re is my problem... I need to arrange Boxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints.
The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables:
(1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!
…
ey eventually recover and you can continue to working normally. This however is not very practical...
(Additional information: We have a virtualized Windows SPS environment, might this be the problem? Locally - on my hard drive - it works fine.)
Futhermore we've discovered the following bug/feature:
We export a cluster and reference it back into our .gh file, then copy the .ghcluster file to a different location and rename the copy (without opening or changing it), then also reference the copied version back into the .gh file. Now Grasshopper shows two clusters with two different file paths, but claims that they both are the same ("this cluster occurs twice in this document"). If I double click one of them, make a change and save, both clusters get changed, even though they are separate .ghcluster files.
This would follow the logic that David laid out in this entry (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/clusters09), that GH identifies a cluster not by its file name or location but by its internal ID.
An addition we would very much appreciate for the next GH update, would be the option to right click a referenced cluster and then not only be able to "update" it but to also to "relink" it to a new or different source.
Right now you have to rename or delete the .ghcluster file in order to relink a cluster via the update option. You can also overwrite the old cluster und update. However, sometimes we want to keep the old version or disentangle one of a clusters many instances and relink just one, with out loosing its various inputs and outputs by referencing the new version and reconnecting it.
Thanks, BB.…
he concept, moving on to decision making and continuing with digital and generative design tools TO GET THE BEST SOLUTION for each problem.
WHY? The world is complex and ever-changing and we need to be able to handle the volume of information we receive and, of course, to find and choose the best solution. Therefore, we direct our ATTENTION TO THE CAUSE, and not only on the effects/solutions.
We will learn from NATURE, the only “company” that has not gone bankrupt in over 4000M years, and it’s GENERATIVE SOLUTIONS.
> OBJECTIVES <
The participants will work in multidisciplinary groups (ex. architect + designer + business manager + constructor + communication specialist etc.) applying knowledge management tools, different approaches and nature-based optimization methods.
Listed objectives:
1. Improving the generative way of TURNING AN IDEA INTO A PROJECT through problem-solving thinking
2. Discovering nature’s ways of shaping evolutionary solutions
3. Getting out from our comfort zone and working together with other professionals in groups in order to achieve better solutions: Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
4. Learning to use technology to manage information in the decision making process
& surviving the whole week
> ATTENDANCE & COSTS <
> Early bird – until 17th March 2013
Lecture – 15 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 100 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
> Late bird – until 6th April 2013
Lecture – 25 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 120 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
…
e design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working. The big speed/usability advantage for the user that apps like Inventor provide is: All the defining, handling, assembling/gluing to the adjacent components is done as part of its 'main loop' with all the hooks that can cater to user interaction, ie traditional modeling. I guess one example of this is how Revit handles the placing of Adptive Components. AC's (and GC's GFT's) is pretty much a copy of Catia PowerCopies (which are probably a copy of something else). When placed, the AC's input points are transferred one by one to the cursor for the user to interactively place them. When copied, it tries to keep the same inputs, while changing its position/parameters. This saves a lot of time/nerves.
Catia, OTOH, is still thinking in terms of scripting and looks for matching property names, or uses a script to match strings, that nearly match. Sure, sometimes, this is unavoidable, but I think that there is a lot of room for incorporating a more traditional 'event-based' interface or 'wrapper' around the scripted components.So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results? An example of this is how Modo's Toolpipe works. The Toolpipe is a simple tool to record the active selection, snap/alignment/working plane, tool settings for re-use. I could see the user benefitting if the GH component was aware of the app's 'state' when placing/assembling components.
Also, a lot of simple things could be 'modeled' first and translated into scripted form if GH could read the active workplane, snap settings etc. Draw first, convert to hand-scripted script later?Columns: Looking at your description, the vertical elements were modeled in Rhino, and referenced in GH? 5hrs to get some points on the lines? And using Excel as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model? The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.Would love to understand what you did by sketching.Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
With a manager, If one of the beams is connected to the column, changes in either component would trigger changes in the other to preserve the connection, regardless of the creation history. In GH, the dependencies are fixed, and the connection points would probably need to be defined independently, and placed 'upstream' of both elements. This makes editing laborious... but DAG processing is a lot quicker than constraints solving. Switching direction seems to be possible in the animation world. Maya etc have IK/FK switching, which seems to be able to reverse the solving direction on demand. Not sure how or whether the rig is scripted.…
. From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e)
with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input
Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...?
MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw,
2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11).
In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results.
Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method?
3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component?
Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12
Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
Thanks a lot for your helpRegards,
Aymeric
…
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.…
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