t, you can see 6 (+) signs with what you can add (A,B,C,P,Q,R).
Let's say you add A = 90 and B = 50.
Now you can't add the third angle (cause its 180-(50+90) = C output).
What you can add at the moment is P,Q,R.
You choose to add P = 10.
There is no more a possibility to add Q and R.
All component outputs now give us the data.
2. Triangle with P,Q,R
When you zoom the component, you can see 6 (+) signs with what you can add (A,B,C,P,Q,R).
Let's say you add P = 15, Q = 20.
Now if you add R, the component's outputs all the angles and edge lengths.
If R > P+Q then component throws warning. (> or >= ?)
You cannot add A,B or C anymone.
3.Triangle with P,Q and C
When you zoom the component, you can see 6 (+) signs with what you can add (A,B,C,P,Q,R).
Let's say you add P = 15, Q = 20.
Now if you add C (angle), the component's outputs all the angles and edge lengths.
You cannot add A,B or R anymone.
To make it all easier, disable the possibility to internalize the data.
Tolerance issue... Maybe round the angles always to floor , with 0.1 precision ?
…
We are posting a few experiments, created with the work-in-progress RABBIT 0.2. We plan to release it within a week or two…
RABBIT 0.2 has a lot of new features:…
Added by Morphocode at 8:42am on February 23, 2010
ned' as this is kind of unknown to me, which is why I wanted to look for a tool or script that might generate some geometry between the two. The fundamental principle is that the input meshes must retain 90+% of their original geometry (ie not deformed into an approximated wrapped shape) but be joined together by some sort of mesh geometry which acts as a link between the two shapes. The form for this could be highly abstract and doesn't need to conform to any parameters other than allowing the original meshes to be highly visible. I hope that makes sense, it may only be clear in my mind now that I have pursued it this far!With regards to the geometry wrapper, I found the example file that you sent us and attempted to plug in similar variables with my meshes, however the values returned by the geometry wrapper are constantly zero, no matter what I seem to change. I am currently plugging the mesh into a bounding box, which forms the box for both the geometry wrapper and iso surface and then inputting integers for the remaining parameters, though I'm not quite sure what actions these are performing. Would it help if I could send you my definition? I'm currently trying to internalise my meshes, though my rhino keeps crashing when I try! If you aren't able to follow any of the above let me know and I'll try and put together some simple diagrams that may explain it better.
Thanks,
Tom…
Added by Tom Jelley at 3:28pm on November 12, 2014
unique properties (color, UV map, vertex normal) the vertex is duplicated. So if you weld a mesh using the weld command with an angle tolerance of more than 90 degrees you're left with a box with 6 faces and 8 vertices.
It's quite a common way to describe meshes, Also the way your graphics card consumes meshes, so there's little CPU processing needed to process the meshes and feed them to the graphics card. If it's hard drive space you're worried about, there may be some compression possible. Apart from primitives, I don't know a geometry that do not represent a box by having four faces (including maya's polygons).
A mesh is considered closed when there are no naked edges. So for boxes this does not return false. I assume that internally spatial queries are used (or perhaps a check if the vertices are exactly the same)(see https://github.com/mcneel/rhinocommon/blob/master/dotnet/opennurbs/opennurbs_mesh.c )
Conclusion: If you want faces to show as having a (semi) creased edge, you'll have a vertex direction for each vertex.
However, if your goal is to make gears, I'd skip the whole part of creating meshes, and leverage Breps and extrusions to create the geometry, or using Extrusion (the geometry) might be a solution to create lightweight geometry, and forget about creating meshes yourself.
…
nt analysis - benchmarking >> bad condition of a face falsifies, resolution-dependence ...
B) if you use the karamba- or gh-mesher it still gives you bad results as your sphere has its nurbs-edge running through your cap. rotate the sphere 90° around x before and you are getting a nice mesh.
C) your supports are not defined just around its edge which i guess the benchmark would require?
D) you defined wood as the material, and there are some non-benchmark defaults for that i guess. also i am not sure but i think there have been some issues about the computability of shell element's materials with low shear modulus, and therefore the one of wood was raised. but you have to ask clemens for that.
nevertheless you can define your own material-properties with the resp. component
for me now, it calculates the first 5 buckling modes
good luck!
best
rob
…
rench "géométrie de raccordement" this geometry is different and unique to each pattern, and is highly dependent on the central geometry of the pattern, some non exhaustive rules imply that:
this geometry is usualy the extension of the central one
follow by the preceding rule the same angularity than the central geometry
the angles are dictated by the parent geometry shape, here you have an octogon, which means that the angles are either or both the ( subdivision usually) and multiplication of the PI/2.rad angle(90°, 45°, 22.5° and so on)
there is the notion of tiling, which also dictactes the axes of symmetry and possible combination of primary shapes , here you've got the (4,8,8) tiling, which goes along with what is called an octocagonal symmetry
What you've got here is the base geometry, that you could fill with a variety of rich ornaments, I suggest You look at Jule's bourgoin book : "Les éléments de l'art arabe : le trait des entrelacs " there you may find your pattern in a higher complexity and diversity, if you come to analyse them, you could figure out the logical relationships between the shapes , or what you're referring to "mathematical formula"
I think finding some patterns of reference is the best way to tacle even more complex shapes
If you want more insights at least about some academic works I will be pleased to share my humble gathering of knowledge
Good luck…
cussions.
The heart of the problem was a math domain error that was occurring in the function that calculates indoor air stratification, which is ironic as this was a simulation that did not have any indoor test points. This has now been fixed in the attached file and on the github.
The second issue was that the month was off by 1 when you connected up an HOY and this has also been fixed now.
https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/commit/d45ac37bc8b9db3f76aa5d9fcc00687394b9ef5d
My last comment is a suggestion to break up the ground top surface into several surfaces as this allows the temperature maps to account for spatial differences in ground temperature across the scene. This is what I do in this file here:
http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Outdoor_Microclimate_Map&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0
Thanks for getting down to the cause of issues like this one. It really makes these bugs much easier to fix. Between the both of you, I feel you can take credit for over 90% of the bug fixes in the community.
Great job, as always,
-Chris…