being driven by the wii nunchuck... But, here's my issue. I tried it first by having the output from the listener be a 6-digit number... so, I'm using the (CInt(Val(StoredValue))) command and it's writing out 181130... and I can easily split it up selecting the Left(x,3) or Right(x,3)... I first rant that number through a Format("{0:000000}",x) so that even if one of the accx or accy numbers were a 2-digit number (so my overall number would only have 5-digits)... with this Format function... I'm always assured a 6-digit number. And this method works... except...
If the first group of numbers coming in only has 2-digits... So, lets say the accelerometer read out of the first one (accx) is 89. Let's say the accy read out is 119. So, when I run this through the Format function to make it have at least 6 digits, my number now reads 011989. So, if I were to take the first three numbers on the right, my read out would be 989... which is much higher than my expected (60-180 range that is really coming over the Serial Port)... So, I'm back to where I started... in that I need to figure out a better way to split up the data.
Which brings me to your method. I tried it as well... in fact, I added a comma in the serial readout, so the string coming out of the listener reads 89,119. So, I can use your trick to go look for a delimeter and then read to the left and right a certain number of digits... The problem I still have is that the data going into the function is a string, and thus even if I split the 3 digits to the right of the comma out (so, my output says 119)... it's still a string, and my number parameter is still red. In your picture above, was your original 181 130 a number or a string? My guess is that it was understood as a number, because your number parameters at the end are accepting the value. But, in my case... I'm still stuck with the inability to convert a string to a number... Does this make sense? And are their any other workarounds?…
Added by Andy Payne at 9:42am on September 3, 2009
even (0, 2, 4) then that means the point either never hit it, or went in and out again, meaning it's outside. If it hits an odd number of times, then it must have come from within originally.
The method implements this approach using the mesh bounding box, and then striking a polyline from your test point along a vector that is defined by the upper right corner of the bounding box + a vector of (100,100,100). In the case of your failing points, this is a result of their striking an edge very precisely, which gets counted as 2 hits instead of 1 (as it should be getting captured) and passing false:
Your best bet is probably to roll your own implementation, that tests for multiple vectors:
private void RunScript(List<Point3d> P, Mesh M, ref object A, ref object B, ref object C) {
BoundingBox bb = M.GetBoundingBox(false);
List<bool> inside = new List<bool>();
for (int i = 0; i < P.Count; i++) {
Polyline a = new Polyline(); Polyline b = new Polyline();
a.Add(P[i]); b.Add(P[i]);
a.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 100, 100)); b.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 150, 150));
int[] fa; int[] fb;
Point3d[] xa = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(a), out fa); Point3d[] xb = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(b), out fb);
inside.Add(xa.Length % 2 == 1 || xb.Length % 2 == 1);
checkA.AddRange(xa, new GH_Path(i)); checkB.AddRange(xb, new GH_Path(i));
}
A = inside;
}
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 10:20am on October 10, 2017
izes like 0.6m, 0.8m, 0.9m and 1.2m are the most "common": In cases where mechanical floors are a must (hospitals for instance) a 2.4/2.4 is quite handy (habitable/mechanical per floor). You can try 1.8/2.7 as well (floor/habitable) since 1.8 floor thickness can host HVAC and some decent W truss size. Also 1.6/2.4 (floor/habitable) is used in small buildings. NOTE: see next.
3. Don't forget to include corrugated metal height + concrete screed height + raised floors height: for the latter, say, something like 0.3m (modules + adjustable mounts + free space for electric stuff [boxes etc]).
4. As regards exteriors, Laurent Buzon is a close friend of mine. Contact him directly on my behalf:
http://www.buzonuk.com/
http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sourc...
5. LBS Structural ability and "monolithic" floor behavior (humans don't like vibrating habitable spaces) ARE not the same animal.…
ybee_EnergyPlus Window Shade Generator" component.
3. SolveAdj component has the input to set BC for interior surfaces.
If you want to set them to adiabatic then you can use setToAdiabatic components.
4. For natural ventilation Chris has provided extensive answers including this one.
If the component doesn't work then you need to download the files manually from github and replace the userObjects with the old ones. You have to do it separately for Ladybug and Honeybee which can be painful. Is there anyway to change the firewall settings?
…
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.…
le with you.
I am trying to achieve the minimal path algorithm of Steiners tree in Python using the minimal path algorithm.The syntax would be as followsFirst I need to create a cube of any dimension.
Then I need to specify one origin say point A and destination point say B.
Now for this point A,B I need to create a machine based network which will automatically enroute A to B.
Where the angle will be constant i.e 120, length can be a variable, triangular node(steiners tree)using these constraints it will create a network.
Now, I should iterate the program in such a way that I should specify the further points say like A1 and B1 so on.The program will contain a limit constraint where it will come out of iteration loop and start a new loop,forming the network.
By this I will get a dense network of 120 deg branches.
The branching gets denser the moment I add source and destination points.
There can be 100 iterations to reach from A to B but the algorithm chooses the one following the minimal path.
I would be highly thankful to you if you would please share the python syntax and grasshopper definitionCapture.JPG for the same
Thank you for your time in advance
I would be highly grateful if you help me through
warm regards
Arya
12.gifShortest%20path%20algorithm.gh
min-paths.jpgcc.henn.studyimagesminimalpaths.jpg …
Horticulture and Landscape in same time.
The most common plastic materials used as agricultural films are the low density polyethylene (LDPE, with a density less than 0.93 kg m−3), the copolymer of ethylene and vinyl-acetate (EVA)
Also here you can find the characteristics of the flexible materials for greenhouse covers (adapted from CPA, 1992 and Tesi, 2001) as much as i get.
UV-PE Film ( UV-PE~ polyethylene Long life or UV)
Thickness (mm) = 0.18
Direct PAR transmissivity (%) = 90
Diffuse PAR transmissivity (%)= 86
Long-wave IR transmissivity (%)= 65
EVA Film ( EVA~Ethylene vinyl-acetate copolymer)
Thickness (mm) = 0.18
Direct PAR transmissivity (%) = 90
Diffuse PAR transmissivity (%)= 76
Long-wave IR transmissivity (%)= 27
and here you will find the global heat transfer coefficient’ (K in W m−2 °C−1) for the above greenhouse covering materials, measured under normalized conditions (temperatures: exterior: −10°C, interior: +20°C, wind: 4 m s−1). (Source: Nisen and Deltour, 1986.)
Cover Clear sky Overcast Sky
Single PE 8.8-9.0 7.1- 7.2
Single EVA 7.8 6.6
Note : the PAR radiation (photosynthetically active or photoactive radiation and its the amounts to 45–50% of the global radiation; Berninger, 1989)
The name PAR is used to designate the radiation with wavelengths useful for plant photosynthesis. It is accepted that the PAR radiation ranges from 400 to 700 nm (McCree, 1972), although some authors consider the PAR from 350 to 850 nm.
The composition of the radiation changes with time, as a function of the Sun’s elevation and the cloudiness. When the Sun is low over the horizon, the short wavelengths are reduced (less UV and more red). The clouds reduce the amount of energy, greatly decreasing the NIR.
The PAR proportion in relation to the global radiation increases with scattering (diffusion). It is lower with clear sky and in the summer (45–48%).
kind regards
rafat …
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.…
ey provide all the means to what I try to achieve.
What I need is to get a fast (as possible) evaluation of passive heat/solar gain from a certain facade. I know my building can cool to a certain degree (lets say 80 W/m2 - now lets forget other internal gains) and I want to be sure my facade is not letting excessive amounts of heat into the room/building. Normally I would make a full blown simulation to count my overheating hours and thereby evaluate my facade. To speed up the process, the idea is just to evaluate overheating hours in a faster way. So what I am thinking is that excessive amounts may estimated by counting high intensity irradiation patches in a critical sky-component or whatever such thing would be called that surpasses my sensible cooling load. My hope is that any facade visible to the sky-patches would very similar to the number of overheating hours if properly calibrated to a simulated model. However I have no idea right now, if this can be done.
Why do this? Speed, convenience, whole building thermal analyses.
@Chris and @Abraham The critical sky-component is made with LBs radiance component radiation and filtering the beam-components with highest effects from a yearly epw-file.
@Chris Conductive heat gains are also important especially if the facade is badly insulated, so the next step is to filter the outdoor temperature parallel with that critical sky-component and then do a static heat transfer analysis and combine that with the effect from direct sun influence. Again, no idea if it works.
Hope it makes sense. I a little embarrassed I drew you into this little experiment. This was not at all the point of the discussion. But now we are into it I like to know what you think. If it works its kinda neat, at least i think it is.
/K…