o be less from a tool-centric perspective, and more often geared toward general platforms (like BIM, or "computational" design).
For papers, I would search Cumincad first, as it captures a great deal of history as well as more current research from the proceedings of the eCAADe and ACADIA family of conferences. There are thousands of articles there.
Robert Woodbury's "Elements of Parametric Design" is considered pretty foundational. Sean Ahlquist and Achim Menges also put together a good anthology a few years back called "Computational Design Thinking" that collects several texts that are in line with the ICD's interests in biomimesis and emergence. "Inside Smartgeometry" is a good combination of theory, historical reflection, and state-of-the-art and edited by Brady and Terri Peters.
But really there is so much out there! One of my favorite short papers is Tom Maver's "CAAD's Seven Deadly Sins" which was basically a keynote mic-drop at the 1995 CAAD Futures conference. I'll spoil the end for you:
"7 Failure to criticise: Above all we have failed to exercise our critical faculties in relation to almost all of the research and development carried out by ourselves and by our peers in recent years. There has been a cosy conspiracy in the community to condone, even encourage, selfindulgent speculation and solipsism - a thoroughly bad example to set for young people in the academic community.
Conclusion: Perhaps these criticism are unjustly hard. Hopefully CAAD Futures 95 will prove me wrong or at least provide the opportunity for discussion."
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 11:10am on August 25, 2015
tween them)
However its not possible (Well its very tricky) for me to go back to the original geometry and merge the perimeter and the core into one zone.
As a result I thought that adding internal glazing would do the trick. However apart from using the addGlazing component I couldn't see any other way of adding internal glazing to the core zone without exploding it and putting it back together. So I modified the Glazing based on Ratio component so that the internal walls of the core would automatically be 95% glazing.
After passing the core zone through the modified Glazing based on Ratio component and then passing all the HB zones through the Solve Adjacency component I ran the daylight simulation. However the result is not what you would expect it appears as though there are no internal windows. (See the picture).
So two questions.
1. Is there a better way to merge these zones for a daylight study without going back to the original geometry?
2. From the illuminance map it appears that no light is passing through the internal windows. Why is this the case? Should I create a material that is like air so that the light can effectively pass through and then use this material instead?
…
ple I have to drag it through a panel before I can use it as an input to my python script. The supports comes as a list of strings (see figure) and I want to extract some of that information (e.g. what nodes are fixed) and write that to my txt file.
I extract the info with these lines:
for row in Support: node = row[8:row.find(' DOF')] file.write(" %s,\n" % node)
print node
>> 95
If I however don't drag it via a panel i get the following output:
for row in Support: node = row[8:row.find(' DOF')] file.write(" %s,\n" % node)
print node
>> Supports.Suppor
It's like the script doesn't get that each row is a string.
I have the input set to "list access" and type hint to "str" and I've tried to simplifying and flatten the list.
Greatful for help…
st for the quality of the mesh.
Actually, convergence is much more than simply having low residuals. You can have a wrong solution with very low residuals. Usually, it is a combined process of both run time information on residuals and having an idea or expectation of what the simulation results should be. Another way of assessing convergence is if the residual values have been stable (within a very small limit, e.g. 1E-5) for more than a certain number of iterations (e.g. 1000). We are planning to provide run-time residual plots in Butterfly, hopefully soon. These plots can help keeping an eye on the solution.
You could try as a test if you want to switch to a blend of first and second order (by swapping upwind with linearUpwind in the fvSchemes)
.
Concerning mesh quality there are a number of ways, some of which are a bit advanced for this post and for BF's current capabilities. The best way to start is by refining the background mesh (i.e. the blockMesh). You can do that by assigning more cells to the x, y and z directions in the blockMesh component. However, make sure you increase the max global cells. I would suggest you monitor the output of the blockMesh in order to know the total number of cells there. Your max global cells has to be higher than that for SHM to even work. I'd suggest 2x to start with. Ofc all that requires a bit of trial and error depending on the case at hand.
Hope this helps!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
nnot calculate (too many digits).
Or you want just to fill that space with random configuration and find some good for you?
Here's my first thoughts:
Again, as some other cases, iterative process.
(Conway's game of life, a cellular_automata-like process (?)... Install anemone.)
I would create 3 grids:
1 - grid of 100 values, cell's center points
these values can have more integer values like 0=free 1=occuped
2 - grid of 81 values, grid vertex points (excludig perimeter)
these values are where the center of 2x2 cells could be. 0=possible location 1=not possible location
3 - "grid" of 180 values, grid segment center, where 1x2 center could be
again 0 and 1
Then it's needed a "topology" between those 3 grids:
At each iteration those values updates each other by basing on placed cells and adjacent values.
At each iteration a new cell (random from A or B) is placed in a random possible location.
This is just my madness, and maybe I'm already far away from a result.
For sure a fasterst, simpler, smarter solution exists.…
rsity building with 81 thermal zones. I wanted to use this model on my master thesis, but I am afraid I won't be able. So I would really appreciate some help.
The purpose was to set different insulation thicknesses and glazing types depending on the orientation. Therefore I created every zone by using "createHBsrfs" components. At the same time different zones would have different "building programs".
I created all the zones, I added windows as "child surfaces" for every zone. And I created the adjacencies. No errors or whatsoever.
But from this point I cannot connect the model to any other component without GH being frozen. So although the model is correct maybe it is to heavy for the software, however I am not sure if that is the reason.
Is it stupid what I have done? Is there any easier way to accomplish my purpose?
Any thought or help will be much appreciated.
I attach the GH file.
Thank you,
Eduard
Version: HB 0.0.59 / LB 0.0.62…
(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…