answer further on Friday.
The "ghdoc" variable and rhinoscriptsyntaxThe ghdoc variable is provided by the component if you select it as "target".You might ask yourself: "why do we need it"?Its use comes from the very design of the established RhinoScript library. This library is imperative, which means it is build from a set of procedures or functions that act on various geometrical types. Additionally, there is one level of indirection: most of the time, the user does not work with the geometry itself in the variable, but rather with Guid of geometry that is present in a document. This is exactly what ghdoc is: it is the document that the RhinoScript library always implicitly targets with all AddSomething() calls (for example, AddLine()).
Based on this comment...RhinoScript use within GhPython may be less idealThat comment is from a previous version of this component that did not have the ghdoc yet.With the ghdoc variable, the standard Rhino document target of RhinoScript is replaced, therefore we can use Grasshopper while leaving the Rhino document unchanged. This saves uncountable Undo's, and makes it easy to structure ideas through the definition graph
...is the rhinoscriptsyntax target irrelevant if using solely RhinoCommon classesYes. If you create class instances (objects), you will need to create also your own collection objects to store them (mostly lists, trees). You can imagine the ghdoc as being an alternative to them, just that you do not access data by index (number), but by Guid. So you can use the RhinoScript or the RhinoCommon libraries independently or mix them. The RhinoScript implementation in Rhino is open-source and is all written in RhinoCommon. Also the ghdoc implementation is open-source, and is here.
RhinoScript and/or RhinoCommon objects which are not recognized as valid Grasshopper geometryYes, sure, Grasshopper handles only a portion of all available types. Basically, unhandled types are all the types that do not exists in the 'Params' tab. For example, there is no textdot and no leader, so on line 149 there is a throw statement and all TextDot calls (about line 350) are commented out. When/if Grasshopper one day will support these types, these calls will be implemented.
DataTreeHere is a small sample. However, I think that 80% of the times it is not necessary to program for DataTrees, as the logic itself can be applied per-list and Grasshopper handles list-iteration.
I hope this helps,
- Giulio_______________giulio@mcneel.comMcNeel Europe…
ort and export from the images below and also from the HELP file of DB in attachments (Page 71: Importing Geometric Data; Page 78-80: Import 3 - D CAD Data). In their HELP file, they mention about "import geometric data".
However, regarding the input of schedules, loads, constructions and etc., DB normally uses "Component " and "Template" (Page 29: Templates And Components; Page 591: Templates; Page 533: Components). "Templates" are databases of typical generic data, including Activity templates, Construction templates, Glazing templates, Facade templates, HVAC templates, Location Templates, and etc. "Component " are databases of individual data items (e.g. a construction type, material, window pane).
Both "Component " and "Template" are allowed to be imported and exported by using "Import / Export library data" command (.ddf format - DB Database File; Page 734: Import Components/Templates, Export Components/Templates). DB also allows us to build up our own libraries of templates and components (Page 731: Library Management; Page 733: Template Library Management).
In order to import both geometric information and other information related to schedules, loads, constructions and etc. from GH to BD, we supposed the following two ways:
1. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (both geometric and "Component " and "Template" information) --> DB
This is the way we most prefer. We did see information related to schedules, loads, constructions encoded in the gbXML file generated by GB, but still do not know the reason why DB did not take this information (I also mentioned this in Q6 within the gh file). We assume this might because the gbXML file we create encodes the schedules based on a different template / schema than the one DB expects. We also post this question to the DB forum for help.
(http://www.designbuilder.co.uk/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,25/page,viewtopic/p,13755/#13755)
2. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (geometric information only) + .ddf ("Component " and "Template" information only) --> DB
If the first way doesn't work and DB only takes geometric information from the gbXML, then we might think of the other way - generating the .ddf files from GH(HB+GB) to pass the schedule, load and construction information to DB.
I was wondering if it is feasible for HB and GB to have this function? And what is your suggestion to achieve this?
In addition, we notice that DB can export XML files (not gbXML), so we are trying to figure out if DB also accepts / reads the XML file. If so, we might be able to convert the gbXML (with both geometric and schedule information) to XML. What do you think about that?
Thank you again for all your help!
Best,
Ding
DB import
DB export
Template libraries
Component libraries
…
y using the Honeybee_Update Honeybee component.
The video below (best viewed in full-screen mode) provides an idea of what these components are capable of being used for:
The video below shows how these components can be used in an existing Honeybee project (for additional links please open this video in youtube):
I have uploaded two examples as Hydra files that show how these components can be used for grid-point and image-based simulations:
Example1 : Grid Point Calculations
Example2: Image based simulation
Finally, a more esoteric application is demonstrated in this video:
These components are still in the beta-testing stage. Some of the limitations of the components are:
1. Only Type C photometry IES files are supported at present.
2. Rhino is likely to get sluggish if there are too many luminaires (i.e. light fixtures) present in a scene.
3. Due to the spectral limitations of the ray-tracing software (RADIANCE), simulations involving color mixing might not be physically realizable.
Additional details about photometric and spectral calculations are probably an overkill for this forum. However, I'd be glad to answer any related questions. Please report any bugs or request new features either on this forum or on Github.
Mostapha, Leland Curtis, Reinhardt Swart and Dr. Richard Mistrick provided valuable inputs during the development of these components.
Thanks,
Sarith
Update 16th January 2017:
An example with some new components and bug fixes since the initial release announcement can be found here
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013