them can be addressed before winter.
Bugs:
. Vector preview is great, but it doesn't refresh (clear) when you disconnect components. You must delete the component or reconnect to refresh the vector previews.
. When passing values through a note pad, note pad fails to update continuously. Moving the notepad updates the display.
. Cannot pass a notepad integer into an fx1
. Point preview in RH5 appears as large red blocks, not as red crosses. (This is an old bug, may have been fixed with RH5 update in the meantime.)
. After adjusting Graph in dialog box, graph appears to be a solid grey object until moved.
. After copying and pasting, a lot of components are broken, return nulls. Requires reconnect to recompute (haven't had this problem in a while, will see if I can find a file that recreates it)
. BIG ONE: Loading a graph mapper with a file not found creates broken file... graph mapper disappears off canvas and the output wire appears turns orange and appears to be coming from the 0,0 pixel of the canvas. This happens any time you try to port a .ghx file to another system with different drive letters/paths, etc.
Wish list:
Mass addition for vectors
Interactive domain control for Image Sampler (like with Gradient Mapper)
Allow Addition Component to handle String values (A + B = AB)
BIG ONE: Request Override for Icon display for Parameters, Wireless receiver, and script components if you change the name
BIG ONE: Add new behavior for Stream Filter and Stream Gate: Allow multiple index numbers. The Index number picks the value/object in the corresponding index position in the selected list.
For instance:
List 0: A, B, C, D, E
List 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
List 2: .1, .2, .3, .4, .5
Index Stream: 0, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1
Results: A, .2, .3, 4, 5 (This is new behaviour and more useful than Weaving)
I have attached a GHX that includes VB components that do this, but it would be better to have GH components with I/O manager options and data matching behavior, etc.
Thanks,
Marc Syp
Knowlton School of Architecture
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH…
curves A and B.
For each point pA on curve A,
you need the corresponding tangent vector tA on curve A, and the lists of "cone" vectors pB(j)-pA and tangent vectors tB(j) on curve B. so you have three vectors tA, tB(j) and AB(j)
these three vectors define a parallelogram thas varies along j
3d determinant of the three vectors above gives you the volume of this parallelogram. When 3dDet = 0 then it means it's flat, the vectors are coplanar. Thats what we're looking for.
So you just need to plot the curve 3Ddet = f(pB) , still for each point on A
'pB is the parameter here'
graphically solve these cuves to find the zeros and you feed back the resulting parameter in curve B. draw te line, done.
You can manage double solutions or cusps directly on the plot by using clostest point and >= conditions to kill unwanted results.
I do it twice, from crv A to crrv B and from B to A to make sure I catch start and end generatrices each time.
The videos you posted are interesting. I don't understand how it works with just 2 slider to tune the curves.
…
as passing this extra check and because of that it was running faster. It doesn't mean that the first analysis is totally wrong as it depends on the analysis case and should be checked and optimized before running the final analysis.
You can read more about radiance parameters here (http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/Notes/rpict_options.html), and here (http://radiance-online.org/community/workshops/2011-berkeley-ca/pre...). Since you have a light-shelf I suggest you to add to the number of ambient bounces (ab).
Now back to your wish to have the analysis run faster you can comment the line hb_writeRADAUX.checkInputParametersForGridBasedAnalysis() inside Honeybee_runDaylightSimulation and it won't overwrite the initial values but make sure that you run a number of test cases and compare the results between the runs.
Back to your definition, it looks good to me. You could have saved yourself some time by using MassToZone component and then just adding the ceiling separately but there's nothing wrong with your approach.
The main place in the definition that can change is how you're generating the vertical fins. I imagine you can use a single set of components to generate every group of the fins but again your definition will work.
I updated your file to the latest version, which means you also need to update Honeybee and Ladybug in case you're looking to modify the file.
Hope it helps,
Mostapha…
ky.exe did not accept -p parameter and made empty sky.cal file.
----
Edit: solved run problem, Bee did not download OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf
Get it here: https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/issues/119
Now get empty HDR:
C:\ladybug\prox\imageBasedSimulation>rpict -i -t 10 -vtv -vp 245.129 -226.458 20 0.405 -vd -0.549 0.656 -0.518 -vu -0.332 0.397 0.855 -vh 42.862 -vv 26.991 -v l 0 -vs 0 -vl 0 -x 800 -y 600 -af prox_RAD_Perspective.amb -ps 8 -pt 0.15 -pj 0.6 -dj 0 -ds 0.5 -dt 0.5 -dc 0.25 -dr 0 -dp 64 -st 0.85 -ab 2 -ad 1024 -as 175 -ar 150 -aa 0.200 -lr 4 -lw 0.050 -av 0 0 0 prox_RAD.oct 1>prox_RAD_Perspectiv e.unf rpict: 0 rays, 0.00% after 0.0000 hours rpict: skybright`c__ladybug_skylib_cumulativeSkies_SINGAPORE_SGP_SINGAPORE_SGP_1 : undefined variable rpict: 1020 rays, 4.91% after 0.0000 hours
----
Hi friends,
trying to get a cumulative sky image metric to run and encountered an issue with the image-based metrics component. It throws:
Runtime error (KeyNotFoundException): honeybee_materialLib Traceback: line 768, in main, "<string>" line 1442, in script
I guess this is some sort of setup issue on my end, or I messed up the definition? Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
Max
…
ace when I start running Galapagos/Octopus (below is "room orientation optimization" shared at http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=mostaphaRoudsari&fork=hydra_1&id=Room_Orientation_Optimization&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0) It may take quite some time to see some results. That's fine for the above simulation. But my real challenge is, when I am going to optimize room dimension with respect to ASE and sDA calculations, either Galapagos or Octopus goes wildly and never come up with a solution. I believe the time-consuming calculation, especially sDA with higher -ab numbers, trigger the lag a lot? Any suggestion/trick to improve it?
Most importantly, based on your experience, for example to optimize window/exterior shades sizes and achieve ASE<10% and sDA>55% (LEED v.4 requirements), Octopus (due to its capacity of multiple objectives) is the only choice? Any other approaches within grasshopper?
The alternative approach in my mind as a GH beginner is as follows. But I am not sure whether it is doable. Again, your comments will be greatly appreciated.
Since all my room/window/shades dimension are controlled by number sliders, I am thinking whether a component from GH will trigger these number sliders (not necessary to be all of them but one by one) automatically. If this is possible, I can do "data recorder" to record outputs from ASE and sDA. Eventually I will have a database of the input parameters and sDA/ASE results.
Does it make sense? Is there a component which can trigger number slider output at certain step?
Many thank!
Cheney …
rves/holes. However, the Kangaroo script itself is prone to locking up so it seems like it might take forever. You can even double click stop the timer from the Windows task bar, I hadn't noticed that before:
You have to use that or right click disable the timer since even with the Reset toggle button input set to True the timer itself locks up the script a bit when you are changing things around.
Just setting the min/max numbers both to a desired mesh size gives a uniform mesh:
Oh weird, it's about if the timer is right click set to so small an interval that it gets ahead of Kangaroo! When you see how long each cycle is taking with the Display > Canvas Widgets > Profiler you just set the timer for above that and the interface comes back into being responsive. It only takes a few Kangaroo cycles to do the inflation, so a full second timer interval is even workable.
A finer mesh:
It's funny running it so slow since it overinflates at first, bulging out, before it equilibrates.
You have control over inflation pressure and mesh stiffness, for a variety of effects.
This is a good system once I realized the timer needed to be mellowed out.
What made it work was the fast custom meshing since a normal mesh is awful and MeshMachine wouldn't work with sharp corner holes at all, breaking out of the boundary even if I fixed curves or vertices or did the equivalent with NURBS surfaces instead of a starting mesh.
There is an initiation time for Kangaroo that doesn't show up on its Profiler time that happens even with the timer off.
There are some fine areas that can't inflate with a reasonable mesh setting:
Worth playing with but no match for ArtCAM since it suffers odd delays in between working fast. If I could get better 2D meshes, that were more adaptive it would be better, but MeshMachine is one of the only re-meshers I know and it's broken for even mildly sharp hole features.
Ah, how about a crude mesh that is then subdivided, guaranteeing inner vertices everywhere? Sort of works, but is still too dense. Way too dense to even do anything. The subdivision triangulates the quads, vastly increasing the mesh wire density. Better just to make a finer initial mesh with plenty of quads.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 12:57am on February 21, 2016
ed file and code below:
Color ColorAt(Mesh mesh, int faceIndex, double t0, double t1, double t2, double t3) { // int rc = -1; var color = Rhino.Display.Color4f.Black;
if( mesh.VertexColors.Count != 0) { // test to see if face exists if( faceIndex >= 0 && faceIndex < mesh.Faces.Count ) { /// Barycentric quad coordinates for the point on the mesh /// face mesh.Faces[FaceIndex].
/// If the face is a triangle /// disregard T[3] (it should be set to 0.0).
/// If the face is /// a quad and is split between vertexes 0 and 2, then T[3] /// will be 0.0 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[2]
/// T[1] will be 0.0 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[0], vi[2], vi[3].
/// If the face is a /// quad and is split between vertexes 1 and 3, then T[2] will /// be -1 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[3]
/// and m_t[0] will be -1 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[1], vi[2], vi[3].
MeshFace face = mesh.Faces[faceIndex];
// Collect data for barycentric evaluation. Color p0, p1, p2;
if(face.IsTriangle) { p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else { if( t3 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,2} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else if( t1 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } else if( t2 == -1 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; //t1 = t1; t2 = t3; } else { // point must be on remaining subtriangle {1,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; t0 = t1; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } }
/** double r = t0 * p0.FractionRed() + t1 * p1.FractionRed() + t2 * p2.FractionRed(); double g = t0 * p0.FractionGreen() + t1 * p1.FractionGreen() + t2 * p2.FractionGreen(); double b = t0 * p0.FractionBlue() + t1 * p1.FractionBlue() + t2 * p2.FractionBlue();
ON_Color color; color.SetFractionalRGB(r, g, b);
unsigned int abgr = (unsigned int)color; rc = (int) ABGR_to_ARGB(abgr); **/ var c0 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p0); var c1 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p1); var c2 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p2); float s0 = (float) t0; float s1 = (float) t1; float s2 = (float) t2;
float R = s0 * c0.R + s1 * c1.R + s2 * c2.R; float G = s0 * c0.G + s1 * c1.G + s2 * c2.G; float B = s0 * c0.B + s1 * c1.B + s2 * c2.B; color = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(R, G, B, 1); } } return color.AsSystemColor(); }
…
y using the Honeybee_Update Honeybee component.
The video below (best viewed in full-screen mode) provides an idea of what these components are capable of being used for:
The video below shows how these components can be used in an existing Honeybee project (for additional links please open this video in youtube):
I have uploaded two examples as Hydra files that show how these components can be used for grid-point and image-based simulations:
Example1 : Grid Point Calculations
Example2: Image based simulation
Finally, a more esoteric application is demonstrated in this video:
These components are still in the beta-testing stage. Some of the limitations of the components are:
1. Only Type C photometry IES files are supported at present.
2. Rhino is likely to get sluggish if there are too many luminaires (i.e. light fixtures) present in a scene.
3. Due to the spectral limitations of the ray-tracing software (RADIANCE), simulations involving color mixing might not be physically realizable.
Additional details about photometric and spectral calculations are probably an overkill for this forum. However, I'd be glad to answer any related questions. Please report any bugs or request new features either on this forum or on Github.
Mostapha, Leland Curtis, Reinhardt Swart and Dr. Richard Mistrick provided valuable inputs during the development of these components.
Thanks,
Sarith
Update 16th January 2017:
An example with some new components and bug fixes since the initial release announcement can be found here
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
thing that MicroStation does (or doesn't). The eternal debate between us is that they focus to the so called BIM aspect of things (and obviously on interoperability matters - that said IFC2*4 is" implemented" in certain Bentley verticals like BA and others) whilst I'm after assembly/component puzzles (and on that matter ... MS ...hmm... to put it politely is not exactly CATIA and/or NX, he he).
On the other hand this paranoid obsession with Level/Layer driven CAD (I hate it) defines a red thick line between CAD and MCAD - because the most intelligent importer can't emulate the way that Siemens NX/CATIA classifies objects - and without control power means nothing.
On the other hand Microstation V9 (...soon) has interesting scripting capabilities (think Modo rather Generative Components) ... meaning that Grasshopper could work there in a rather nice way. I think that I must talk for that to Ray (he recently ditched the ancient legacy MS render engine in favor for the Luxology/Nexus engine). Ray still is negative to buy Act3D mind (hope that you know the mother of visual scripting - the Quest3D VR thing).
On the other hand - within the broad AEC aspect - things these days are different (especially in fast developing countries the likes of UAE, Saudi Arabia, certain ex USSR "democracies" etc etc). Studies are outsourced even at Preliminary Design stage to various sub-contractors (they undertake the Study completion per discipline as well). This means that N separate groups doing M aspects of the whole ... meaning entropy^(N*M) - that's chaos in plain English.
With this in mind I'm quite (a lot) skeptical about the practical meaning of the whole exchange thing in AEC - at least with regard the countries mentioned (not to mention that several portions of a modern AEC thing are made via MCAD apps - chaos^chaos.
I'll back with more focused issues on that matter.
But the big question is: Grasshopper of Generative Components? Well...let's talk serious SS bikes instead: think a Ducati 1198 and a BMW S1000RR (I have them both): which is "best"? The thing is that not always the best bunny is the fasted bunny and not always the fasted bunny is the best bunny.
Cheers,
Peter
…