o está dirigido a estudiantes de arquitectura y diseño de interiores, recién titulados y profesionales interesados en el software o que necesiten conocer las herramientas básicas de las que dispone el programa en los diferentes ámbitos y cómo enfocarlas a arquitectura.
Descripción:El contenido del curso enseñará a utilizar el programa de diseño Rhinoceros 3D aplicando su metodología de trabajo en el campo de la arquitectura, básandose además de la creación de pequeños elementos paramétricos para controlar el diseño y acabar renderizando las geometrías 3d con V-Ray para Rhino.
El curso consta de 3 módulos de 12h de duración cada uno (que pueden realizarse juntos o por separado) en los cuales se profundizará en herramientas de Rhino, Grasshopper y V-Ray a medida que se realizan casos prácticos sobre proyectos arquitectónicos.Se pretende establecer un sistema de trabajo eficiente desde el inicio del modelado hasta la posterior creación de imágenes para documentación del proyecto.
Módulo Rhinoceros Arquitectura:• Conceptos básicos e interfaz de usuario Rhino• Introducción al sistema cartesiano en Rhino• Clases de complejidad de geometría• Importación/exportación de archivos compatibles• Topología NURBS• Trabajo con Sólidos• Estrategias básicas de Superficies• Introducción a Superficies Avanzadas
Módulo Grasshopper:• Conceptos básicos e interfaz de usuario Grasshopper• Introducción a parámetros base y componentes• Matemáticas y trigonometría como herramientas de diseño• Matemáticas aplicadas a creación de Geometría• Introducción a listas simples• Análisis de Superficies y Curvas• Dominios de Superficies y Curvas• Panelado de superficies• Manejo de listas y componentes relacionados• Modificación de panelados en función de atractores• Exportación/Importación de información a Grasshopper
Módulo V-Ray para Rhinoceros:• Conceptos básicos e interfaz de usuario V-Ray• Vistas guardadas• Materiales V-Ray• Materiales, creación y edición• Iluminación (Global Illumination, Sunlight, Lights)• Cámara Física vs Cámara default• Canales de Render• Postprocesado básico de canales
Detalles:Instructores: Alba Armengol Gasull y Oriol Carrasco (SMD Arquitectes)Idioma: CastellanoHorario: 22 JULIO al 26 JULIO 2013 // 10.00 – 14.00 / 16.00 – 20.00Organizadores: SMDLugar: SMD lab, c/Lepant 242 Local 11, 08013 Barcelona (map)
Software:Rhinoceros 5Grasshopper 0.9.00.56V-Ray 1.5 for RhinoAdobe Photoshop CS5Links de versiones de evaluación de los Softwares serán facilitadas a todos los asistentes. Se usará unica y exclusivamente la versión de Rhino para PC. Se ruega a los participantes traer su propio ordenador portátil.
Registro:Modalidad de precio reducido por tres módulos 275€Posibilidad de realizar módulos por separado 99€…
h, and using the BScale and BDistance are creating havoc somehow too. I've simplified first, and used the Kangaroo Frames component along with setting internal iterations, to make MeshMachine act like a normal component, along with releasing the FixC and FixV. The FixV didn't make any sense anyway. I've also set Pull to 0 to speed it up during testing, since much less calculation is involved to just let the meshes collapse, prevented from disappearing altogether by using a mere 15 iterations.
Also, your breps are open so that allows much more chaos and then collapse, though they did manage to close themselves too at times. Here is closed breps with a full 45 iterations:
So now that it's working, lets re-Fix the curves, and the problem arises that there is an extra seam line that is getting fixed too, running along the cylinder, stopping the mesh from pulling tight under tension wherever a vertex happens to be near that line:
So lets grab only the naked edge curves instead:
And what happens if we lose the end caps, now that we don't have an extra line skewing the result?:
There is no real curvature differences since it's not a curvy brep so the Adapt at full 1 setting has little to do. Now what does the BScale and BDist do? Nothing! Why? Your scale is out of whack, 99 mm high cylinders but only a falloff maximum of about 5, so let's make the falloff be 25 instead, but I must restore the end caps or the meshes collapse away for some reason and freezes Rhino for a minute or so the first time I try it:
It's a start.
If I intersect the cylinders, nothing changes, since they are being treated as separate runs. MeshMachine outputs a sequence of two outputs though, due to Frames being set to a bare minimum of 2 needed to get it to work, so I filter out the original run, which is just the unmodified initial mesh it creates.
The lesson so far is that closed meshes are much less prone to collapse and glitches leading to screw ups.
A Boolean union of the cylinders is when it gets funner, here show with and without the fixed curves that seem to define boundaries too where really there are just polysurface edges:
…
es has guided me in a - what I once thought - specific path within architecture, but recent discoveries (like the Grasshopper-community etc.) have learned me that the field of digital and parametric architecture is so-to-speak alive and kicking. This is also the main subject I would like to write my thesis about. It is however mainly the subject and defining its boundaries – what do I really want to explore and research? – which is the most difficult factor at this time.
A concrete idea is non-existant, and my current visions will probably be redirected when I have a first meeting with the promotors in February. Moreover there is the knowledge that it is impossible to make a thesis at the institute in Antwerp on no matter what subject in the world of digital architecture. Understandably too, it’s a small world and does not always result in realised projects, but in impressive imagery. At this moment however, I am thinking of two possible research fields to focus on.
In a first option the focus might lie on how digital design tools can be used to bring a certain aspect of interactivity to building facades. Such interactivity can occur both in the design phase and throughout the use of the building. The first scenario, in which the interactivity occurs when designing, I would focus on how the designer can shape a building’s outer perspective in function of environmental parameters: obstacles, elements that block sunlight from entering the building, visually important landmarks, etc. It should be noted however that focus will mostly lie on the design element, and less on the energy-efficiency and sustainability. Tools that will be researched would include Grasshopper, Rhino Scripting, Processing and ParaCloud.
A second possible approach could be categorized under both Swarm Intelligence and Generative Design and might study how the aforementioned digital techniques might be implemented in the new urbanism. We notably see more (innovative) interventions in which the design and planning is heavily influenced by movement patterns and morphogenetic parameters and functions. Based on the outcome of these scripted techniques, designers tend to work towards a proposal which answers a certain urbanistic issue.
All additional insights, guidelines, tips, comments are more than welcome in order to help me define the scope of my thesis subject. I must admit I am pretty new to this digital design world (it is not actively promoted at my home university, but it is promoted at the university where I am studying for one year now) and thus have limited experience at the time of writing.
Please also feel free to check out the blog post concerning this topic, which is a little more elaborate: http://nielswouters.be/thesis-digital-design-english/
Thanks for all your help!
…
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.…
y in English. ○Presenter
Robert (Bob) McNeel (McNeel & Associates founder) Robert (Bob) McNeel is the founder and president of Robert McNeel & Associates (RMA). Founded in 1978, RMA originally focused on developing accounting software for accounting, architecture, engineering, and other personal services firms. Within a few years, RMA expanded its services to include selling and supporting microprocessor-based engineering and design software including AutoCAD. By 1985, the main focus of the business had shifted to AutoCAD sales, service, training, and software development. Bob McNeel grew up in the mountains of southern Washington State on a subsistence dairy farm. To pay for college, he worked in construction as a carpenter, welder, and cement finisher. Bob has a BA in Accounting from Washington State University. Prior to founding McNeel & Associates, he was a practicing Certified Public Accountant and the comptroller for a large construction company in Spokane. Andrés González (Rhino Fablab director) Andrés is a software trainer and developer since the 1980s. He has developed applications for diverse design markets as well as training materials for different CAD and Design software including the community of training materialswww.Rhino3D.TV Andrés has been working with the Rhino Team since the very early stages. He is now the head of the McNeel Southeast US & Latin American Division. He is the worldwide director of the digital fabrication community called RhinoFabLabwww.RhinoFabLab.com as well as the Generative Jewelry & Fashion Design community GJD3D www.GJD3d.com and Generative Furniture Design community GFD3D www.GFD3d.com 1981 -1985 University of North Carolina at Charlotte N.C. - EE.UU. B.S., Bachelor of Science in Engineering
…
Added by Yusuke Oono at 9:28pm on October 16, 2013
This blog post is a rough approximation of the lecture I gave at the AAG10 conference in Vienna on September 21st 2010. Naturally it will be quite a different experience as the medium is quite…
Added by David Rutten at 3:27pm on September 24, 2010
he example file to this file so you can give it a try with any version of Honeybee that you're already using. The only requirement is to have OpenStudio installed as the component is using OpenStudio libraries to parse gbXML files. If you're using the latest version available on github the component is also available under WIP tab.
Why?
The main purpose of developing this component is to save time and effort for importing Revit models for energy and daylight analysis. It bothers me to see a lot of smart people spend a lot of time to just come up with solutions just to get the geometry from Revit to Honeybee for analysis. This component is not solving all the issue but is a first step forward. In an ideal world, the future version of Honeybee, which works both under DynamoBIM and Grasshopper should address this issue but that can take some time to be fully ready!
How?
To use this component you need to Export your Revit model as gbXML and then use the file path to load the file into Grasshopper. There are several resources available online on how to prepare the analytical model in Revit and export the gbXML file. Here is an image for importing the Revit 2017 sample model using the default settings. As you can see the model will be just as good as what your original gbXML file from Revit is.
What can be improved?
Well, there are several items that can be improved and they are mostly not on us. To get it started I add what I think are the 3 main shortcomings and my thoughts on how they can be addressed in the future. Feel free to add what you think needs to be added to this list in the comments section.
1. Revit analytical models and as the results gbXML files, by design, are not intended to be clean. Watch this presentation from the Autodesk University to see the logic behind this approach which in short is it doesn't matter for a large scale early stage energy model. Well, This will be quite a problem for studies that you can do with Honeybee. Included but not limited to daylight and comfort analysis.
The best solution that I can think of, until Autodesk fixes their exporter, is to use Revit Rooms and Spaces and generate a clean model from the scratch. We have already tried this approach in Revit but since the Revit API doesn't provide access to Room openings we had a very hard time to get it to work.
That's why that I opened an idea on Revit ideas to get over this issue. With your support we already have 81 votes, but it hasn't been enough to make them to consider the idea for an official review. If you haven't voted already and you think this will be a helpful feature take a moment and vote so we can have it implemented at some point in the future.
2. There is no way (that I know) to export only part of the model. The way export gbXML is set up in Revit is to export the whole model once together. As a result, if you have a huge model with 100 rooms and you want to get one of the rooms into Honeybee using this component you have to export the whole model, which can take some time, and then import them all back into Grasshopper. To partially address this issue I added an input to the component that allows you input a list of names for rooms that you're interested to be loaded into Grasshopper. You can use the name of the room/space in Revit as an input for the component.
3. The component doesn't import adjacencies, loads, schedules and HVAC systems. I wasn't able to export a gbXML file from Revit with any of this data except for the adjacency, but even if you can do that, the component currently can only import geometries and constructions. I hope we get access to 1 and so we don't have to use the xml file approach at all, but if that takes a very long time then we will add these features to the component.
Happy 2017!
Mostapha…
ating to new speakers.
For more information: https://medium.com/@carspeakerland/a-guide-to-the-simple-way-difference-in-car-speakers-2-way-3-way-4-way-25e0bf215b00
Adding new speakers for your automobile could improve the sound quality dramatically. Some sound technicians say it is the number-one update you may make to improve the overall quality of your vehicle.
"They do not care how it sounds. Speakers are often form of continue on the list. Updating to new speakers offers you a much fuller sound."
There is a whole lot to pick from in regards to car speakers. (Photo from Eldon Lindsay)
"New speakers will make a greater fidelity and clarity of sound," states Robert Nevitt, proprietor of Audio Electronics at Indianapolis. "The audio is more different without distortion. People will not get bored listening to it."
Cook says customers need to pick the type of sound they enjoy. The very first thing Cook does having a customer is sit in the car together to talk about their personal taste.
"Everybody's ear is different," he states. "That which I believe sounds great, you might believe is dreadful. It is a fantastic idea to get outside and listen to everything you enjoy and do not like about doing it."
When you've discovered a sound you want, you are going to discover the sky's actually the limitation in regards to purchasing car speakers. There are scores of manufactures and models, sizes and power levels to select from.
Columbus Car Audio & Accessories offers three types of automobile speakers to pick from: complete array speakers, component speakers along with coaxial speakers.
• Total range speakers arrive with a tweeter to make to your high-pitched sounds along with a woofer for those lows. This option offers a number of different sizes.
• Unit speakers, nonetheless, include separate tweeters and woofers.
• Coaxial speakers arrive with a tweeter plus motorist.
When you've selected a type of automobile speaker, you are going to want to determine how many you desire. Cook states some cars arrive with as little as just two speakers, whereas bigger, luxury vehicles might have too many 32. He adds a normal sedan generally has four. What are The Speaker Sizes in My Car | Speaker Size for My Car
"It simply depends if you would like to replace all of these," Cook says. "I would advise doing all of four. If you are budget-minded, I'd begin with the ones at the front. That is where you are at. And you are likely to be at the automobile 100 percent of their moment."
Subwoofers are designed to reproduce low bass frequencies also may be included with new speakers or could be added separately to existing car speakers.
"Many speakers can not play down low in these frequencies such as a subwoofer may," Cook says.
Related Article
Wondering about speakers? Below are a few techniques to establish a home entertainment experience whatever your budget.
A speaker update might charge as little as $100 up to a few million dollars depending on the scope of job and type of speaker.
Cook states that the price of a subwoofer can operate as low as $37. Columbus Car Audio & Accessories sells a subewoofer bundle that includes an amplifier and a enclosure for about $ 299.
To get a set of automobile speakers, Columbus Car Audio & Accessories begin prices at $39, with an average price tag of about $70 for setup. Adding an anti-vibrator into a set of speakers prices an additional $25.
Nevitt, meanwhile, fees as little as $99 to get a set of "some good speakers." The price of one hour of installion, that is typically how long it takes to put in a set of speakers, is 67.
However, most customers spend far more.
"Paying a total amount of 800 to $1000 isn't from this world of possibility," Nevitt states. "A price somewhere in the center could be $400 or $500."
Cook says several vehicle speaker technicians began with DIY projects and adds there is nothing wrong with trying to set up car speakers all on your own. But you are going to want the correct tools for your job along with just a little understand. Installing speakers requires carrying out your car door.
See Also: https://www.scoop.it/t/how-to-choose-best-car-speakers-6x9-inch-6-5-inch-6x8-inch-4-inch
Choosing a professional to set up speakers ensures that the job is done correctly.
"If you do it yourself, then you might wind up breaking something. That is some thing we do everyday. I am not planning to inform you we will not violate something. But we will look after it if we perform. We all do so with being honest and up front with people."
If you are getting speakers set up, experts say to expect to place an appointment to the setup. …
t. So here we go!
1. Honeybee is brown and not yellow [stupid!]...
As you probably remember Honeybee logo was initially yellow because of my ignorance about Honeybees. With the help of our Honeybee expert, Michalina, now the color is corrected. I promised her to update everyone about this. Below are photos of her working on the honeybee logo and the results of her study.
If you think I'm exaggerating by calling her a honeybee expert you better watch this video:
Thank you Michalina for the great work! :). I corrected the colors. No yellow anymore. The only yellow arrows represent sun rays and not the honeybee!
2. Yellow or brown, W[here]TH Honeybee is?
I know. It has been a long time after I posted the initial video and it is not fun at all to wait for a long time. Here is the good news. If you are following the Facebook page you probably now that the Daylighting components are almost ready.
Couple of friends from Grasshopper community and RADIANCE community has been helping me with testing/debugging the components. I still think/hope to release the daylighting components at some point in January before Ladybug gets one year old.
There have been multiple changes. I finally feel that the current version of Honeybee is simple enough for non-expert users to start running initial studies and flexible enough for advanced users to run advanced studies. I will post a video soon and walk you through different components.
I think I still need more time to modify the energy simulation components so they are not going to be part of the next release. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to set up and run a wrong energy simulation and I really don’t want to add one new GIGO app to the world of simulation. We already have enough of that. Moreover I’m still not quite happy with the workflow. Please bear with me for few more months and then we can all celebrate!
I recently tested the idea of connecting Grasshopper to OpenStudio by using OpenStudio API successfully. If nothing else, I really want to release the EnergyPlus components so I can concentrate on Grasshopper > OpenStudio development which I personally think is the best approach.
3. What about wind analysis?
I have been asked multiple times that if Ladybug will have a component for wind study. The short answer is YES! I have been working with EFRI-PULSE project during the last year to develop a free and open source web-based CFD simulation platform for outdoor analysis.
We had a very good progress so far and our rockstar Stefan recently presented the results of the work at the American Physical Society’s 66th annual DFD meeting and the results looks pretty convincing in comparison to measured data. Here is an image from the presentation. All the credits go to Stefan Gracik and EFRI-PULSE project.
The project will go live at some point next year and after that I will release the Butterfly which will let you prepare the model for the CFD simulation and send it to EFRI-PULSE project. I haven’t tried to run the simulations locally yet but I’m considering that as a further development. Here is how the component and the logo looks like right now.
4. Teaching resources
It has been almost 11 months from the first public release of Ladybug. I know that I didn't do a good job in providing enough tutorials/teaching materials and I know that I won’t be able to put something comprehensive together soon.
Fortunately, ladybug has been flying in multiple schools during the last year. Several design, engineering and consultant firms are using it and it has been thought in several workshops. As I checked with multiple of you, almost everyone told me that they will be happy to share their teaching materials; hence I started the teaching resources page. Please share your materials on the page. They can be in any format and any language. Thanks in advance!
I hope you enjoyed/are enjoying/will enjoy the longest night of the year. Happy Yalda!
Cheers,
-Mostapha
…
DP ($$$ aside), GC, and Grasshopper. Arthur’s original question is very important
and the exact question (and hopefully answer) I was hoping to find on a
forum.
“How to take intelligent 3D parametric generative design models (scripting, etc.) into 2D documents?" Or, deliver the 3D design for evaluation, bid, construction, etc.
I am intrigued by Jon’s comments in the same thread and would like to know how I can learn more about the process (and
pitfalls) of turning over a 3D digital generative models to a contractor/fabricator.
Are there any industry guidelines established I could use as a reference to guide our firm through this type of uncharted territory?
Arthur’s question is very reminiscent of 10 years ago when I was frustrated with the amount of time spent on the development of a 3D model design (physical and/or virtual) only to have to wipe the table clean and start the process all over again in 2D in order to document the project for delivery. From this I jumped head first into BIM and Revit, vowing never to go back to unintelligent 2D line work. I am now working on Bentley software (v8i: Microstation and Bentley Architecture) with the access and desire to venture into Generative Components. I am very intrigued by Rhino/Grasshopper primarily with the apparent ease of use and available resources assisting in the learning process – something not really available with Bentley.
In hindsight, as I am doing my software research I think the current use of Revit and BA (Bentley Architecture) are more of a “bridge”
between the past (decades of digital 2D work, i.e. AutoCAD) and where hopefully
we all will be someday in the near future (100% 3D modeling, i.e. Digital
Project??). Without having the experience
it would appear that DP/CATIA (PLM software) are closer to this than any other
type of software. As complicated as the
industry standards are for the automobile and airline industry, I feel we
(architectural industry and others) are heading in a similar direction with
total understanding (PLM/ Evidence Based Design) of a design (a whole other topic). If anything I think the market will begin to
demand it sooner or later.
Gehry (DP) article NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/11gehry.html
I know these type of broad discussions (software vs. software) can be blown out of proportion on forums, but I am would like to read
the pulse of those who are already in the trenches (using Grasshopper, CATIA, Digital Project, Generative Components, others??) and hear your thoughts. Just as valuable would be other threads,
industry articles/reviews of 3D parametric generative design software.
Thanks,
Boyd…