mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
ou will see all of the available components on a ribbon at once so there is no need to keep clicking drop down menus.
It's all about discoverability with GH. What if you're a beginner and don't know about the Create Facility (dbl click canvas) how can you find Extr?
Even if you hover over every component or use the drop down lists you will not see the name Extr appear anywhere.
Sure it makes sense that Extr is short for Extrude but it's also the Nick Name of Extrude to Point component
So you can easily miss the fact that one has a Distance Input verses a Point Input.
I think I made the move to Icons around about the move from version 0.5 to 0.6, possibly before. I initially thought that I would go back to text because I loved the mono chromatic look of the text but I soon realised that Icons were the way forward. The greatest benefit is speed. You don't need to digest and decipher every component (which is written 90 degrees to the norm).
I'm not saying you should move to Icons forthwith but at least consider that once you have a better knowledge and understanding of GH, Icons will set you free.
My top ten tips that I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to better themselves with GH.
1) Turn on Draw Icons
2) Turn on Draw Fancy Wires
3) Turn on Obscure Components
4) Use the Create Facility like a Command Line eg "Slider=-1<0.75<2" or "Shiftlist=-1"
5) Use Component Aliases to customise your use of the Create Facility eg giving the Point XYZ component an alias of XYZ will bring it up as the first option on the Create Facility as opposed to the other possibilities.
6) Try to answer other people's questions even if it's not relevant to your own area. By looking into solving a problem outside of your comfort zone and then posting your results it is very rewarding but it also lets you see the other approaches that get posted in a new light.
7) Take the time to understand Data/Path structures.
8) Buy a second monitor - There is nothing that can compare to real estate when working in Grasshopper.
9) Read Rajaa Issa's Essential Mathematics
10) Pick a panel in a tab on the ribbon and get to know every component inside and out and then move on. Start with the Sets Tab > List Panel…
izes like 0.6m, 0.8m, 0.9m and 1.2m are the most "common": In cases where mechanical floors are a must (hospitals for instance) a 2.4/2.4 is quite handy (habitable/mechanical per floor). You can try 1.8/2.7 as well (floor/habitable) since 1.8 floor thickness can host HVAC and some decent W truss size. Also 1.6/2.4 (floor/habitable) is used in small buildings. NOTE: see next.
3. Don't forget to include corrugated metal height + concrete screed height + raised floors height: for the latter, say, something like 0.3m (modules + adjustable mounts + free space for electric stuff [boxes etc]).
4. As regards exteriors, Laurent Buzon is a close friend of mine. Contact him directly on my behalf:
http://www.buzonuk.com/
http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sourc...
5. LBS Structural ability and "monolithic" floor behavior (humans don't like vibrating habitable spaces) ARE not the same animal.…
ybee_EnergyPlus Window Shade Generator" component.
3. SolveAdj component has the input to set BC for interior surfaces.
If you want to set them to adiabatic then you can use setToAdiabatic components.
4. For natural ventilation Chris has provided extensive answers including this one.
If the component doesn't work then you need to download the files manually from github and replace the userObjects with the old ones. You have to do it separately for Ladybug and Honeybee which can be painful. Is there anyway to change the firewall settings?
…
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.…
Integer = 0 To 9
val *= 2
lst.Add(val)
Next
Since val is a ValueType, when we assign it to the list we actually put a copy of val into the list. Thus, the list contains the following memory layout:
[0] = 2
[1] = 4
[2] = 8
[3] = 16
[4] = 32
[5] = 64
[6] = 128
[7] = 256
[8] = 512
[9] = 1024
Now let's assume we do the same, but with OnLines:
Dim ln As New OnLine(A, B)
Dim lst As New List(Of OnLine)
For i As Integer = 0 To 9
ln.Transform(xform)
lst.Add(ln)
Next
When we declare ln on line 1, it is assigned an address in memory, say "24 Bell Ave." Then we modify that one line over and over, and keep on adding the same address to lst. Thus, the memory layout of lst is now:
[0] = "24 Bell Ave."
[1] = "24 Bell Ave."
[2] = "24 Bell Ave."
[3] = "24 Bell Ave."
[4] = "24 Bell Ave."
[5] = "24 Bell Ave."
[6] = "24 Bell Ave."
[7] = "24 Bell Ave."
[8] = "24 Bell Ave."
[9] = "24 Bell Ave."
To do this properly, we need to create a unique line for every element in lst:
Dim lst As New List(Of OnLine)
For i As Integer = 0 To 9
Dim ln As New OnLine(A, B)
ln.Transform(xform)
lst.Add(ln)
Next
Now, ln is constructed not just once, but whenever the loop runs. And every time it is constructed, a new piece of memory is reserved for it and a new address is created. So now the list memory layout is:
[0] = "24 Bell Ave."
[1] = "12 Pike St."
[2] = "377 The Pines"
[3] = "3670 Woodland Park Ave."
[4] = "99 Zoo Ln."
[5] = "13a District Rd."
[6] = "2 Penny Lane"
[7] = "10 Broadway"
[8] = "225 Franklin Ave."
[9] = "420 Paper St."
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 6:26am on September 9, 2010
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
…
Refinement component at first, possibly using MeshMachine instead which is slow but actually gives many fewer triangles and adaptive meshing for tight curves too. Neither are easy to adjust on a deadline!
Then you have to sneak up on workable settings, using only a few lines, or Grasshopper will freeze perhaps indefinitely for 200 lines with extreme settings, especially the CS (Cube Size) setting that can blow up into a huge number if your scale is big.
Cocoon gives lots of nearly flat split quad faces so I quadrangulated those for fun:
Or MeshMachine can refine the mesh to make it efficient:
Whereas the Cocoon Refine component will merely return an equally fine mesh with more equilateral triangles but no serious remeshing to rid so many tiny triangles where they are not needed? Actually, it does seem to remesh also:
David said he used some of Daniel's MeshMachine code in there.…
rld.wolfram.com/EnnepersMinimalSurface.html
when i type the equations for z,y,z it says a syntax error so i obviously do not understand how to construct an expression. (screen capture attached)
Any help/explanation of using this function would be greatly appreciated
thanks so much
Capture.JPG…