an that HashCodes well ... since they are "unique" per item (even if this - for the one reason or the other - is created at the same location with that) I barely can see how one can use them in order to get rid if "equal" items (Lines in this occasion).
On the other hand ... well ... using HashSets sampling the Line center and testing length and direction ... well ... this works but why bother? > if you are not doing business with code (thus you need this "check" internally) > use the Kangaroo1 component.
That said the topic of "equality" is rather huge and most people are confusing a lot of things on that matter: for instance a point not equal to another ... well ... that's rather simple but a brep "not equal" with some else ... this is not that easy (if it's solvable).…
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
onsidered period.
Even if the end of July for the mediterranean climate is not the best period to perform an adaptive comfort analysis (it's just a pretest to define a LB model) I want to refine the Adaptive comfort Chart (AC) by changing the external air temperature data imported from the .epw file with that of monitored data as reported here below:
Where the monitored ext air temperature are in this form (green panel below):
I have used the comfortPar component to set the following parameters:
Adaptive chart as defined by EN 15251
90% of occupants comfortable
the prevailing outdoor temperature from a weighted running mean of the last week
fully conditioned space (even if it is not properly in line with AC as already discussed)
The question is this: the AC component could correctly apply the code below if there is only a list of external temperature data for a restricted period (without indication about the limits of this period) and not for an entire year?
else: #Calculate a running mean temperature. alpha = 0.8 divisor = 1 + alpha + math.pow(alpha,2) + math.pow(alpha,3) + math.pow(alpha,4) + math.pow(alpha,5) dividend = (sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-24:-1] + [_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-1]])/24) + (alpha*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-48:-24])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,2)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-72:-48])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,3)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-96:-72])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,4)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-120:-96])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,5)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-144:-120])/24)) startingTemp = dividend/divisor if startingTemp < 10: coldTimes.append(0) outdoorTemp = _prevailingOutdoorTemp[7:] startingMean = sum(outdoorTemp[:24])/24 dailyRunMeans = [startingTemp] dailyMeans = [startingMean] prevailTemp.extend(duplicateData([startingTemp], 24)) startHour = 24
…
t BBox will then be mapped relative to the UVW space of that box to the new target boxes.
Where your definition is slipping up is the data matching aspect of GH. You have two lists (that count). One list contains 100 items of target boxes and the other contains 2 items of geometry. GH defaults to the Longest List data matching
List A --> List B
Target Box A0 --> Cuboid
Target Box A1 --> Cylinder
Target Box A2 --> (Oops List B has run out of items. Now GH will repeat the last item = Cylinder)
Target Box A3 --> Cylinder
.....
Target Box J9 --> Cylinder
Solution
There are two approaches to rectify this the most logical would be to group the geometries into one object (What you had in mind with the bounding box) to do this use the Group Component on the Transform Tab > Utility Panel.
The other approach is far more common in GH mentality. Use the Graft, right click the G input of Morph and select Graft from the Context Menu. This places all of the items in the List on to separate branches. Creating a list of lists (although these new list only have one item). When GH now tries to data match them it will apply the whole of the first geometry list (Only the Cuboid) to all of the target boxes and all of the second list (Cylinder) to the target boxes again.
I hope this helps…
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
…