he simulation works perfectly, however, if there's like 300 faces with windows (glazing) it starts to shows this error "Outward facing angle of subsurface differs more than 90.0 degrees from base surface".
All the model and the triangulations were done in grasshopper. I've already tried to flip the faces normals, reajust the glazing ratio but nothing works. Any ideas?…
inside the following link
To Join the summer School in Rome Click on Apply Now that you will find at the end of this Link http://arch-algorithm.com/Summer-School-2020/…
p;biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&tbnid=UQXK-STjeJrGhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/sinusoidal-facade&docid=XRgBzjBowOStWM&imgurl=http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2768634805?profile=original&w=1805&h=727&ei=itp3UbHLCvDs0gWy-oGQCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:80&iact=rc&dur=487&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=340&start=0&ndsp=28&tx=217&ty=36
But somehow, it doesn't seem to work when i do the same.. does anyone know why?
Regards, Rutger…
rched for the right keywords.
So to my problem. I have two numerical lists, A and B and I want to create numerical list C.
A: index 0-8759, values 0-100, several branches
B: index 0-99, values 0-100, one branch
C: index 0-8759, same amount of branches as A.
For every value in list A I want to use that value as a index lookup in list B and use the value in list B in list C with the index from list A. Might not be so clear, quite hard to explain well.
For example:
A: index 2000, value: 45
-> look up value at index 45 in list B:
B: index 45: value 80
-> add value to list C with index from list A:
C: index 2000: value 80
or:
A: index 5814, value: 60
->
B: index 60: value 35
->
C: index 5814: value 35
I've attached a GH file to further explain my problem.
Thanks in advance!
R…
will be held during the Easter holidays. In this Edition, the challenge is to rethink a recurrent topic of debate in Oporto, the connection between the two margins of the Douro River. The Workshop "Parametric Bridge" will explore the use of parametric digital techniques and digital fabrication, using Rhinoceros and Grasshopper, to design an architectural solution for a pedestrian bridge.
Orientation: Gonçalo Castro Henriques(X-Ref, FA-UTL) + José Pedro Sousa (OPO'Lab, FAUP, DArq)
gch@x-ref.org or info@opolab.com…
each of those point a Geometry (say, a surface). So according to the grid size you have more or less of those. The thing a was asking is if it is possible to average those values, so i can know that viewPoint1 sees 80% of the geometry. What you did above gives the value but "backwards". I think it should be simpler to average the values (less work for you, i suppose ..., right?).
I think, but not sure, that you are doing something like this in the averageView output, but for all ViewPoints. I'm asking for this but for each VP.
I'm getting messy in this one.
Thanks,
-A.…
nstances of a k-means algorithm run on the same data set. I used 18 descriptive variables to feed the algorithm, and then set it to create outputs from 2 clusters to 80...so it isn't determining the number itself at all. That's for what's next...here I'm trying to visualize how constituent elements move from iteration to iteration as more clusters are introduced...each cluster is sorted in each iteration according to the weighted "location" of the instances from the previous iteration, so pure black/white in the 2 cluster pass gets diluted as they mix together, and more colors get embedded to reflect the nuances that come into play when you increase the number of clusters...otherwise it just turns grey.…
it seems that the method 'System.Drawing.Color.FromArgb(A#, R#, G#, B#)', is not fully implemented when applied to custom view. For example:
args.Display.Draw2dText("text", System.Drawing.Color.FromArgb(80, 100, 100, 100), Point, false, 17, "Arial");
GH accepts the method but does not actually implement the alpha channel, at least for text rendering. I have not tested this more extensively.
…
you cannot use it in the same way that you would for indoor conditions. For example, you cannot say that, if PMV is in the range from +/- 1 PMV, at least 80% of people are comfortable. It is known that people tolerate much more extreme conditions when they are outdoors and you will frequently find conditions where someone has a PMV of 1.6 or higher but will say that they are perfectly comfortable. Also, the range of adaptability with clothing and metabolic rate is much greater in the outdoors than in the indoors and these variables can be hard to guess for outdoor conditions unless you are an expert. All that I am saying is to be cautious and critical if you use the PMV method for outdoor conditions.
-Chris…