ould be interesting to add a label to the size that can represent certain parameter in the definition.
For example, grasshopper's dimension Label representating a name slider.
That way we can find the dimensions associated with an easier setting.
…
ted by tool conversion, but it seems to be strange because when i put the same file into ECOtect Weather Tool i can run weather data graphs, like this one:
I hope you can help me. Thank you in advance.
(i attached my epw file, by Notepad++ i noticed too many "question marks")
…
by arch.tualize and AWARE in partnership with the Städelschule Architecture Class (SAC), Frankfurt and will be held at the campus of SAC from 21 July – 1 August 2014. The lab engages students, architects, designers and game developers with four techniques of prototyping: designer-informed, analytics-driven, crowd-operated and sensor-actuated. Participants learn to use digital and parametric design tools and engage with feedback collected from simulation algorithms, online users and real-world sensors. The acquired knowledge will be applied to designing interactive prototypes ultimately exhibited at an open public exhibition at the Städelschule
To learn more and apply visit: www.summerlab.info…
stepper motors with an arduino DUE ( 84 MHz clock) so would be faster than an UNO (16 MHz).
The problem : The DUE is selectionned, detected and I can open the port in grasshopper, but when I try to send any mouvement with the stepper component.. isn't moving at all.
Also when I try to read the serial monitor with the generic serial read component is also not reading anything coming from the due card (I tried the programming port and the USB communon port from the DUE).
To now : Sending mouvement with the Accel Stepper library directly with the Arduino IDE works, Wich means that the problem is directly coming from the communication between the Firefly's Grasshopper component and the arduino Due
The due : www.arduino.cc/en/Main/arduinoBoardDueThanks for your time :-)…
raw a single line that intersects them all. I'm also not certain what the metric for "closest" would be if you have more than three lines all intersecting each other. What groups of three can you find here:
This is not just splitting hairs, when designing a new algorithm it is important to always figure out whether:
There is ever a case with more than one possible solution.
There is ever a case with no possible solutions.
Does the algorithm change the state of the problem while it runs, i.e. whether run order matters.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
een them to be adiabatic (at first. See later on for an alternative).
The whole process is fine/clear up to the solveAdjacencies: The walls are defined as "outdoors" and "surface" for the boundary conditions. So far so good.
Now i get to the HB_makeAdiabaticByType, and some issues appear (See A in the file).
Setting the interiorWalls to True doesn't change the condition from"surface" to "adiabatic" (A1 in file).
Setting the walls set both internal and external, to adiabatic (A2 in file). Is this supposed to work like this? Why the just the internal doesn't make the change?
In addition to this i'll appreciate your advice in the following. Let's say that i want the internal walls to be divided in 2 parts each. One should be adiabatic and the other "air wall". How do you recommend to do this? Is the modeling in the file correct, or i must do surface by surface?Or using the Decompose Honeybee Zone ...?
How can i retain the air walls and still use the makeAdiabaticByType component?
Thanks for your help!!
-A.
…
start (if there is a better one I would appreciate a hint), but I thought I populate a rectangle with points, interconnect the points to later let the borders of the rectangle attract each other.
I have 4 rectangles: A, B, C and D.
On each I have 20 points (A0-A19, B0-19, etc.)
Now I want to connect each point to all the points on the other rectangles, e.g. point A0 with all the (60) points on rectangle B, C, D.
I saw the discussions about the topic sorting lists (e.g. flipping), but I didn't see them fitting on this problem, or I don't know how to abstract them for me.
Also this is a problem I am having with another definition, so if someone could help me with that list stuff, I think I could use it furthermore.
But if there is a better solution to the rectangle organisation (tessellation), I am open for that.
regards,
Max
sry for the long text…
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…