sinergetici associati alla compresenza simultanea di differenti strumenti di analisi e digital design all'interno di un processo di progettazione in svolgimento. I partecipanti utilizzeranno Grasshopper (modellatore parametrico per Rhino): l'uso di questo editor grafico di algoritmi si integra alla perfezione con gli strumenti di modellazione di Rhinoceros 3D espandendo le possibilità di corstruire modelli parametrici altamente complessi. Per generare una complessità simile saranno utilizzati collegamenti live ai diversi programmi elencati di seguito: . Autodesk Ecotect Analysis via GECO . FEA software GSA via SSI Durante questi intensi 3 giorni, i partecipanti impareranno il workflow dei plug-ins con l'aiuto di esempi esplorando una panoramica dei differenti software, le possibilità di testare le performances di un progetto o l'uso di strumenti addizionali non legati ad un singolo sistema (es. accentuazione, formazione, reazione parametrica) [english text] The focus of the workshop is to integrate and correlate the synergistic effect associated with simultaneous presence of different digital design- and analysis tools in an ongoing design process. The main attention is set on easy to handle interface , which should be used at a early stage of conceptual design to respond to external and internal influences in a intelligent and sustainable way. Participants will use the software Grasshopper as a parametric modeling plug-in for Rhino. The usage of this graphical algorithm editor tightly integrated with Rhino's 3-D modeling tools open up the possibility to construct highly parametrical complex models. To generate this complexity we will use live linkages to several programs listed below: . Autodesk Ecotect Analysis via GECO . FEA software GSA via SSI In this 3 intense days, the participants should learn the workflow of the plug-ins with the help of examples and get an overview of the different software's, there possibilities for evaluating the performance of a design or the usage of additional tools to be not chained to a single system . (e.g. parametrical accentuation, parametrical formation, parametrical reaction) [.] Dettagli : Istruttori: Thomas Grabner & Ursula Frick from [uto]. lingua del corso: inglese (saranno disponibili tutor di supporto ma è richiesta una conoscenza di base della lingua unglese).
Quote d'iscrizione (min 12 max 20 posti): educational* : € 280.00 + iva professional: € 450.00 + iva * studenti, docenti, ricercatori, dottorandi e laureati fino a un anno dalla data di laurea OFFERTA EARLY BIRD SPECIAL: le prime 5 domande di iscrizione pervenute entro il 31 Dicembre 2011 avranno diritto ad una quota di iscrizione scontata del 20% Quote d'iscrizione E.B. SPECIAL: E.B. SPECIAL educational* : € 224.00+ iva E.B. SPECIAL professional: € 360.00+ iva. ulteriori info, dettagli e iscrizioni: http://www.co-de-it.com/wordpress/nexus-advanced-grasshopper-workshop-with-uto.html…
radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
nside the zone. I would move your comfort evaluation surface to be 1 meter off the ground in order to be representative of typical human height.
Also, you did not intersect the ground with the rest of the zone geometry, resulting in an incorrect energy simulation. After intersection, you also get one surface of the ground zone that is not inside any buildings. I fixed these two things in the attached file ad it works:
I would also recommend breaking the top surface of the ground up into sub-surfaces so that you can capture the variation in ground surface temperature that happens across the outdoors. Second, I would recommend putting some windows on your buildings as the exterior surface temperature of windows can be very different than that of opaque surfaces. Finally, you should keep in mind that the outdoor maps are assuming a very basic outdoor wind profile by default and, to accurately understand outdoor comfort, you really should be incorporating wind patterns after running a CFD. This discussion has some information about importing CFD from other programs to GH:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug/forum/topics/import-cfd-result-to-honeybee
-Chris…
up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. Participants will be guided through the basics of analysing and interpreting structural models, to optimisation processes and how to integrate Karamba3d into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 375 (+VAT)
Course Outline
Introduction & Presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line based and surface based elements
Geometric Optimization
Topological Optimization
Structural Performance Informed Form Finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba and visualising results
Complex Workflow processes in Rhino3d, Grasshopper3d and Karamba3d
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 places are required for the workshop to take place.
The workshop will be cancelled should this quota not be filled by May 31st.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba is needed.
Participants should bring their own laptops with either Rhino5/Rhino6 and Grasshopper3d installed. A 90 day trial version of Rhino can be downloaded from Rhino3d.
Karamba ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. Participants will be guided through the basics of analysing and interpreting structural models, to optimisation processes and how to integrate Karamba3d into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Student EUR 375 (+VAT)
Course Outline
Introduction & Presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line based and surface based elements
Geometric Optimization
Topological Optimization
Structural Performance Informed Form Finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba and visualising results
Complex Workflow processes in Rhino3d, Grasshopper3d and Karamba3d
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 places are required for the workshop to take place.
The workshop will be cancelled should this quota not be filled by October 15th.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba is needed.
Participants should bring their own laptops with either Rhino5/Rhino6 and Grasshopper3d installed. A 90 day trial version of Rhino can be downloaded from Rhino3d.
Karamba ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
ive 'correct' normal.
Non-normalized cross products is effectively weighting face normals by area, and is fast and simple, so we put that one as the default.
In some cases normalizing the cross-products improves the result, but not always.
Another option is to weight by angles, though this is computationally slightly more expensive, so might not be ideal for real-time updates on large meshes.
As an example, here is a mesh with a 90° corner, and uneven meshing on the 2 sides.
The arrows show:
0- Area weighted (non-normalized cross products)
1- Angle weighted
2- Normalized cross-products
Here the angle-weighted normal is the one at 45°, which is intuitively the 'best' one in this case.
These 3 seem to be the most commonly used, but there are many other possible definitions of normals - such as inverse-area weighted, mean curvature, etc...
I think really what would be best would be to put a few of these into Plankton, and include an optional argument in GetNormal for selecting which one you need for a particular application.
Pull requests welcome if you feel inspired to add this!
http://meshlabstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/on-computation-of-vertex-normals.html
http://steve.hollasch.net/cgindex/geometry/surfnorm.html…