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
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.…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…
s (and God knows how many in the next case) that's why (other than the colossal amount of time (for no reason) required for creating them ... try to bake them and measure the file size).
3 .Most non pros believe that the thing that matters the most in engineering is the geometry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is about the 5% (complex real-life cases etc etc - but this one is very simple geometry wise and not that simple with regard the whole "ideal" AND effective strategy required).
4. So I've included in this Rhino file attached a small portion of your frames as input for the second C#: CAREFULLY study what it does and most importantly why: it gives you the clear indication about why you should attack this on an assembly/component basis by using instance definitions INSTEAD of recreating 14++ K "solids". The difference in performance is COLOSSAL, not to mention the baked Rhino file size.
5. Using instances is IMPOSSIBLE whiteout code (as is the case in 99% or real-life engineering tasks).
6. Geometry was never an issue on that one (is the 5% max of the whole puzzle no matter requirements you may have).
Bad news:
1. Zoom extends doesn't work after importing your data (maybe a NVidia Quadro K4200 driver issue - who knows?): use saved views stored.
So ...the choice is yours, best, Lord of Darkness…
ponents, among other functionalities, is significantly widening the relevance of the toolset.
Meanwhile having used the tools for some time now and have gone through the forum, in my opinion a few critical system controls is still missing - unless I'm missing some understanding.
In order to really make the hourly energy analysis valuable in early massing studies etc. the consideration of indoor climate can be more detailed. The HVAC capacities, max. airrate and min. inlet temperature should be within comfortable ranges and hardsized by user input to reduce internal draft problems. If not considered I find that the analysis could possibly demonstrate good energy behavior and reasonable operative temperature but in reality could cause a bad indoor environment - and when "rectified" at a later stage the energy consumption will increase.
I would like to know how it is possible in HB to set-up a HVAC system with these ventilation controls and a "unlimited" convective/radiant heating system, and how to deal with the issues mentioned below. The inputs parameters exists in the components, but I can't seem to get the right system behaviour.
In the attached file I have gone through 4 scenaries, each with seperate issues in setting up the system (As no template appearantly supports the combined setup the heating system is simulated using an inlet temperature of 99 degrees).
HVACSystem: "ideal air loads" - Issue: no hardsized airrate, no cooling supply air temperature
HVACSystem: "VAV w. reheat" - Issue: no regulation of airrate, no use of input heat supply temperature in heating mode
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" -> issue with duplicate zone names
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" on multiple zones -> issue with duplicate zone names
Thanks a lot!
Jon…
eñadores, y creativos interesados en el aprendizaje de metodos avanzados de generación y racionalización de geometría compleja, y su implementación en distintas etapas del proceso de diseño.
Se abordaran los conceptos básicos para hacer frente a diversas problemas de diseño a través de la implementación de una serie de plataformas computacionales con el objetivo de construir un flujo de trabajo que permita optimizar proyectos de diversa escala y explorar esquemas geometricos complejos de manera rápida y eficiente.A lo largo del 6 dias trabajaremos con la plataforma de Modelado 3d Rhinoceros, el entorno de programación visual de Grasshopper y el motor de Renderizado de Vray.Estudiantes: $4,500.00Profesionistas: $5,500.00info+inscripciones:workshop@complexgeometry.com[044] 33 3956 9209[044] 33 1410 8975[044] 81 1916 8657
…