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…
n make it possible to Motivation generate
a variety of interesting objects, from abstract fractals to plant-like
branching structures, their modeling power is quite limited. A major
problem can be traced to the reduction of all lines to integer multiples
of the unit segment. As a result, even such a simple figure as an
isosceles right-angled triangle cannot be traced exactly, since the ratio
of its hypotenuse length to the length of a side is expressed by the irrational
number √2. Rational approximation of line length provides only
a limited solution, because the unit step must be the smallest common
1
1
√2
denominator of all line lengths in the modeled structure. Consequently,
the representation of a simple plant module, such as an internode, may
require a large number of symbols. The same argument applies to angles.
Problems become even more pronounced while simulating changes
to the modeled structure over time, since some growth functions cannot
be expressed conveniently using L-systems. Generally, it is difficult
1.10. Parametric L-systems 41
to capture continuous phenomena, since the obvious technique of discretizing
continuous values may require a large number of quantization
levels, yielding L-systems with hundreds of symbols and productions.
Consequently, model specification becomes difficult, and the mathematical
beauty of L-systems is lost.
In order to solve similar problems, Lindenmayer proposed that numerical
parameters be associated with L-system symbols [83]. He illustrated
this idea by referring to the continuous development of branching
structures and diffusion of chemical compounds in a nonbranching filament
of Anabaena catenula.
The following is an example of its application:
starting string: A
p1: A F(1)[+A][-A]
P2: F(s) F(s*R)
which I think is basically trying to say
F(s) = move forwar a step of length s > 0.
Thanks again,
Mateo…
finite element line with
start point
end point
id
cross-section (optional)
local coordinate system (optional)
some property (optional)
some other property (optional)
additional settings (optional)
etc
Now in 99% of the cases, users will only specify the first 4 parameters and leave the others blank. I'm not a huge fan of to many inputs so to clean up the canvas/components, I thought about exposing the optional parameters only upon zooming in on the component.
So far I've sometimes added a secondary component with more inputs to specify a list of additional settings (similar to the "settings" panel that exists/existed in Kangaroo), but this I find rather messy.
Alternatively I guess I could quite happily live with exposing the additional parameters at the click of a button. This I can do with the ZUI as it is written? I still need to get my head round what's what in this happy world of the canvas' third dimension...
…
e the meaning or posting "ready" (kinda) solutions in response to something asked in the code related forum? (that could be rather ridiculous: Greetings code freaks: a user - that you've never heard of - asked this and I did that ... utterly ridiculous).
Now .. if a request comes from a novice either a component based solution or a freaky one ... well ... they have a very limited usage (if any usage at all) on a per se basis: because only time combined with a certain experience could yield the required ability to deal with issues before happening.
On the other hand ...to tell you the truth I believe that's far easier for a novice to get some "basic" programming skills and deal with his/her issues (who are in 99% of cases data management related ones) than to attack them via components.
On the other hand I believe that in the future (not the distant one) ... anyone involved in this ugly business AND not speaking some freaky language he could be rated as class D citizen (brave new world: here we are).
But that's a highly personal opinion (extreme to the max, as usual, he he).
PS: I don't think that the majority of posts here come from novices (yesterday a fellow user asked a very challenging thing: the one with the max rectangle).
take care …
u are posting in the wrong place.
99% of the posted questions in the general discussion forum are from novice grasshopper users who have lack of very basic knowledge.
In my opinion, the best response to these posts is providing the simplest (easiest to understand) solution to the problem, plus an explanation of why the definition wasn't working, plus some suggested fields of study.
On the other hand, you provide a very fancy solution, which gets the job done (and usually a bunch of other jobs as well), but there is 0% chance it will be comprehended or further developed by the OP...
This is the typical giving_fish_VS_teaching_how_to_fish debate.
As for the "please ignore me if you enjoy being primitive" argument, I am afraid it is not as simple as that. A post with 3-4 replies (which, in this case, would be 3 subsequent versions of your solution, plus an awkward "ehm, tyvm" from the OP) has a great chance of going unnoticed by anyone who could provide a gh solution...
And finally I have to point out that the right place for coding discussion is just a doorstep away.
cheers,
a not-pissed-off co-member of this forum …
Added by nikos tzar at 8:29am on February 15, 2015
ostly via C# because ... er ... the remaining 99% (how to do some real-life canopy and/or a real-life truss out of the relaxed line graph) is only doable via code - no ExoW/IL (so ... the 1% is indeed doable).
At first ... just double click the Kangaroo1 engine, halt the simulation AND ONLY THEN redirect the resulting line list to the ExoW/IL. As delivered neither is active.
Note: ExoW and/or IntraLattice MAY or MAY NOT work (each one has his own issues, but ExoW despite the glitches yields way better looking liquid stuff). So the liquid root may or may not be the holly grail that you expect (life sucks).
Note: As is delivered this only does a liquid node load bearing structure (ideal for Planet Utopia). Paint the thing black, do some proper pavement, populate with birds of pray, wait for the envelope def (that's freaky), put humans inside, lock the doors > massacre.
…
narity constrains as well. Let's over-simplify the case. Using that planar test data set shown we create a classic Adjacency Matrix that tells us what node is connected with what (you can use Sandbox for making the connectivity required in order to make the Matrix) :
Some other freaky thingy gets the Matrix, does freaky things (using recursion) and finally yields node indices that belong to a closed loop/cycle (see the forefront and the back). The other indices shown (describing "bigger" loops) are used for other type of stuff/checks:
More soon…
to perform the kind of merge I want. Basically:
I have a series of three integers, each representing a radius measure:
Radii[0-2]
I have a three sets of series of 3Dpoints, each set with ~100-400 vals:
PListOne[0-333]
PListTwo[0-333]
PListThree[0-333]
I want to link the data paths up so that the Radii form the first dimension of the array, and that the second dimension is the corresponding points set. So
Radii[0] = 500 (the radius)
Radii[0][0] = 50,75,0 (the first point in PListOne)
...
Radii[2][99] = 44,66,0 (the 100th point in PListThree)
This should be really simple, but I cant seem tog et my head around the right components to do it. I've attached a file with number series in place of the radii/points lists. If someone could show me how to merge the components in the manner above, it would be extremely appreciated.…