it seems that was this. Now all is working fine !
Glad that it worked! But I am still a bit worried. Gismo components only modify the gdal-data/osmconf.ini file and no other MapWinGIS file. So your MapWinGIS installation files should not be compromised. The fact that you did not get the "COM CLSID" error message when running the "Gismo Gismo" component suggests that MapWinGIS has been properly installed. So I wonder if the cause for the permanent "invalid shapes" warning has again something with the fact that your system is again not allowing the MapWinGIS to properly edit the osmconf.ini. Maybe this problem will appear again, and again, and reinstallation of MapWinGIS every time can be somewhat bothersome.
- About the terrain generation, is it possible to have the texture from google or other provider mapped onto the terrain surface from gismo component ? (Same as using the ladybug terrain generator in fact). I try to used the image extracted by ladybug component and then applied it to the gismo terrain but the texture is rotated by 90°.
The issue with the rotation can be solved by swapping/reversing the U,V directions of the terrain surface. A slightly more important issue is that terrain surface generated with Gismo "Terrain Generator" component might have a bit smaller radius than what the radius_ input required. This stems from the fact that the terrain data first needs to be downloaded in geographic coordinate system, and then projected. Some projecting issues may occur at the very edges of the projected terrain, so I had to slightly cut out the very edges of the terrain which results in the actual terrain diameters being slightly shorted in both directions. This means that if you apply the same satellite image from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component to Gismo "Terrain Generator" component the results may not be the same.I attached below a python component which tries to solve this issue by extending the edges of Gismo "Terrain Generator" terrain, and then cutting them with the cuboid of the exact dimensions as the radius_ input. Have in mind that this extension of the original terrain at its edges is not a correct representation of the actual terrain in that location. But rather just an extension of the isoparameteric curve of the terrain surface. So basically: some 0 to 10% (0 to 10 percent of the width and length) of the terrain around all four edges is not the actual terrain for that location, but rather just its extension.The python component is located at the very right of the definition attached below.
Also, if you would like to use the satellite images from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component along with "OSM shapes", sometimes you may find slight differences in position of the shapes. This is due to openstreetmap data not being based on Google Maps (that's what Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component is using), but rather on Bing, MapQuest and a few others.
- About the requiredKeys_ input of OSM shapes, I understand what you mean and your advice, but in most cases I use it, the component was working fine even without input. I think it's better to extract all tags, values and keys of the selected area, instead of searching for specific ones as I try to find all data related to what I want after, isn't it ? To check what keys are present on the area also.
Ineed, you are correct.I though you were trying to only create a terrain, 3d buildings and maybe find some school or similar 3d building, for these two locations. The recommendation I mentioned previously is due to shapefiles having a limit (2044) to how many keys it can contain. This requires further testing of some big cities locations with maybe larger radii, which I haven't performed due to my poor PC configuration. But in theory, I imagine that it may happen that a downloaded .osm file may have more than 2044 keys. In that case shapefile will only record 2044 of them, and disregard the others. That was my point.But again 2044 is a lot of keys, and I haven't been checking much this in practice. For example, when I set the radius_ to 1000 meters, and use your "3 Rue de Bretonvilliers Paris" location I get around 350 something keys, which is way below the 2044.Another reason why one should use the requiredKeys_ input is to make the Gismo OSM components run quicker: for example, the upper mentioned 350 something keys will result in 350 values for each branch of the "OSM shapes" component's "values" output.Which means if you have 10 000 shapes, the "OSM shapes" component will have 10 000 branches with 350 items on each branch (values). This can make all Gismo OSM components very heavy, and significantly elongate the calculation process.With requiredKeys_ input you may end up with only a couple of tens of items per each branch.Sorry for the long reply.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 8:57am on June 11, 2017
elivering their latest workstation and graphics technology.
Intensive computing and exceptional graphics technology will deliver generative modeling and computing to its next level.
Participants will learn the ease of use of Grasshopper within Rhinoceros, so they could start creating their own generative design.
Who should attend:
1. Professionals in design and engineering industry who would like to gain more knowledge and productivity
2. Students who would like to extend their knowledge to the next level
3. Supporting IT who would like to provide even more efficient tools for engineers and designers
4. Engineering and Design Enthusiasts
Participants should send an email to fani@m3kom.co.id, to receive an invitation and its detail.
For further technical information about the event, feel free to ask Rendy (tihe.tihe@gmail.com).
This event will consist of the sneak preview of most anticipated real-time rendering for Rhinoceros: V-Ray RT for Rhino.
Hopefully, this will also initiate the establishment of Indonesia's generative modeling designers community in Indonesia.…
this workshop is to materialize a chair designed with help of generative algorithms via robotic fabrication. To design the form of the chair we will go through an intensive course of generative design techniques, k-means clustering, structural analysis and optimization done with the help of Anemone, Galapagos, Millipede and other plugins. Finally we will employ a 6-axis robot with custom tooling to fabricate the chair via robotic rod bending. No prior experience with Grasshopper or robotic fabrication is required, although basic knowledge in 3d modelling would be an asset. // APPLICATION The deadline for application is 13.03.2017 Apply by sending email titled ‘workshop_chair’ to workshops@aan1.net // INFO If you have any more questions check the www.aan1.net website or contact us with email workshops@aan1.net // FEE We have special pricing for students, as well as an early bird offer. Check the Eventbrite list to get more details. Please bear in mind that a limited amount of seats is available (minimum 8 people, maximum 16). ORGANIZERS: Maria Smigielska, Mateusz Zwierzycki, AAn+1 TUTORS: Maria Smigielska, Mateusz Zwierzycki PRICES: Early Bird Student 280 E Early Bird Pro 320 E Regular Student 300 E Regular Pro 350 E…
p 10 "Scripting Reality – Integrating 3D Point Clouds in parametric design workflows".
This research-based workshop will introduce participants to thegeometrical class of point clouds and ways to handle, manipulate, analyse and script with them. Participants will as well have the chance to get first-hand knowledge in the handling of 3d capturing devices and to link their outputs directly into a design environment.
The workshop poses especially the question of how changes on architectural scale can be tracked over time. Related algorithmic concepts and the Volvox plugin, allow for the first time to directly access and manipulate point clouds in a parametric design environment, will be introduced to the workshop participants. A 1:1 experiment on the ETH campus will provide a testbed. Participants will learn point cloud processing and learn to track objects solely on the base of point cloud analysis, find deviations against the planned and visualise the results.
The workshop is led by Mateusz Zwierzycki, Martin Tamke and Henrik Leander Evers. FARO provides several 3d scanners with helical adapters and acccess to the FARO SDK for the workshop. The workshop is modestly priced with 160CHF.
register now.
http://www.aag2016.ch/workshop-10/
…
d object1. Traceback: line 96, in join, "c:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ntpath.py" line 102, in openStudioPath, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\config.py" line 247, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\config.py" line 2, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\command\_commandbase.py" line 2, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\command\gendaymtx.py" line 3, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\command\__init__.py" line 7, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\radiance\__init__.py" line 3, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\_hbanalysissurface.py" line 1, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\hbsurface.py" line 1, in <module>, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee_grasshopper\hbsurface.py" line 44, in script line 53, in __init__, "C:\Users\Jurrijn\AppData\Roaming\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\scripts\honeybee\config.py"
It seems a problem with python.. Thanks in advance for any help.…
ions are probably reflective of the prevailing humidity conditions (I just had a chat about this with my advisor, who incidentally also happens to be on the committee for LM-83).
The Tregenza sky patches considered in daylighting calculations don't do a good job of incorporating the correct size of the sun into calculations. In the figure below, the sun on the right is the one considered for calculations in Daysim. You can get a more accurate answer by considering a more discretized sky, however, I am not aware if that is possible with Daysim (and therefore HB) right now. Therefore, your direct sun calculations are likely to be off somewhat depending on how much of it there is(I'd say overestimated).
The calculations with humid sky, which are on account of the sky itself (and not the sun alone) are likely to be more relevant.
Regarding your questions about studying weathering effects with LB/HB, I have no idea as that is something that I haven't looked into before. I am sure someone else on this list has a more informed opinion on this issue than I do.
Your project, and your approach to it, seems really interesting and I am glad to be having this discussion :).
Sarith
…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…