nal vector.(see pic 1)
Second: Holding an abstract mesh or surface with a 3D grid structure. Basically creating 90 degree vectors on an uneven surface coming out of the object, sort of like a cactus with a grid pattern. (see Pic 2)
Third: I think #1 answers this issue: when the lines hitting the rough surface go in two different grid directions, their intersecting points are too close together. Structurally these points can be united and the vectors would be reduced. Manually deleting these lines after being baked is currently the only option. It would be so cool if there was a mathematical arrangement that would connect points that are within a certain distance to one another. (see pic 3)
…
. since there are going to be multiple units facing different directions, each unit will be calculated differently based of their respective plane.
The following screenshots can explain the situation a little better
So Lets say the vector is pointing from the operating unit to the position of the sun, an the plane underneath is where I would like to measure the angle from
this second picture shows how each unit should function, so the measured angle doesn't exceed 90 degrees. what I did is zeroed the z value for the sun position to get a project vector. The problem with this solution is that it only works for XY planes, where I need to have a lot of planes that are specific for each unit and its orientation.
Help would be much appreciated…
problem is that the values of the isocurves are plotted not always in the same way: sometime parallel to the curves, sometime perpendicular.
In the following case, for example, i would like to turn the values of 90°(to get them parallel to the curves).
in order to have something like this:
How can i do that (without baking them)??
Thanks in advance
Claudia…
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.…
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
rasshopper (only compatible with IRC5 controllers). I made some tests with kinect and phones and tablets and it works (so if you have a good position for your kinect you can already know when a user is too close to the robot and stop the execution or slow it), but due to controller limitations I am now working on a different way of sending and managing data to the robot to minimise the latency of the system.
Galapagos will not allow you to switch between configurations and toolpaths, since configurations are computed by the IK solver and managed by several informations in the code, that can only be overrided or changed depending on the interpolation you use (MoveJ/MoveL/MoveAbsJ etc.). And once again, some configurations are not reachable depending on the rotation domains of certain joints (4th one for example) or also because linear interpolations cannot work for targets necessiting more than 90° of rotation. HAL computes by default the most "accessible" configurations in order to minimize 4th axis flip (which is a pain), and the next update will have a fix to allow to count the laps you do with the joints allowing more than 360° of rotation in order to prevent to reach the max values (otherwise the robot is locked and the application is stopped), there is a little bug on the 6th axis on the current version. IMHO these questions are much more important to solve for the design of your application than the approximaton of the workspace (it is very easy to measure the max radius of rotation, and singularities can always been reached using moveAbsJ).
By the way, all those things are not exactly trivial to solve (some are with the new verson of HAL, but not all of them), so depending on how far you need to go, I hope you don't have a deadline soon...…
eople use different methods and components was the way that I learnt most of what I know (and it might solve parts of other's problems)! It's always apparent from forum posts that everything is work in progress.
The "divide curve" components gives you tangents (T) to the curve at the points you've made. You want the perpendicular (right angle) to the curve, so need to rotate this vector around point on the curve (P) by 90 degrees or Pi/2 Radians .
It seems you're finding your lengths as required, but then passing them through a unit Y vector - so they are only ever going to move in the Y direction. You need to use an "Amplitude" component with the perpendicular vectors from above and the lengths you've calculated.
Before sweeping you'll need to properly align the rectangles such that they are also perpendicular to the curve.
…
Added by Joe Allberry at 10:33am on August 4, 2015
se the final panels that you want to rotate, or is this file just an example? Do you also have panels in other facades (in other planes)? Is the positioning of the panels random? Is it completely random, or are there some rules? Are the dimensions of the panels fixed or can they change, and how?
2. If I understand correctly, you want to have 2 different rotations, right?
2a. The first rotation is around the edge of the panel that lies on the facade and you want it to be between 0 and 90 degrees, right? How is the angle for each panel defined? Based on the sun's beams direction and, if yes, how exactly?
2b. The second rotation is around the X axis, on the right point of each panel (which is fixed on the facade) and you want the angle of rotation to be specified based on an attractor point, right? Is there a minimum and maximum angle or do the panels always align with the attractor point?
For a better understanding of these questions, see the attached definition (open it together with your 3dm file). Here the first rotation is the same for all panels and is controlled by a slider (until you explain how you want to define the angles). The second rotation doesn't have any constrains, so the panels always "look" at the attractor. But, as you can expect, strange thing happen this way: Panels hit into each other, rotate until their solar side is looking downwards, etc.
Still, I believe, if you answer the above questions we will get somewhere.
Cheers,
Nikos…
Added by nikos tzar at 5:42am on September 24, 2015
s. Now ... I want from you to do the proper combo of columns for the job: I want a dynamic solution worth the name not some stupid columns going vertically. Use the tree regions in order to avoid distorting the glass modular floor. Say like this:
The truss must engulf the trees. Killing a tree is a crime (even touching it should be a crime). How to do it? Same for the rotating fins. Assembling the truss must take provision of the branches (if they are fragile).
Plaza must being divided as follows: a perimeter ring (critical) separates the glass floor panels from the ugly buildings AND the tree regions. Fine grey pebbles are OK for that. Then the panels deploy in the remaining region. Panels must be all the same: 90*90cm. Solve this "arrangement" with GH. Measure the drainage slopes and calculate the Buzon pedestals with GH (how far we need to adjust them: critical for ordering).
Cover the existing pavement with a 5cm thick layer of black pebbles (bonus: hide the cables for the led arrays and the rings [no WiFi required]). Create variations of these arrays in GH.
Create something for servicing the whole thing.
Greenhouse effect can raise the temperature below the glass flooring (BTW: panels are at 1-2 cm distance [Buson spacers] each other [rain + escaping gases]).
…
ese seem to have one issue which I need to be addressed for my application.
The grids which are produced using the methods on here follow the surface and tend to be equally spaced in two dimensions. What I need is to create a grid which keeps the distance between the path lines equal whether the angle between the lines is 90 of 45 degrees. At the moment the grids act a bit like contours on an OS map but they bunch up in the lower parts of the curves and spread out in higher parts.
Below is a picture of what I produce via grasshopper so far but using a grid formula from elsewhere on the forums along with Rhino to connect up the paths. In this example they seem equally spaced but they differ by anywhere between 0.755mm and 0.785mm which if scaled up would be a problem.
Any Ideas how to help me split the surface up equally in all dimensions, meaning that if I were to sweep the tool path with a circle radius of half the distance between the lines/rails, there would be no gap between the beads/filaments?
I appreciate any help or advice hugely.
Philip
…