returned to GSA, it is solving. You might have to reset result scales using the GSA button.
Cheers,
Jon
Checking Input Data - this may take some time.
________________________________________
Data checks commenced at 23/08/2017 4:59:18 PM.
Checking input data for static analysis by GSS.
Shortest element (element 9) is 5 m long.Longest element (element 1) is 6 m long.
Data checks completed at 23/08/2017 4:59:18 PM. No errors or warnings found.
Analysis commenced at 23/08/2017 4:59:18 PM.
Analysis by Gss Static analysis
Initialising results modulesSolving for displacementsSolution statisticsSparse Parallel Direct 12 active nodes 14 active elements 2 analysis cases 24 degrees of freedom Minimum degree ordering 90 terms in stiffness matrix Maximum stiffness is 4.804e+009 at node 4 in direction z Minimum stiffness is 3.132e+008 at node 2 in direction yy Condition number of the stiffness matrix is ~ 5328. Maximum relative error in displacements will be 2.4e-10 percent. Factorization in 109 msSolving for element forces and reactionsCalculation completeAnalysis completed with no errors
Analysis completed at 23/08/2017 4:59:18 PM.Analysis time: 0.172 seconds
…
ted a picture of in your post. The reason is that sound has larger wavelengths than light.
With a light rendering model, energy can be said to reflect specularly, relative to their geometry, because the wavelength of light is inifinitesimally small relative to any object you might have modelled. With sound, energy may travel and reflect diffusely, or move around objects, depending on the scale of those objects. Think of the fundamental equation of frequency to wavelength - speed of sound = frequency X wavelength. Using that, you can see that a wave in the 125 hz octave is about as tall as a human being (or maybe a little taller) and would easily move around your body, not being reflected at all. A wave in the 1000 Hz. octave band is as big as your forearm, and might reflect specularly from your torso. A wave in the 4000 hz. octave band is about as long as your index finger, and might reflect off of your torso, or even your head.
Similarly, if you were to model the seats explicitly, it might be relatively accurate at very high frequencies (say 4000 hz. and above) but that is a very small part of the answer. Consensus in the field is that the most accurate way to model the seats is with a flat plane, raised to about shoulder height, and then with scattering coefficients applied to represent the varying effects of geometry on sound. I tend to use low coefficents below 250 hz. (say around 30%) and high coefficents above 250 Hz.(90%).
Absorption depends on the seat which was chosen. This is often a good area to use for a model calibration based on measured reverberation time.
Arthur…
ces are distorted (second). What is going on?
Surfaces in the second are a rhino cage edit of the surfaces in the first image. They were originally all closed polysrfs exploded just to input into grasshopper.
In the definition attached, each surface is compared to an original (its the small box in the far left of the top image) The point there is the ability to select for more than just the 6 faces of a cube, but find the closest match to more complicated inputs. In the second image, distorted surfaces are being compared to a distorted original.
If I have my math right, two parallel unitized normal vectors should have a dot product of 1, and the further away from 1 their dot product the further away from parallel, no? Why does it fail when I leave the comfy land of 90 degrees?…
Added by Peter Stone at 2:39pm on January 28, 2015
e to constrains, I HAVE to do it like this (I can't 3D print everything or opposite).
First
I have no idea how to make the panels, without so many duplicate Edges, Faces etc.
Second
I can't figure out how to align the triangle panels to fit in the construction, so it can be assembled ideally without glue. This problem is both conceptual (I can't figure out how to do it fiscally) and grasshoper-wise - I don't know how to organize data list and produce a global movement, so that the triangle parts do not intersect with each other, BUT intersect the 3d printed construction part (where they fit fix in or just fit and can be glued).
Triangles will be milled out from 3mm Plexiglas, BUT I will not have an option to mill at an angle, so only 90° edges.
3D printed parts will be executed by a high level production powder printer, so it should hold good.
Any ideas?
best,
cuki
…
File) 2. I have designed a curved Trichordal-Truss from one curve in Rhino.
The Truss is lying in the XY direction and the footer is placed on the zero point.
3. And now my problem:
I want to put the Truss-object on the feet, move 90°
(from the XY axis to Z axis, see sketch 1).
4. Then copy / move the truss to all 36-points of ellipse (see sketch 1).
5. Align the 36 trusses with the center of the triangle .
pointing at the center of the ellipse (see sketch 2).
6. Using a slider to change the position of the 36-Trusses at der ellipse.
Variable distance between Truss and ellipse (see sketch 3).
Thanks for you Answer.
Best regards
Noureddine…
multiply of variants from Galapagos, to have a chance for better analysis and comparability after. I also would like to use more then one solution in my design after.
In old topics i found kind of 3 solutions.
1.Change Galapagos to octopus ( what don t really want to do, i am kind of happy with Galapagos)
2. Use Slingshot! and MySQL Database ( it s look a little bit too complicated from the first view)
3. Use Colibri and Design Explorer Platform (looks kind of pretty way to solve my problem)
So i tried to add Colibri components to my definition , but have some mistake in the Colibri Aggregator after adding the Genome "An item with the same key already been added". I think it comes because for some steps i am using the "Gen Pool" and not a normal slider. Is it a way to connect Gen Pool and Colibri (i really prefer to have it, then a lot of sliders in some cases)?
And the second question (if i will get it solved with gen pool), could i somehow controll the recording process? For example i would likte to record only variants wit fitness over 90% or start recording just after 20. generation and record till the end?
I also opend for all other possibilities to reach the same goal (record/save/bake multiply variants from galapagos)
…
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.
…
50 and reduced the 'cell size' slider to 0.5. When the 'Azimuth' angle is changed to 180 +- 90 (dawn or dusk), the points are widely dispersed, reducing the density and increasing the number of cells in the "sparse grid". Under these conditions, the number of cells was ~2000 and the Profiler time for 'Boundary' went up to a full minute or more each time 'Altitude' or 'Azimuth' was changed.
So I created this code to benchmark some alternatives and found two interesting things:
'Boundary' surface performance (v.1) is not linear. As the number of surfaces goes from 1000 to 2000, the time per surface goes up dramatically.
I tried three alternatives for creating a rectangular surface at a given point that are all substantially faster: v.2, v.3 and v.4. For 2000 points, v.4 is 150 times faster than v.1 !!!
Performance of v.2, v.3 and v.4 are similar and all scale up very well. To benchmark beyond 2000 points, I recommend disabling the VERY SLOW v.1. At 5000 points the 'Pop2D' component takes ~11.3 seconds but v.3 and v.4 take less than one second to generate 5000 surfaces!
See boundary_2015Nov19a.gh attached.
So I replaced the 'Rectangle' and 'Boundary' components in my sun reflection model with v.4 in focus_2015Nov19b.gh (also attached) and the performance is amazing.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this performance issue with 'Boundary' on the forum before but as with many things, I didn't realize what a major obstacle it can be until I discovered this for myself.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:16pm on November 19, 2015
grout lines, a tile surface and tile perimeter poly line). I then use that as a Mesh (from Rhino) in the second definition.
2. I can tile out the mesh surface and rotate all the tiles in 90 deg. increments.
To get what I wanted. I took the Mesh and have copied it in series to make a grid. I can then control the dimensions of the grid. X and Y extents. I can also rotate the tiles around their centers.
The spacing of the grid is set from an edge curve of the tile (or mesh). This sets the size of the squares in the grid themselves.
See definition, images and Rhino 4 File, to give the definitions a shot. I have labeled how to use them.
My question -- how can I randomly rotate squares in my grid? I would like the deg of rotation to be random and also which tiles they are.
Also how might I rotate (every other tile) for example? So that I can control the pattern more?
Thoughts?
Thanks!
…