precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…
s (and God knows how many in the next case) that's why (other than the colossal amount of time (for no reason) required for creating them ... try to bake them and measure the file size).
3 .Most non pros believe that the thing that matters the most in engineering is the geometry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is about the 5% (complex real-life cases etc etc - but this one is very simple geometry wise and not that simple with regard the whole "ideal" AND effective strategy required).
4. So I've included in this Rhino file attached a small portion of your frames as input for the second C#: CAREFULLY study what it does and most importantly why: it gives you the clear indication about why you should attack this on an assembly/component basis by using instance definitions INSTEAD of recreating 14++ K "solids". The difference in performance is COLOSSAL, not to mention the baked Rhino file size.
5. Using instances is IMPOSSIBLE whiteout code (as is the case in 99% or real-life engineering tasks).
6. Geometry was never an issue on that one (is the 5% max of the whole puzzle no matter requirements you may have).
Bad news:
1. Zoom extends doesn't work after importing your data (maybe a NVidia Quadro K4200 driver issue - who knows?): use saved views stored.
So ...the choice is yours, best, Lord of Darkness…
ponents, among other functionalities, is significantly widening the relevance of the toolset.
Meanwhile having used the tools for some time now and have gone through the forum, in my opinion a few critical system controls is still missing - unless I'm missing some understanding.
In order to really make the hourly energy analysis valuable in early massing studies etc. the consideration of indoor climate can be more detailed. The HVAC capacities, max. airrate and min. inlet temperature should be within comfortable ranges and hardsized by user input to reduce internal draft problems. If not considered I find that the analysis could possibly demonstrate good energy behavior and reasonable operative temperature but in reality could cause a bad indoor environment - and when "rectified" at a later stage the energy consumption will increase.
I would like to know how it is possible in HB to set-up a HVAC system with these ventilation controls and a "unlimited" convective/radiant heating system, and how to deal with the issues mentioned below. The inputs parameters exists in the components, but I can't seem to get the right system behaviour.
In the attached file I have gone through 4 scenaries, each with seperate issues in setting up the system (As no template appearantly supports the combined setup the heating system is simulated using an inlet temperature of 99 degrees).
HVACSystem: "ideal air loads" - Issue: no hardsized airrate, no cooling supply air temperature
HVACSystem: "VAV w. reheat" - Issue: no regulation of airrate, no use of input heat supply temperature in heating mode
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" -> issue with duplicate zone names
HVACSystem: "idealairloadsystem" using "additionstrings" on multiple zones -> issue with duplicate zone names
Thanks a lot!
Jon…
t the maximum potential with the bridge BIM+PARAMETRIC DESIGN ;D
During this Intense Week, we will learn about the power of Rhino + Grasshopper + ArchiCAD with Professional and Useful examples for our Normal Working day :D
You will get Advanced Library Files + Personal Web + Knowledge and Skills to start using this incredible Methodology ;D
Also, the week is having Lectures from different Experts sharing their Computational Working Experiences ;D And Jam Sessions! opening the door to 5 interesting topics to research, learn and experiment together :D
2020 is your YEAR ;D !!!
Complete details and registration……
hreads where Thread I solves object A1 and Thread II solves object A2. As soon as A1 is completed, Thread I can move on to object B1 and as soon as A2 completes, Thread II can move on to object B3 (whichever comes first). When both A1 and A2 are complete, we can spawn a new thread (III) to take care of object B2.
If B2 completes before B3, then Thread III will terminate. If B3 completes before B2, then Thread II terminates. Whichever thread is last will pick up execution of object C3. And so on and so forth.
This sort of threading is actually not guaranteed to help much though, as it is likely that the bottleneck components in the network will still need to be handled by a single thread.
A more efficient solution would be to divvy up the execution per component to multiple threads. If you're trying to compute the Curve Closest Point for 10,000 points and your machine contains 4 cores, then we can assign 2,500 points to the first core, 2,500 points to the second core etc.
This approach will actually work when there's only a few bottleneck components and it also means the order in which components are solved is no longer important.
An even more fine-grained approach to threading would be to make the Curve Closest Point function in the Rhino SDK threaded. There's a lot of looping going on in any given Curve CP computation so the curve could be broken up into loose spans where each span is solved by a different core. Then the partial results get consolidated once all threads finish.
The benefit here is that it would be multi-core for everyone, not just Grasshopper components.
The bad news: Some functions in Rhino are not thread-safe. Meaning that data structures such as NurbsCurves cannot be modified from multiple threads at once as it will compromise their validity. You might well end up with invalid curves and quite possible weird crashes. In very bad cases it might even be that a specific function in our SDK can only be running once, so even if you were to duplicate the curve it would still not work.
Until our SDK is thread-safe there can be no global threading in Grasshopper. I don't know where we're headed with this, but I do know that we've started using some threaded algorithms in the display as of Rhino5, so it seems we're at least getting our feet wet.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Seattle, WA…
Added by David Rutten at 5:47pm on November 17, 2010
r "virtual partitions" as follows:
What I mean "air walls" here, is derived from the description of the E+ documentation with the header of "Air wall, Open air connection between zones". (Page 17, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/tips_and_tricks_using_energyplus.pdf)
As I understand, the term "air wall" used in E+ here refers to a description of something like "boundary condition" between adjacent interzone heat transfer surfaces, but not a kind of "construction or material" (like air space resistance or air gaps within a wall/double glazing window).
The main purpose of introducing the "air wall", is to simulate or approximate the airflow/convection/natural ventilation effect between multiple thermal zones which are connected by a large opening.
In my previous tests, using HBzones and GB, I managed to create the gbXML file which can be successfully imported to DB (without assigning any constructions within HB). And the adjacency condition can be recognized automatically by DB, even when I did not use the "Solve adjacencies" component in HB - shared surfaces between multiple thermal zones are recognized automatically by BD as "internal - partition"(which are standard partitions, but not virtual partitions).
In order to create/approximate "virtual partition", I need to manually draw a "hole" in the standard partition surface (fig.1&2). Again, the reason why we want to use "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") is that it allows airflow between multiple thermal zones which are connected by large openings and we could get different temperature of the each subdivided thermal zone which compose a large thermal zone.
My question is, if there is a possible way to simulate/approximate this kind of "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") in HBzones or in GB? If so, I would like to test if DB recognizes it or not. Actually, we expect that there is no need to involve any manual operations (like drawing a "hole" in the standard partition surface) in DB, due to an automatic optimization loop.
Thank you!
Best,
Ding
fig.1
fig.2
…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015