radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
nside the zone. I would move your comfort evaluation surface to be 1 meter off the ground in order to be representative of typical human height.
Also, you did not intersect the ground with the rest of the zone geometry, resulting in an incorrect energy simulation. After intersection, you also get one surface of the ground zone that is not inside any buildings. I fixed these two things in the attached file ad it works:
I would also recommend breaking the top surface of the ground up into sub-surfaces so that you can capture the variation in ground surface temperature that happens across the outdoors. Second, I would recommend putting some windows on your buildings as the exterior surface temperature of windows can be very different than that of opaque surfaces. Finally, you should keep in mind that the outdoor maps are assuming a very basic outdoor wind profile by default and, to accurately understand outdoor comfort, you really should be incorporating wind patterns after running a CFD. This discussion has some information about importing CFD from other programs to GH:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug/forum/topics/import-cfd-result-to-honeybee
-Chris…
ers and researchers, programmers and artists, professionals and academics who come together for 4 days of intense collaboration, development, and design.
The sg2012 Workshop will be organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise. They comprise of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities.
Applicants to the sg2012 Workshop will select their preferred cluster from the following:
Beyond Mechanics
Micro Synergetics
Composite Territories
Ceramics 2.0
Material Conflicts
Transgranular Perspiration
Reactive Acoustic Environments
Form Follows Flow
Bioresponsive Building Envelopes
Gridshell Digital Tectonics
More information about the Workshop and Clusters can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=131
The application process will close on January 15th, 2012.
Full Fee $1500
Reduced Fee $750
Scholarship Fee $350
Fees include attendance to both the workshop and conference from March 19th-24th.
Reduced Fee and Scholarships are available only for Academics, Students and Young Practitioners, and are awarded during a competitive peer review process.
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information. Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities. sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/smartgeometry…
Added by Shane Burger at 12:29pm on December 13, 2011
up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. Participants will be guided through the basics of analysing and interpreting structural models, to optimisation processes and how to integrate Karamba3d into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 375 (+VAT)
Course Outline
Introduction & Presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line based and surface based elements
Geometric Optimization
Topological Optimization
Structural Performance Informed Form Finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba and visualising results
Complex Workflow processes in Rhino3d, Grasshopper3d and Karamba3d
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 places are required for the workshop to take place.
The workshop will be cancelled should this quota not be filled by May 31st.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba is needed.
Participants should bring their own laptops with either Rhino5/Rhino6 and Grasshopper3d installed. A 90 day trial version of Rhino can be downloaded from Rhino3d.
Karamba ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. Participants will be guided through the basics of analysing and interpreting structural models, to optimisation processes and how to integrate Karamba3d into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Student EUR 375 (+VAT)
Course Outline
Introduction & Presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line based and surface based elements
Geometric Optimization
Topological Optimization
Structural Performance Informed Form Finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba and visualising results
Complex Workflow processes in Rhino3d, Grasshopper3d and Karamba3d
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 places are required for the workshop to take place.
The workshop will be cancelled should this quota not be filled by October 15th.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba is needed.
Participants should bring their own laptops with either Rhino5/Rhino6 and Grasshopper3d installed. A 90 day trial version of Rhino can be downloaded from Rhino3d.
Karamba ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
ive 'correct' normal.
Non-normalized cross products is effectively weighting face normals by area, and is fast and simple, so we put that one as the default.
In some cases normalizing the cross-products improves the result, but not always.
Another option is to weight by angles, though this is computationally slightly more expensive, so might not be ideal for real-time updates on large meshes.
As an example, here is a mesh with a 90° corner, and uneven meshing on the 2 sides.
The arrows show:
0- Area weighted (non-normalized cross products)
1- Angle weighted
2- Normalized cross-products
Here the angle-weighted normal is the one at 45°, which is intuitively the 'best' one in this case.
These 3 seem to be the most commonly used, but there are many other possible definitions of normals - such as inverse-area weighted, mean curvature, etc...
I think really what would be best would be to put a few of these into Plankton, and include an optional argument in GetNormal for selecting which one you need for a particular application.
Pull requests welcome if you feel inspired to add this!
http://meshlabstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/on-computation-of-vertex-normals.html
http://steve.hollasch.net/cgindex/geometry/surfnorm.html…
us allows Grasshopper authors to stream geometry to the web in real time. It works like a chatroom for parametric geometry, and allows for on-the-fly 3D model mashups in the web browser. Multiple [Grasshopper] authors can stream geometry into a shared 3D environment on the web – a Platypus Session – and multiple viewers can join that session on 3dplatyp.us to interact with the 3D model. Platypus can be used to present parametric 3D models to a remote audience, to quickly collaborate with other Grasshopper users, or both!
You can down load the Grasshopper plugin at food4rhino, and visit 3dplatyp.us to view your geometry on the web. This first round of Alpha testing will run for two weeks, until April 24 2014, after which the Grasshopper components will not solve.
We are very interested in hearing feedback from the community while the project is still in the prototyping stages of development. Please use the comments on this discussion to ask questions, suggest ideas, report bugs, etc. We are planning on rolling out another public alpha release or two this Spring, depending on how this first one goes, in advance of our Technology Symposium and Hackathon in New York.
Check out our getting started video below, and enjoy!
…
e rod with circular section (no goals allow for controlling torsion for what I know). The rods are set with two options, with straight rest position or the (initial) bent one. The calibration integrated with the model is more about giving a scale between the forces rather than the will to accurately simulate them (at the moment). Anyway, I am trying to do it on a macro scale, instead of a micro, with elements which are rather thin.
The system at the moment is not stable. In fact, besides the rods' characteristics is quite fundamental to keep them planar when they intersect. I am lacking something but also probably missing some parameters. In the script, there are two goals to define this: impose 90° between vertical and horizontal, as well as between these and a normal to their intersection. For my understanding, angle goal works tri-dimensionally without a preferred plane and this (hopefully) should address it.
Just wondering if anyone can give me a hint on this. After this step, it would be great to understand if the system can get out of its plane (through a pull force out of its plane, simulated in the script through point loads in the joints). I am still not entirely sure about the possibility of doing this. By looking at how other auxetic patterns have been used to generate freeform surfaces, I am giving it a try.
Thank you
Claudio
PS: I noticed also this post and this, really interesting. I see the problematic over the stability and the necessity to separate the states with an energetic hill in the first, as well as some potential in using auxetics in the latter.…