till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
Grasshopper. So, I once made an attempt to bind ms sqlServer in order to get frozen definitions at some states, to avoid managing baked objects in Rhino and also be able to retain whole results without using the GH state manager that rebuilds everything.
But at that time GH's VB.Net component didn't properly read referenced dlls and I forgot it since then.
At first, I was surprised by Slingshot's extensive interface : I was still having in mind my own old project, a tool that would have acted at the Rhino's geometry object level, and auto creating the needed tables.
The bd would have consisted of a main table, owning the objects ID and name, and related tables containing the necessary information relative to the main objects.
For example, a Brep is made of so and so underlying objects, passed to respective tables, according to GH objects definition layout (just the way they are written in the xml schema).
Then, on a db, query an object by name, and retrieve the whole object or underlying objects (e.g. at the bounding curves level, or points level for a Brep).
With Slingshot, I made a few attempts to cheat GH with BLOB data fields, but no way to get a whole object. It seems that GH simply provides an object.toString ... and GH is definitely not conceived to produce persistence outside of Rhino. If I have some spare time, I will try to extract
About points and colors, I am now simply using a single field with CHAR(asLargeAsNeeded...), as GH parses String to every Point (or Vector or Color) entry of any component.
I do so because it need less to display on the canvas...
Whatever I wrote before, I really like your conception, as opened to relational interactions between ...whatever you need or dream of !
One last thing : GH can't open the definition file "Genome_DB_Template.gh" that I've downloaded from your site : http://slingshot-dev.wikidot.com/database-genome. I was expecting to learn a lot from your very smart stuff ! (I am running GH 08.00.13 and Slingshot 0.7.2.0)
Slingshot is running great, opened to any use...Thanks again.
Best,
Stan
…
ey provide all the means to what I try to achieve.
What I need is to get a fast (as possible) evaluation of passive heat/solar gain from a certain facade. I know my building can cool to a certain degree (lets say 80 W/m2 - now lets forget other internal gains) and I want to be sure my facade is not letting excessive amounts of heat into the room/building. Normally I would make a full blown simulation to count my overheating hours and thereby evaluate my facade. To speed up the process, the idea is just to evaluate overheating hours in a faster way. So what I am thinking is that excessive amounts may estimated by counting high intensity irradiation patches in a critical sky-component or whatever such thing would be called that surpasses my sensible cooling load. My hope is that any facade visible to the sky-patches would very similar to the number of overheating hours if properly calibrated to a simulated model. However I have no idea right now, if this can be done.
Why do this? Speed, convenience, whole building thermal analyses.
@Chris and @Abraham The critical sky-component is made with LBs radiance component radiation and filtering the beam-components with highest effects from a yearly epw-file.
@Chris Conductive heat gains are also important especially if the facade is badly insulated, so the next step is to filter the outdoor temperature parallel with that critical sky-component and then do a static heat transfer analysis and combine that with the effect from direct sun influence. Again, no idea if it works.
Hope it makes sense. I a little embarrassed I drew you into this little experiment. This was not at all the point of the discussion. But now we are into it I like to know what you think. If it works its kinda neat, at least i think it is.
/K…
starting as soon as possible.
We're offering challenging projects, insights and contact to leading industry companies, project responsibilities according to abilities and initiative, great work environment and laid-back atmosphere, room to play and evolve,...
Our ideal candidate:
- is passionate about construction, engineering and (computational) design
- is proficient in Rhino / Grasshopper / (GH-)Python
- knows his ways around the Adobe Suite and MS Office
- has a current work permit for Germany
- is a German speaker (other native speakers also welcome, with excellent English skills)
- has an architectural background (Student / BA / MA /...), ideally with work experience
- is interested / has experience in digital manufacturing and prototyping
- will be able to join us shortly
We're looking forward to your applications / inquiries / CVs to: mpelzer@fat-lab.de
View our past projects here: www.fat-lab.com
(Current projects, unfortunately, are non-disclosed)
…
onents (radiation, sunlight-hours and view analysis) which let you study the effect of the orientation of your building and the analysis result. When you come to a question similar to "what is the orientation that the building receives the most/least amount of radiation?" is probably the right time to use this component.
HOW?
I'll try to explain the steps using a simple example. Here is my design geometries. The building in the center is the building to be designed and the rest of the buildings are context. I want to see the effect of orientation on the amount of the radiation on the test building surfaces from the start of Oct. to the end of Feb. for Chicago.
First I need to set up the normal radiation analysis and run it for the building as it is right now. [I'm not going to explain how you can set up this since you can find it in the sample file (Download the sample file from here)]
Now I need to set up the parameters for orientation study using orientationStudyPar component. You can find it under the Extra tab:
At minimum I need to input the divisionAngle, and the totalAngle and set runTheStudy to True. In this case I put 45 for divisionAngle and 180 for the totalAngle which means I want the study to be run for angles 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180.
[Note1: The divisionAngle should be divisible by totalAngle.]
[Note 2: If you don't provide any point for the basePoint, the component will use the center of the geometry as the center of the rotation.]
[Note 3: You can also rotate the context with the geometry! Normally you don't have the chance to change the context to make your design work but if you got lucky the rotateContext input is for you! Set it to True. The default is set to False.]
You're all set for the orientation study, just connect the orientationStudyPar output to OrientationStudyP input in the component and wait for the result!
The component will run the study for all the orientations and preview the latest geometry. To see the result just grab a quick graph and connect it to totalRadiation. As you can see in the graph 135 is the orientation that I receive the maximum radiation. Dang!
If you want to see all the result geometries set bakeIt to True, and the result will be baked under LadyBug> RadaitionStudy>[projectname]> . The layer name starts with a number which is the totalRadiation.
Mostapha…
her people) a tremendous amount of time creating them by hand. Dog Treat was far from perfect, however it was good enough to use almost daily.
Three years is a long time. Since 2016 my Gh knowledge has expanded and I’ve seen how dodgy some of the scripting is. With this in mind I started work on a new build. Many things have been tweaked and some things have been rebuilt from the ground up.
Everything has been designed to be leaner and be a general solution to the problem of creating dog bone corners on geometry for quick, efficient and safe CNC fabrication.
Some of these things are:
Adding prompts about user geometry to make them aware about open curves, varying curve heights and if their geometry had been altered (mostly removing unnecessary points on curves).
Smooth Transfers. If you’re in a rush and need to speed through cutting, smooth transfers mean that a lead in geometry is now created alongside the actual dog bone arc. This means the router bit doesn’t have to come to a minute stop at every corner. This is turned on by default.
Acute Angle Condition If the angle between the two curves adjacent to a dog bone point is acute, previously the dog bone corner was useless. This was because the distance between the end points of the dog bone arc were less than the diameter of the router bit. There are many ways this condition could be addressed. I chose to circumscribe a larger arc based on the original angle between the adjacent curves. While it removes more material from the corner, it minimises tool wear and any potential for material to burn.
Single Curve A single curve can now be input into Dog Treat. It will be output with both internal and external treatments.
I’ll continue to update Dog Treat as the need arises, it’s become somewhat of a hobby now. Maybe one day it will become part of a Plug-in… once I learn to code it though!
Happy Treating!
Hi Everyone,
Here's a tool I've been working on for the past 4 months or so in my free time. It's a dog bone corner generator, however it's a little different to some of the existing ones. It's designed to be used for large amounts of geometry and as such, it avoids using any curve boolean operations that are computationally taxing. You don't have to split your curves up into internal and external lots either, it works it all out so you can be lazy. I've also incorporated Lunch Box's Object Bake Component for a one click operation that bakes geometry back out to Internal and External profile layers.
Let me know how it goes, will update where necessary.
Best,
Darcy
Change Log
06/11/19 - Version 2.0 SECOND DINNER - Rebuild
29/09/17 - Version 1.3 - Now with smooth corners option, True for smooth default/False for original
18/05/17 - Version 1.2 - Now includes variable angle domain input (defaults at 90°) for angled corners
13/11/16 - slight change to enable acceptance of very large interior curves
…
Added by Darcy Zelenko at 8:44pm on November 9, 2016
thought that architect's love for drawing comes from the necessity of translate abstract ideas into built 3D reality, and the technology behind that 2D representation has not evolve so much until some decades ago. Our teachers come from that times: times when computers try to find their place in the reality representation world. If you try to imagine that people that have always drawn with pencils adapting to this new tools...some become fan of new methods, other just keep the old fashion workflow (like Andrew said in the article, Schumacher VS Graves)
We've bear (at least Andrew and me :P) in 80's with first video games, computers (I still remember my old x286 with 1Mb RAM and 20Mb of HD and that MS-DOS interface)...New technology was natural for us...But there is a big difference between traditional drawing and new computer aided tools: the learning curve. To draw you only need to take a pen and put over a paper (that interface is understood by children easily) , but traditional computational tools (new touch interfaces are out of this group) are based in a complex logic and environment that is not easy to understand for some people.
In the workshops I'm teaching in, I try to put all that tools (new and old one) in my students hands and motivate them to mix and use them together (Andrew knows a little bit about that :P). Why not to make a lines sketch with GH and then print it and render with some markers?; the last step could be scan the result and enhance it in Photoshop adding textures, vegetation, some background...There are no rules, only a bunch of tools to explore and use to develop your ideas, evolve and finally represent them.
I bet to the touch interfaces (with some augmented reality sauce) like that one that will be able to blend both worlds, analog and digital, offering that fluidity and natural interaction that Grave miss in digital tools. And our generation attached to this "not natural" interfaces will need to change its mind and adapt to that new and amazing interface that our children will love.
Only to complete:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aXV-yaFmQNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>…
Added by Ángel Linares at 5:40pm on September 10, 2012
e volume. The yellow line above.
This volume, green on the above image
So with this there was an intersection with the Brep volume of the chair and the lattice.
After that I used cocoon. Here the parameters I used for the Brep and curve. So The Brep was offsetted.
The model is 80 unit height and cell size is 0.2 so roughly there are 400 divisions in Z. If cubic it will give 6.4 millions of cells. To my point of view it is important to choose well the cell size in order to have not hundred of million of cells. Here 6 millions was usable. The general thing with Cocoon is alwas to test it on small objects first.
A close view of mesh. Edge length is 0.1 unit. There are 6 millions of triangles.
…
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
…
lts.
In the visualization, points is an interesting option. It's a matter of aesthetics I guess, I go with surfaces :) Also what you can try is selecting Filters -> Slice (you can also find it in the icons above the pipeline viewer), in the Slice options below the pipeline press Z normal and on the Z coordinate press some height relevant to the buildings (e.g. 1.75m a typical human scale). That would show you the flow around the buildings on that height. Experiment with selecting other normals and values. Keep playing with the filters there's some cool things in there. Also you can check out the mailing list and extensive paraview documentation.
Concerning the errors I apologize because I just downloaded your case.
It appears that the decomposeParDict is not included in the system folder. I am not sure if this is due to BF not going through the whole workflow yet or an ommission on our side. Please feel free to add it in Github. I will also note it down and pass it to Mostaph to check. In the meantime please find attached a VERY detailed decomposeParDict file. I took the liberty to set it at 4 processors (the numberOfSubDomains value) and also selected (that is uncommented) the scotch decomposition method. It's the easiest method to use since it is automatic and doesn't require any more inputs on how the domain is decomposed on the x,y,z directions (which would require you to change values in the attached file).
Now, the different folders created are simply snapshots of the current solution at the specific timestep. To control how often the solver is saving change the writeInterval number in the controlDict file. You can also change almost all these values on the fly, while OF is running.
Finally, concerning the other errors of parafoam it seems somehow parafoam is reading the intial condition names instead of actual results from the solution files and it doesn't like it.
Does this happen only when you open the case (i.e. at 0 time) or does it also happen when you move to an other timestep?
Also, are you using paraFoam, paraview or the paraFoam -builtin method?
The extension of the paraFoam file seems to be .foam which means you are probably using the built in viewer. That might be the issue but I'm not sure.
Can you try running paraview, navigate to your case folder, open the .foam file and see if there is still an error?
Also, if it isn't much trouble can you zip one of the time folders and attach it here? I'd like to take a look at what's inside to check against what the error report says.
Once again thanks for testing!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…