/stackoverflow.com/questions/7735036/naudio-frequency-band-in...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17222492/how-to-change-frequency...;
I am no expert in this field; I would have to do research just like you. Maybe someone else on this forum has already done more work in this area, let's see. Or it might be you, the first one :)
This does not look like something completely at reach for someone with not much programming experience, but maybe with some guidance it could be doable.
--
>>Do you know other libraries that I can use with it?Sorry I would have to search for other libraries just like you.
EDIT: This link has a simple sine wave written from scratch. It might be a good start to mix with the code above and a playground to understand theory.
Giulio--Giulio Piacentinofor Robert McNeel & Associatesgiulio@mcneel.com…
ntage...
This is a standard mesh to nurbs conversion result: http://www.tsplines.com/j/subdtonurbs/MeshToNurbsBoatShell.png
You want to start with a proper mesh reparametrization:
http://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~gu/software/RiemannMapper/figures/ti...
Once you have your mesh reparametrized it's relatively easy to divide it into surfaces. That is the easiest approach but it doesn't take into account any features(creases etc)...
This illustrates a nice mesh parametrization with features.
https://www.graphics.rwth-aachen.de/media/paper_images/qgp_340.png
EDIT:
Got a brief look at the Geomagic thingy... seems like it's a subd modeler (like tsplines). Creating nurbs out of subd meshes is easy cause you can basically trace back the subdivision. With Giulios help I was able to make a rough version of that process here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/skeletal-mesh?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A558193 ;
(the point is that subd meshes to nurbs are not as much challenging as mesh to nurbs).…
(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
…
TB of RAM. I think I'm going to start a GoFundMe campaign to buy one for myself :)
2- The server's cost is about $13 an hour. I get free access to supercomputer through my university and xsede.org because I earned an NSF Honorable mention last March, however, the supercomputers available through both resources are a little complicated for me to use, as opposed to the one available from amazon that has Microsoft server 2012 already installed.
3- I wanted to run 400 annual glare simulations for 400 different views.
4- I tried a to perform annual glare simulation for one view on my Dell XPS that has Intel Core i7-6700HQ processor and 16GB of system memory. The simulation took 2 hours to complete. Radiance parameter ab was set to 6.
5- I wanted to obtain the batch file for each view so I can run them on the server. So I used the fly component to run all 400 simulations and closed the cmd windows, that wasn't bad ( for me at least) because I asked my son to this job for me, he was just glad to help me :)
6- I created one batch file using this cmd command:
dir /s /b *.bat > runall.bat
This created a file with the path to each .bat file. I edited this file in Notepad++ to include the word "start" at the beginning of each line. This was done using the "find and replace" dialogue box.
7- I split my newly created batch file into 3 batch files, each one has about 130 file names and " start" before the file names.
8- installed radiance on my server
9- Ran the first batch file on the server, this started 130 cmd windows performing my simulations, CPU usage was anywhere between 90% to 100% and about 105 GB of RAMs were used.
10. It took about 5 hours to complete all 130 simulations, I expected to run all in 2 hours but can't complain because this would've taken about 260 hours to run on my laptop. After the simulations done I ran the second and then the third batch files ( total of about 15 hours).
11. I got 400 valid dgb files. Couldn't be happier!
…
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…
wing exception will be thrown:
Message: Cannot import name minimum_edge_cut
Traceback:line 60, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\algorithms\__init__.py"line 21, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\generators\classic.py"line 5, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\generators\__init__.py"line 84, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\__init__.py"
I would inform you that I have also copied the Networkx library into "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\" and have specified this directory in "Python Options->Files->Module Search Paths" so that Rhino/Grasshopper knows where to access this library.
Could you please help me how can I sort this out?
Any comment is highly appreciated.
Shayan…
answer further on Friday.
The "ghdoc" variable and rhinoscriptsyntaxThe ghdoc variable is provided by the component if you select it as "target".You might ask yourself: "why do we need it"?Its use comes from the very design of the established RhinoScript library. This library is imperative, which means it is build from a set of procedures or functions that act on various geometrical types. Additionally, there is one level of indirection: most of the time, the user does not work with the geometry itself in the variable, but rather with Guid of geometry that is present in a document. This is exactly what ghdoc is: it is the document that the RhinoScript library always implicitly targets with all AddSomething() calls (for example, AddLine()).
Based on this comment...RhinoScript use within GhPython may be less idealThat comment is from a previous version of this component that did not have the ghdoc yet.With the ghdoc variable, the standard Rhino document target of RhinoScript is replaced, therefore we can use Grasshopper while leaving the Rhino document unchanged. This saves uncountable Undo's, and makes it easy to structure ideas through the definition graph
...is the rhinoscriptsyntax target irrelevant if using solely RhinoCommon classesYes. If you create class instances (objects), you will need to create also your own collection objects to store them (mostly lists, trees). You can imagine the ghdoc as being an alternative to them, just that you do not access data by index (number), but by Guid. So you can use the RhinoScript or the RhinoCommon libraries independently or mix them. The RhinoScript implementation in Rhino is open-source and is all written in RhinoCommon. Also the ghdoc implementation is open-source, and is here.
RhinoScript and/or RhinoCommon objects which are not recognized as valid Grasshopper geometryYes, sure, Grasshopper handles only a portion of all available types. Basically, unhandled types are all the types that do not exists in the 'Params' tab. For example, there is no textdot and no leader, so on line 149 there is a throw statement and all TextDot calls (about line 350) are commented out. When/if Grasshopper one day will support these types, these calls will be implemented.
DataTreeHere is a small sample. However, I think that 80% of the times it is not necessary to program for DataTrees, as the logic itself can be applied per-list and Grasshopper handles list-iteration.
I hope this helps,
- Giulio_______________giulio@mcneel.comMcNeel Europe…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013