d object1. Traceback: line 96, in join, "c:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ntpath.py" line 102, in openStudioPath, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\config.py" line 247, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\config.py" line 2, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\command\_commandbase.py" line 2, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\command\gendaymtx.py" line 3, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\command\__init__.py" line 7, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\__init__.py" line 3, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\_hbanalysissurface.py" line 1, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\hbsurface.py" line 1, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee_grasshopper\hbsurface.py" line 44, in script line 53, in __init__, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\config.py"
It seems a problem with python.. Thanks in advance for any help.…
" (idiomatic) and easy way of doing things.So here come some basic questions:
Is there a way to create custom components by grouping an existing sub-network together? I'm looking for a way to re-use parts of a program (something similar to subroutines), and to make the network look less cluttered. I found that it is possible to group components (ctrl-g), but this still displays them as separate blocks (too much clutter), and provides no way to re-use a sub-network in such a way that if it is modified in one place, all it's instances (all the places where it is re-used) also get modified.
Is there a component that does nothing, just passes a signal through? Suppose I need to connect block A to blocks B1, B2, B3 (all three get the same input). Then I change my mind, and I decide to connect block C to these three, not A. In this case it will be necessary to change three connections, not just one. I'm looking for an easy way to do this by a single rewiring, not three. (This came up in a practical situation).
Finally, a related question: is there a component that acts as a switch, so I can choose which signal it passes through out of a possible set of choices? For example, suppose that a set of objects can be coloured based on a number of different properties (size, positions, rotation, etc.) I'm looking for a way to switch between these very easily, without the need to do much rewiring.
Thank you in advance for any replies / useful comments, even general ones on how to easily structure a large Grasshopper program/network.…
(twice the amount of lines, it'll take twice as long).
If you nest two loops you're iterating over each line, and then you iterate again over each line. So when you now have twice as many lines, it takes four times as long O(N*N) or O(N²)
With an octree you can reduce the second iteration from O(N) to O(log N). The reason octrees are fast is because they allow you to quickly reject large amounts of lines in your set. Lines are no longer stored in a list, but rather in recursive spatial buckets. If we determine that a certain bucket is too far away to possibly yield any valid results, we can instantly skip all the lines in that buckets and any sub-buckets. If you're lucky, you can reject ~85% of the local data in every iteration, which means even large collections of lines are reduced to only a few potential candidates very quickly.
Thinking about this I'm actually not sure now whether lookup in my Tree3d class is O(log N) or O(sqrt N), but the basic principle holds. The reason the resulting algorithm is O(N * log N) is because the outer loop is still O(N) but the inner loop is now replaced with an O(log N) searcher, so you end up with O(N) * O(log N) = O(N log N)
At least that's how I think it works, computational theory has never been my strong suit.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 4:55pm on November 29, 2012
ions are probably reflective of the prevailing humidity conditions (I just had a chat about this with my advisor, who incidentally also happens to be on the committee for LM-83).
The Tregenza sky patches considered in daylighting calculations don't do a good job of incorporating the correct size of the sun into calculations. In the figure below, the sun on the right is the one considered for calculations in Daysim. You can get a more accurate answer by considering a more discretized sky, however, I am not aware if that is possible with Daysim (and therefore HB) right now. Therefore, your direct sun calculations are likely to be off somewhat depending on how much of it there is(I'd say overestimated).
The calculations with humid sky, which are on account of the sky itself (and not the sun alone) are likely to be more relevant.
Regarding your questions about studying weathering effects with LB/HB, I have no idea as that is something that I haven't looked into before. I am sure someone else on this list has a more informed opinion on this issue than I do.
Your project, and your approach to it, seems really interesting and I am glad to be having this discussion :).
Sarith
…
see in my bottom post image there is only one isocurve showing in U and V.
In Grasshopper there's no surface rebuild? Well, the same old Grasshopper Patch command will let you specify spans I guess, to make a surface from a planar curve, but it won't work for things with holes since they will just fill in!
You can recreate a surface painfully by untrimming, adding many UV points, rebuilding from those points, then retrimming with the original surface info, but the retrimming simply fails.
If you make a planar surface from a curve in Rhino, you end up with utterly no point editability:
No wonder my CreatePatch tests were a failure. The starting surface could not be distorted except in the extreme case of moving four corner points!
I have no idea how to successfully rebuild a surface akin to the Rhino rebuild command. It's great to be able to prototype in Grasshopper, but with Python I can rebuild easily ( http://4.rhino3d.com/5/rhinocommon/?topic=html/M_Rhino_Geometry_Surface_Rebuild.htm ;), so I guess I should start a collection, like peter, of little script components for prototyping with.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:18am on February 26, 2016
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…
points within the bounds of the site boundary and use each location as an attractor point controlling a variable at each point in the grid (radius of a circle/height of a cube/colour based on a gradient etc.).This would be based on proximity to the attractor points with the effect of each attractor point essentially scaled by the percentage associated with it. For example a location with 88% visitor rates would have a more dramatic effect than a location with 26% visitor rates.
I've had a bit of a play around but can't seem to get beyond the point of what is shown in basic point attractor tutorials online. I'm definitely a novice.
Here's how I figured it would be done:
1) Create a grid of source points within a boundary curve.
2) Select 18 pre-defined attractor points.
2) Measure the distance between the source points and the attractor points.
3) Invert this data so that variables increase with proximity rather than decrease.
4) Give each of the attractor points a strength value from 1-100% based on the visitor rates.
5) Use the scaled data to control a variable at each of the source points.
6) Create some way to control the drop-off rate of the effect from each point.
It is at step 3 that I get completely lost.
I hope my description is clear. Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Adam
…
ers and researchers, programmers and artists, professionals and academics who come together for 4 days of intense collaboration, development, and design.
The sg2012 Workshop will be organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise. They comprise of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities.
Applicants to the sg2012 Workshop will select their preferred cluster from the following:
Beyond Mechanics
Micro Synergetics
Composite Territories
Ceramics 2.0
Material Conflicts
Transgranular Perspiration
Reactive Acoustic Environments
Form Follows Flow
Bioresponsive Building Envelopes
Gridshell Digital Tectonics
More information about the Workshop and Clusters can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=131
The application process will close on January 15th, 2012.
Full Fee $1500
Reduced Fee $750
Scholarship Fee $350
Fees include attendance to both the workshop and conference from March 19th-24th.
Reduced Fee and Scholarships are available only for Academics, Students and Young Practitioners, and are awarded during a competitive peer review process.
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information. Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities. sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/smartgeometry…
Added by Shane Burger at 12:29pm on December 13, 2011