try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…
points within the bounds of the site boundary and use each location as an attractor point controlling a variable at each point in the grid (radius of a circle/height of a cube/colour based on a gradient etc.).This would be based on proximity to the attractor points with the effect of each attractor point essentially scaled by the percentage associated with it. For example a location with 88% visitor rates would have a more dramatic effect than a location with 26% visitor rates.
I've had a bit of a play around but can't seem to get beyond the point of what is shown in basic point attractor tutorials online. I'm definitely a novice.
Here's how I figured it would be done:
1) Create a grid of source points within a boundary curve.
2) Select 18 pre-defined attractor points.
2) Measure the distance between the source points and the attractor points.
3) Invert this data so that variables increase with proximity rather than decrease.
4) Give each of the attractor points a strength value from 1-100% based on the visitor rates.
5) Use the scaled data to control a variable at each of the source points.
6) Create some way to control the drop-off rate of the effect from each point.
It is at step 3 that I get completely lost.
I hope my description is clear. Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Adam
…
at 0.85m above the floor.
I copy paste from the Appendix E:Rights to Light of the book "Paul Littlefair, Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, A good practice, BRE Press, p.60" which is the primary guide for evaluating the impact of new construction to the Rights to Light of the existing adjustment buildings:
"The accepted way of calculating the loss of light is to compute the sky factor at a series of points on the working plane. In dwellings, the working plane height is usually taken to be 0.85 m (two feet nine inches). The sky factor is the ratio of the illuminance directly received from a uniform sky at the point indoors, to the illuminance outdoors under an unobstructed hemisphere of this sky. No allowance is made for glass losses or light blocked by glazed bars and (usually) window frames; nor is reflected light included, either from interior surfaces or obstructions outside. Thus the sky factor is not the same as the CIE daylight factor (see Appendix C). The sky factor is often calculated using a Waldram diagram, but this is a different Waldram diagram to Figure B1 in Appendix B, which should not be used for this purpose."
Thought couldn't find the specific Waldram diagram for this case from the references, I assume contemporary analytical tools should exist to calculate it.
I used your Vertical Sky Component process and culled the mesh faces lower than 0.2% but I believe because of they type of the radiance analysis as you have explained it before (stochastic method) it doesn't create one continuous edge, as you can see in the attached image.
Thanks,
Dimitris…
nowledge, 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. The Call for Clusters is now open to proposals which respond in innovative ways to this year's challenge.
Deadline: September 19 2011
More information can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=146
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…
ka Museum of Design, Gothenburg, Sweden. With
perforations that sift the light and with joints that are put together by
hand, it serves as a focus point in the big courtyard while visitors can
relax in the shade.
The pavilion is parametrically designed in Grasshopper and Rhino, and
loads, sun and shade, and material use has been optimized.
Steel sheets of 2 mm have been laser cut and rolled at the factory and
then assembled by hand in situ.
After summer the pavilion will be standing at Chalmers University of
Technology during the autumn, after which it is possible to purchase it.
The pavilion is a collaboration between Röhsska museum of Design, Chalmers
University of Technology and Ribo-verken, and is the result of 33
Architecture students' work during one semester, in the master level class
'Material and Detail'. After selecting one initial design, 33 students
have worked to develop the design, and to turn the project into a pavilion
which is safe and constructable.
The purpose of the course is to explore digital fabrication and to turn it
into a real, built architectural project.
Words on the design:
When talking to the staff at Röhsska at our first site visit, it became
clear that the courtyard, even though at the time covered with snow, could
get extremely hot during summer days. Adding this fact to the briefs'
demand for seating and the size of the empty courtyard, we set out to
create a pavilion that provided shaded seating inside it as well as
creating shaded spaces around it to place existing chairs and tables. The
pavilion therefore creates a network of spaces with the existing furniture
that altogether manages to inhabit the large courtyard, like different
small islands in an archipelago, which together with the technique of
rolling the steel in to arc segments gave it its name.
Well inside the pavilion you can lie comfortably on the smooth surface
that uses the steels excellent possibility to stay cool wheEn shaded.
Inside you find yourself in a space, the pavilion, within a space, the
courtyard, that creates a small but secluded getaway from the hectic city
life of central Gothenburg that is just outside the courtyard. The
perforation in the ceiling spreads out an organic pattern resembling the
one you would see from a tree in the forest. Contrasting the smooth
inside, the outside of the pavilion lets the visitor study in detail how
the 133 pieces are joint together with 1535 joints with a total of 3640
bolts holding it together.
- Marcus Abrahamsson & Benoit Croo, Initial Design
Cooperation partners: Röhsska Museum of Design & Chalmers Arkitektur
Main sponsor: Ribo-verken
Sponsors: Stålbyggnadsinstitutet, COWI, Tengbom, Unit Arkitektur AB,
Swebolt AB…
ka Museum of Design, Gothenburg, Sweden. With
perforations that sift the light and with joints that are put together by
hand, it serves as a focus point in the big courtyard while visitors can
relax in the shade.
The pavilion is parametrically designed in Grasshopper and Rhino, and
loads, sun and shade, and material use has been optimized.
Steel sheets of 2 mm have been laser cut and rolled at the factory and
then assembled by hand in situ.
After summer the pavilion will be standing at Chalmers University of
Technology during the autumn, after which it is possible to purchase it.
The pavilion is a collaboration between Röhsska museum of Design, Chalmers
University of Technology and Ribo-verken, and is the result of 33
Architecture students' work during one semester, in the master level class
'Material and Detail'. After selecting one initial design, 33 students
have worked to develop the design, and to turn the project into a pavilion
which is safe and constructable.
The purpose of the course is to explore digital fabrication and to turn it
into a real, built architectural project.
Words on the design:
When talking to the staff at Röhsska at our first site visit, it became
clear that the courtyard, even though at the time covered with snow, could
get extremely hot during summer days. Adding this fact to the briefs'
demand for seating and the size of the empty courtyard, we set out to
create a pavilion that provided shaded seating inside it as well as
creating shaded spaces around it to place existing chairs and tables. The
pavilion therefore creates a network of spaces with the existing furniture
that altogether manages to inhabit the large courtyard, like different
small islands in an archipelago, which together with the technique of
rolling the steel in to arc segments gave it its name.
Well inside the pavilion you can lie comfortably on the smooth surface
that uses the steels excellent possibility to stay cool wheEn shaded.
Inside you find yourself in a space, the pavilion, within a space, the
courtyard, that creates a small but secluded getaway from the hectic city
life of central Gothenburg that is just outside the courtyard. The
perforation in the ceiling spreads out an organic pattern resembling the
one you would see from a tree in the forest. Contrasting the smooth
inside, the outside of the pavilion lets the visitor study in detail how
the 133 pieces are joint together with 1535 joints with a total of 3640
bolts holding it together.
- Marcus Abrahamsson & Benoit Croo, Initial Design
Cooperation partners: Röhsska Museum of Design & Chalmers Arkitektur
Main sponsor: Ribo-verken
Sponsors: Stålbyggnadsinstitutet, COWI, Tengbom, Unit Arkitektur AB,
Swebolt AB…
ka Museum of Design, Gothenburg, Sweden. With
perforations that sift the light and with joints that are put together by
hand, it serves as a focus point in the big courtyard while visitors can
relax in the shade.
The pavilion is parametrically designed in Grasshopper and Rhino, and
loads, sun and shade, and material use has been optimized.
Steel sheets of 2 mm have been laser cut and rolled at the factory and
then assembled by hand in situ.
After summer the pavilion will be standing at Chalmers University of
Technology during the autumn, after which it is possible to purchase it.
The pavilion is a collaboration between Röhsska museum of Design, Chalmers
University of Technology and Ribo-verken, and is the result of 33
Architecture students' work during one semester, in the master level class
'Material and Detail'. After selecting one initial design, 33 students
have worked to develop the design, and to turn the project into a pavilion
which is safe and constructable.
The purpose of the course is to explore digital fabrication and to turn it
into a real, built architectural project.
Words on the design:
When talking to the staff at Röhsska at our first site visit, it became
clear that the courtyard, even though at the time covered with snow, could
get extremely hot during summer days. Adding this fact to the briefs'
demand for seating and the size of the empty courtyard, we set out to
create a pavilion that provided shaded seating inside it as well as
creating shaded spaces around it to place existing chairs and tables. The
pavilion therefore creates a network of spaces with the existing furniture
that altogether manages to inhabit the large courtyard, like different
small islands in an archipelago, which together with the technique of
rolling the steel in to arc segments gave it its name.
Well inside the pavilion you can lie comfortably on the smooth surface
that uses the steels excellent possibility to stay cool wheEn shaded.
Inside you find yourself in a space, the pavilion, within a space, the
courtyard, that creates a small but secluded getaway from the hectic city
life of central Gothenburg that is just outside the courtyard. The
perforation in the ceiling spreads out an organic pattern resembling the
one you would see from a tree in the forest. Contrasting the smooth
inside, the outside of the pavilion lets the visitor study in detail how
the 133 pieces are joint together with 1535 joints with a total of 3640
bolts holding it together.
- Marcus Abrahamsson & Benoit Croo, Initial Design
Cooperation partners: Röhsska Museum of Design & Chalmers Arkitektur
Main sponsor: Ribo-verken
Sponsors: Stålbyggnadsinstitutet, COWI, Tengbom, Unit Arkitektur AB,
Swebolt AB…
ka Museum of Design, Gothenburg, Sweden. With
perforations that sift the light and with joints that are put together by
hand, it serves as a focus point in the big courtyard while visitors can
relax in the shade.
The pavilion is parametrically designed in Grasshopper and Rhino, and
loads, sun and shade, and material use has been optimized.
Steel sheets of 2 mm have been laser cut and rolled at the factory and
then assembled by hand in situ.
After summer the pavilion will be standing at Chalmers University of
Technology during the autumn, after which it is possible to purchase it.
The pavilion is a collaboration between Röhsska museum of Design, Chalmers
University of Technology and Ribo-verken, and is the result of 33
Architecture students' work during one semester, in the master level class
'Material and Detail'. After selecting one initial design, 33 students
have worked to develop the design, and to turn the project into a pavilion
which is safe and constructable.
The purpose of the course is to explore digital fabrication and to turn it
into a real, built architectural project.
Words on the design:
When talking to the staff at Röhsska at our first site visit, it became
clear that the courtyard, even though at the time covered with snow, could
get extremely hot during summer days. Adding this fact to the briefs'
demand for seating and the size of the empty courtyard, we set out to
create a pavilion that provided shaded seating inside it as well as
creating shaded spaces around it to place existing chairs and tables. The
pavilion therefore creates a network of spaces with the existing furniture
that altogether manages to inhabit the large courtyard, like different
small islands in an archipelago, which together with the technique of
rolling the steel in to arc segments gave it its name.
Well inside the pavilion you can lie comfortably on the smooth surface
that uses the steels excellent possibility to stay cool wheEn shaded.
Inside you find yourself in a space, the pavilion, within a space, the
courtyard, that creates a small but secluded getaway from the hectic city
life of central Gothenburg that is just outside the courtyard. The
perforation in the ceiling spreads out an organic pattern resembling the
one you would see from a tree in the forest. Contrasting the smooth
inside, the outside of the pavilion lets the visitor study in detail how
the 133 pieces are joint together with 1535 joints with a total of 3640
bolts holding it together.
- Marcus Abrahamsson & Benoit Croo, Initial Design
Cooperation partners: Röhsska Museum of Design & Chalmers Arkitektur
Main sponsor: Ribo-verken
Sponsors: Stålbyggnadsinstitutet, COWI, Tengbom, Unit Arkitektur AB,
Swebolt AB…