t BBox will then be mapped relative to the UVW space of that box to the new target boxes.
Where your definition is slipping up is the data matching aspect of GH. You have two lists (that count). One list contains 100 items of target boxes and the other contains 2 items of geometry. GH defaults to the Longest List data matching
List A --> List B
Target Box A0 --> Cuboid
Target Box A1 --> Cylinder
Target Box A2 --> (Oops List B has run out of items. Now GH will repeat the last item = Cylinder)
Target Box A3 --> Cylinder
.....
Target Box J9 --> Cylinder
Solution
There are two approaches to rectify this the most logical would be to group the geometries into one object (What you had in mind with the bounding box) to do this use the Group Component on the Transform Tab > Utility Panel.
The other approach is far more common in GH mentality. Use the Graft, right click the G input of Morph and select Graft from the Context Menu. This places all of the items in the List on to separate branches. Creating a list of lists (although these new list only have one item). When GH now tries to data match them it will apply the whole of the first geometry list (Only the Cuboid) to all of the target boxes and all of the second list (Cylinder) to the target boxes again.
I hope this helps…
and Grasshopper. Recently I tried doing some test project just to see what can I do. My target is to design a small house for an atom family. Though as you might think - it'll be a parametric one. And I encountered exactly what's in the title. So here it goes: 1. Something is wrong with the measuring units in the complex profiles. I met this problem while making I-beam. In ArchiCAD it had 127/76 mm while in Grasshopper i had 127000/76200mm so a little bigger. 2. I'm unable to turn off the preview. I mean when I delete something in Grasshopper/Rhino it still exists in ArchiCAD. I have to unlock it and then delete it. 3. Coordinates for points seem broken. They have to be multiplied 1000 times to match. 4. Now one of the most important. Is it possible to somehow SHOW Grasshopper where are already made in ArchiCAD objects. Even if they'll remain still. For example I want to make a parametrical roof. Do I have to model whole building from scratch in Grasshopper or is there some fast way to "import" existing scene so I can limit my work with Grasshopper only to parametrical one. 5. Is it possible to make "points" as controlling points in AC? Like, if I'd like to make a beam in a desired place which I will mark by that point and then I will "show" Grasshopper that point and tell it to make an object in there so I can control it within grasshopper. I tried ti do this using AC Control Point but when I click "Send changes" button, Grasshopper and Rhino crush immediately. It only happens then, with control points. 6. It seems that "move" component won't work with "2D curve" component connected directly. It is possible that some of those problems are outdated. I was playing around in Grasshopper a few months ago, before summer break, but now I plan to try something new and it would be nice to know what to do. I appreciate any answer to any of those questions. Please help, you guys, are my only hope. Thanks in advance! Karol…
e 7555, in callFromHoneybeeHive, "<string>" line 94, in main, "<string>" line 126, in script
(Swedish errormessage translation: "selected key does not exist in the lookup list")
I dont get any error messages in either LB or HB. HB says it has all libraries in its text output.I'm using a vanilla install of Win 10 with standard win firewall unaltered. I have a feeling it has something to do with files not downloading all the same.c:/Ladybug does not exist.
Picture shows contents of roaming/ladybug folder. is something missing?
This is what i've done so far:
Followed all the steps on the install instructions.Uninstalled and installed it again running in administrator mode.
Tried to get files from this thread, but links are broken to download those outdated files. I think I remember I usually have to do this when i do HB installs on new OS...I have not installed open studio, only energy+…
o be less from a tool-centric perspective, and more often geared toward general platforms (like BIM, or "computational" design).
For papers, I would search Cumincad first, as it captures a great deal of history as well as more current research from the proceedings of the eCAADe and ACADIA family of conferences. There are thousands of articles there.
Robert Woodbury's "Elements of Parametric Design" is considered pretty foundational. Sean Ahlquist and Achim Menges also put together a good anthology a few years back called "Computational Design Thinking" that collects several texts that are in line with the ICD's interests in biomimesis and emergence. "Inside Smartgeometry" is a good combination of theory, historical reflection, and state-of-the-art and edited by Brady and Terri Peters.
But really there is so much out there! One of my favorite short papers is Tom Maver's "CAAD's Seven Deadly Sins" which was basically a keynote mic-drop at the 1995 CAAD Futures conference. I'll spoil the end for you:
"7 Failure to criticise: Above all we have failed to exercise our critical faculties in relation to almost all of the research and development carried out by ourselves and by our peers in recent years. There has been a cosy conspiracy in the community to condone, even encourage, selfindulgent speculation and solipsism - a thoroughly bad example to set for young people in the academic community.
Conclusion: Perhaps these criticism are unjustly hard. Hopefully CAAD Futures 95 will prove me wrong or at least provide the opportunity for discussion."
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 11:10am on August 25, 2015
tween them)
However its not possible (Well its very tricky) for me to go back to the original geometry and merge the perimeter and the core into one zone.
As a result I thought that adding internal glazing would do the trick. However apart from using the addGlazing component I couldn't see any other way of adding internal glazing to the core zone without exploding it and putting it back together. So I modified the Glazing based on Ratio component so that the internal walls of the core would automatically be 95% glazing.
After passing the core zone through the modified Glazing based on Ratio component and then passing all the HB zones through the Solve Adjacency component I ran the daylight simulation. However the result is not what you would expect it appears as though there are no internal windows. (See the picture).
So two questions.
1. Is there a better way to merge these zones for a daylight study without going back to the original geometry?
2. From the illuminance map it appears that no light is passing through the internal windows. Why is this the case? Should I create a material that is like air so that the light can effectively pass through and then use this material instead?
…
ple I have to drag it through a panel before I can use it as an input to my python script. The supports comes as a list of strings (see figure) and I want to extract some of that information (e.g. what nodes are fixed) and write that to my txt file.
I extract the info with these lines:
for row in Support: node = row[8:row.find(' DOF')] file.write(" %s,\n" % node)
print node
>> 95
If I however don't drag it via a panel i get the following output:
for row in Support: node = row[8:row.find(' DOF')] file.write(" %s,\n" % node)
print node
>> Supports.Suppor
It's like the script doesn't get that each row is a string.
I have the input set to "list access" and type hint to "str" and I've tried to simplifying and flatten the list.
Greatful for help…
ular heights and widths of units.
3. I then fill these grids with placement panels.
4. Create 2D adaptive components with materials applied along with parameters for specified offsets of materials. I'll name each ac as a unit type name ie WT-1, WT-2 etc.
5. I replace the placement panels with particular adaptive components (unit types).
6. I prepare a schedule for both unit and material takeoff in Revit.
So I guess I would like to achieve something similar to this where I can have multiple unit types already made/determined with materials and apply them to a grid or divided surfaces and they will adapt or fit into this divided grid. and from there i could extract data like sqft of a particular unit and material.
see attached images for clarification and thanks again for your time and help, this issue has had me stumped for a while now and I'd love to solve it.
Thanks again
…
les, also this image shows where i'm defining/assigning all of them:
BTW, the warehouse stuff appears ONLY in the exportToOpenStudio option.
Finally, i'm not conditioning the zones. Explicitly i asked to set the isConditioned_ input in the HB_createHBZones to False. The discussion you mentioned approaches this differently oversizing the heating/Cooling so you never need the AC. The IDF created don't have any definition of IdealSystems, so i don't believe this is the problem. If you want to see the IDF files you can see them above (attached in a previous message).
Weird ...
Thanks,
-A.
…
st for the quality of the mesh.
Actually, convergence is much more than simply having low residuals. You can have a wrong solution with very low residuals. Usually, it is a combined process of both run time information on residuals and having an idea or expectation of what the simulation results should be. Another way of assessing convergence is if the residual values have been stable (within a very small limit, e.g. 1E-5) for more than a certain number of iterations (e.g. 1000). We are planning to provide run-time residual plots in Butterfly, hopefully soon. These plots can help keeping an eye on the solution.
You could try as a test if you want to switch to a blend of first and second order (by swapping upwind with linearUpwind in the fvSchemes)
.
Concerning mesh quality there are a number of ways, some of which are a bit advanced for this post and for BF's current capabilities. The best way to start is by refining the background mesh (i.e. the blockMesh). You can do that by assigning more cells to the x, y and z directions in the blockMesh component. However, make sure you increase the max global cells. I would suggest you monitor the output of the blockMesh in order to know the total number of cells there. Your max global cells has to be higher than that for SHM to even work. I'd suggest 2x to start with. Ofc all that requires a bit of trial and error depending on the case at hand.
Hope this helps!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
assume we want to format two numbers, one integer and a floating point value. The integer represents an index and it should appear inside square brackets, then we want the floating point number rounded to a maximum of 4 decimal places (but always using at least one decimal place, even if it's zero), and then, in parentheses a scientific notation representation using 8 decimal digits of the number.
So, assuming the index is 16 and the value is 47.280006208, what we are after is:
[16] 47.28 (4.72800062E+001)
To make this work, we need a formatting pattern that looks like:
[{0}] {1:0.0###} ({1:E8})
The square brackets, spaces and parenthesis are just part of the output, they have no meaning whilst formatting. Everything inside the curly brackets though will be replaced with a specific formatting of one of the values.
When using the Format component as shown above, the formatting pattern is just text data. The component knows that it is supposed to use the Format() function using the pattern text and whatever additional data is provided.
When you invoke the Format() method in an expression, you do need to make sure that the pattern is actually text:
So here the pattern needs to be encased in double quotes, otherwise it will be treated as code, rather than text.
You cannot use the formatting method in the internal expression of a number parameter, because this method returns text, whereas the number parameter is only capable of storing numbers. Any expression that you put into a number parameter had better return numbers as a result.…