming calculation, especially sDA with higher -ab numbers, trigger the lag a lot? Any suggestion/trick to improve it?
Most importantly, based on your experience, for example to optimize window/exterior shades sizes and achieve ASE<10% and sDA>55% (LEED v.4 requirements), Octopus (due to its capacity of multiple objectives) is the only choice? Any other approaches within grasshopper?
The alternative approach in my mind as a GH beginner is as follows. But I am not sure whether it is doable. Again, your comments will be greatly appreciated.
Since all my room/window/shades dimension are controlled by number sliders, I am thinking whether a component from GH will trigger these number sliders (not necessary to be all of them but one by one) automatically. If this is possible, I can do "data recorder" to record outputs from ASE and sDA. Eventually I will have a database of the input parameters and sDA/ASE results.
Does it make sense? Is there a component which can trigger number slider output at certain step?
Many thank!
Cheney …
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
rves/holes. However, the Kangaroo script itself is prone to locking up so it seems like it might take forever. You can even double click stop the timer from the Windows task bar, I hadn't noticed that before:
You have to use that or right click disable the timer since even with the Reset toggle button input set to True the timer itself locks up the script a bit when you are changing things around.
Just setting the min/max numbers both to a desired mesh size gives a uniform mesh:
Oh weird, it's about if the timer is right click set to so small an interval that it gets ahead of Kangaroo! When you see how long each cycle is taking with the Display > Canvas Widgets > Profiler you just set the timer for above that and the interface comes back into being responsive. It only takes a few Kangaroo cycles to do the inflation, so a full second timer interval is even workable.
A finer mesh:
It's funny running it so slow since it overinflates at first, bulging out, before it equilibrates.
You have control over inflation pressure and mesh stiffness, for a variety of effects.
This is a good system once I realized the timer needed to be mellowed out.
What made it work was the fast custom meshing since a normal mesh is awful and MeshMachine wouldn't work with sharp corner holes at all, breaking out of the boundary even if I fixed curves or vertices or did the equivalent with NURBS surfaces instead of a starting mesh.
There is an initiation time for Kangaroo that doesn't show up on its Profiler time that happens even with the timer off.
There are some fine areas that can't inflate with a reasonable mesh setting:
Worth playing with but no match for ArtCAM since it suffers odd delays in between working fast. If I could get better 2D meshes, that were more adaptive it would be better, but MeshMachine is one of the only re-meshers I know and it's broken for even mildly sharp hole features.
Ah, how about a crude mesh that is then subdivided, guaranteeing inner vertices everywhere? Sort of works, but is still too dense. Way too dense to even do anything. The subdivision triangulates the quads, vastly increasing the mesh wire density. Better just to make a finer initial mesh with plenty of quads.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 12:57am on February 21, 2016
(1) I have been exporting small sections of a larger model into Maya from Rhino as FBX. In Maya I rotate and scale the models (-90 in X, Scale XYZ 0.001). The Named Views are being saved, but do not have a successful import into the Maya model. They do not appear as in Rhino, and the problem is not solved by scaling or rotating the cameras.
(2) If I try going the other direction, the cameras exported from Maya as FBX are also not aligning with the model in Rhino as they are in Maya.. I will do my best to post some images of the problem and hope you can help.
error !!
This is what the named views look like
here I am trying to the other way with a good view from Maya
strange placement..
This is the best result I can achieve, after I scale the camera by 1000
Any Advice???
Thanks, Robert.
…
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
…
he time to work with it.
the project is about facade strips which turns along height. the top angle is
parallel to the facade and the bottom is max. 90 degrees twisted, but the strips
should turn diffrently to achieve more dinamic look.
first i have tried to achieve this by calculating distance between the rotation angle from points of the grid and a single point.
then i have tried to ad some more effecting points and used the distance to the divided surface (the circles are just to control the area of effection):
i manually lofted it.
the result is a bit annoying becouse the points that effect the angle are always visible:
i have triend to solve this by drawing a line and divided it to recieve points along the bottom of the geometry. the result is not working properly:
Anyway,
there must be a better/smoother way to achieve this. i would like to effect the twist of the surfaces by distance to a spline, but im just lost. can you help me please?
the problems im encountering:
0- distance spline to grid to effect the angle
1- list of x/y coordinates and angle of rotation for each point of the grid
2- export points to excel
3- lofting lines in one direction only (x1, x2, x3...)
4- reduce the list data to 2 decimal (0,00)
5- maybe angle from radian to degrees
thx…