ike using something like the Z vector, but technically you can use any vector you want. This vector will actually determine the static rotatation of all the planes, so you can control that here if you like. One important thing that I've noticed is that the closer the vector is to the plane of the curve or if its too similar to one of the tangent vectors, the more likely you'll have "flipping"
2) Take the cross product between the tangent and the static vector. This will be your first perpendicular vector, which you can use for the X component of the plane.
3) Take the cross product between the tangent and the result of the previous cross product. Use this result as the Y component of the plane. All three components (X, Y, and Z (which is the tangent vector)) are all perpendicular to each other now.
After you've done that you should have planes that decrease twisting. If your curve is not planar, then there will always be some twisting in the frames, but it will be minimal enough to use them effectively.
There also may be "flipping" within the frames, which means one (or both) of two things. First, you could have planes that have reversed their vectors, so the X vector is properly oriented, but pointing down when it should be pointing up. Second, the X and Y vectors could have potentially swapped, so that Y "should" be X and X "should" be Y. In order to check these things, you'll need to do a few tests. The first one is find out whether the vector (X or Y) of the plane your testing is pointing in the opposite direction of previous vector. The second test is to find out whether the vector (X or Y) of the plane your testing is perpendicular to the previous vector. In both cases, an angle test between the two vectors will be able to tell you what you need to know, but you will likely NEVER get exactly 180 for an opposite test or 90 for a perpendicular test. That means that you have to choose a range with which to determine that a given vector is opposite or perpendicular.
You should start testing the X vector to see if anything is wrong. If you find that the X vector is fine, then just move on because Rhino will only allow you to create right handed planes, and the Z vector (the tangent) will always be the same.
I don't believe that there's a native function within the old dotNET SDK for calculating angles, so use the example at the link below. It basically takes the arcCosine of the Dot Product of the two vectors your testing to return the angle in Radians. I'm not sure if this function is included in RhinoCommon or not....
http://wiki.mcneel.com/developer/sdksamples/anglebetweenvectors…
ed when membrane cones are invited to the party (then mesh (via Starling is the best way) the brep and send data to Kangaroo : the easiest thing to do). But patch doesn't trim the inner Loops and ... well initially I thought to find this in SDK and do the job:
Well... I confess that I can't get the gist of the Brep.Trim (as explained in SDK).
Thus go to plan B: having already the closed breps (the "cones") as cutters ... attempt a Boolean difference
but this does that (this looks to me a bit paranoid, but some reason must exist):
What I want is this:
the code that mess things is (open the script inside definition attached):
BTW: where in SDK is that DeBrep thing?
BTW: Delaunay GH syntax is still cryptic to me (but this is not an issue anymore)
I would greatly appreciate any help on that final step (to greatness).
The full working definition soon (v5: with 90% of components replaced by C# stuff).
best, Peter
…
bout angle since the exact same wires can suddenly start working fine later! Just adding new items to Rhino and then using undo to get back to your failing geometry will fix it sometimes?! Flipping the pair of curves' directions, either one or both, fixes it. It's just black box broken. It happens for really boring angles near 90 degrees.
Rotating the entire pair in space has no effect.
Rescaling the lines from their joint point has no effect.
Simply cutting and pasting the lines out of Rhino back in *sometimes* fixes it, so it's angle and something else that makes certain lines "toxic."
Duplicating the pair of failed lines via alt-dragging the Rhino gumball fails to fix it.
Running the "line-like curves" through a Line component to give "lines" doesn't fix it.
Re-creating the lines by extracting endpoints fails to fix it.
Each line, if separated from each other works fine.
Grafting makes each line into its own little cylinder minus a hub.
The error is the boilerplate "Object reference not set to an instance of an object."
Once the pair spontaneously starts working I cannot reproduce the error with that pair again, though sometimes Rhino undo will get me back to failing.
CAN ANYBODY REPRODUCE THIS WITH MY FILE? If so I can submit a bug report.
Exoskeleton is here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/exoskeleton
Source code is here but it's for compiling, not something I can just test in a C# component out of the box:
https://github.com/davestasiuk/Exoskeleton2/commit/f63c4aa691a7f26b...
…
s is like flattening your data PARTIALLY - chopping an index off the end of the branch paths without obliterating the tree entirely. When working with one "set" of input data, a flatten works to get these lists to match up - but when working with multiple sets, we need to be careful to preserve the original branch indices that keep all four of your original regions separate. As a rule, whenever you're feeding two data trees into any component, they should have the same number of branches. (or one should have branches and the other should be a flat list, in other cases).
The rule of thumb I tend to teach is this:
In 90% of cases...
For lists, all your inputs should either have 1 item or N items. That is to say, if you're feeding 4 items into one input and 9 items into another, something is probably wrong.
For trees, all your inputs should have either 1 branch or M branches. That is to say, if you're feeding a tree w/ branches {0;0} to {0;3} into one input, and a tree w branches {0;0;0} to {0;3;8} into the other input, something is probably wrong.
Grasshopper essentially matches up branches first, then lists second. By "matching" I mean it processes them together. Simple example of the Line component - it will match the first branch of points in the A input to the first branch of points in the B input, creating lines between those points, then match the second branches, the third branches, etc. THEN, it applies the same logic to the level of the list (with a pair of matched branches {0;2}, match all the items in those branches to each other - first item in one branch to the first item in the other branch, etc.)
This is a tricky concept but it seems like you're already well on your way to understanding it from your definition - "PShift" is a critical tool in your path management arsenal. I hope this (overly long) response helps clear things up for you!
…
he TOF and TSRF indices. They show, how "distant" is your _PV_SWHsurface from the optimal _PV_SWHsurface surface in terms of tilt and azimuth angles.However, in your case we are not interested in TOF and TSRF indices. We would just like to know what are the _PV_SWHsurface optimal tilt and azimuth angles, regardless of the supplied _PV_SWHsurface.
So the circular surface supplied to the "TOF" component's _PV_SWHsurface input is irrelevant. It can be of any area, and any tilt/azimuth angle.The PV_SWHsurfacesArea output of the "PV SWH system size" component depends on a couple of factors:moduleActiveAreaPercent_ (leave it at 90%).
moduleEfficiency_,
systemSize_.Calculation of systemSize_ depends on your electricity demand, cost of the PV system, type of the object, country, local regulations etc. This is something that an engineer needs to determine.For example, in USA for a residential house in the Sunbelt, depending on finances, a household would try to cover 100% of its annual electricity needs with their PV system. Which means that the systemSize_ you chose needs to cover the annual electricity consumption. You can perform EnergyPlus simulation or use any other way to get the annual electricity consumption.
Ladybug "Photovoltaics Performance" component can calculate the optimal systemSize_ by given the annual electricity consumption.However the component is made to address fixed tilt and azimuth PV systems only.An approximate way to overcome this is to calculate the optimal systemSize_ for fixed tilt and azimuth PV system, and then multiply it with the "difference in %s" panel at the very right of the fixed_vs_tracker_PV2.gh file. Again, this is not what Ladybug "Photovoltaics Performance" component is made to do, but it will probably get you in a ball park.
Inputted 32 degrees for north_ direction is actually 328 degrees.This is due to Ladybug Photovoltaics being based on NREL model which uses clockwise angles convention. This convention is also most commonly used in solar radiation analysis.
Dubai weather data files are uploaded in here.
…
you working on a PV system which will power a domestic hot water boiler?
To answer your questions:1) Each grasshopper component (ghpython being one of those too) is using grasshopper's data matching algorithm. This algorithm takes care of complex issues which may arise from combining lists with single items, data trees with different number of items per branch and so on.I think there is a way of introducing a call to other processor's threads per each inputted surface, but this will be a very difficult job, as it will require writing a custom data matching algorithm. I do not think I am up to that task.Instead I tried to introduce the multithread only to the final part of the PVsurface component and one of its time consuming parts: calculation of sun angles, solar radiation and ac/dc power output.I attached the test file below, but sadly it didn't go well: the multithreaded version mostly runs at the same time as the regular version.I do not think I am qualified enough to answer why is that so, but I think that it may have something to do with the type of the function that the multithreading is applied to: the code is suppose to run few separate functions a couple of thousand times, and work with a couple of lists. From my experience, the multithreading works the best when a single list or two are supplied to a single function. I may be wrong on this.I am very sorry to say that I can not implement this feature.2) I am not familiar if open source PV modules database has been released.But one can always download the data for specific modules from producers websites. It can then easily be transferred to a .csv file or other text file.Ladybug Photovoltaics are based on NREL's PVWatts model.In comparison with other commercial software applications, PVWatts offers a more generalized system model, with some of the values and characteristics being assumed or embedded.The Fuentes empirical thermal model we are currently using follows the same logic: it generalizes the Module characteristics. The following characteristics are only editable: module efficiency, temperature coefficient and module mount type.It may be possible to replace Fuentes with some other, less generalized 5 parameter thermal model. But as an architect, I would definitively need help on this.
Sorry if my reply did not fulfill your expectations, and thank you for the kind words!…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
:
______________________________________________________________________
As most of you know by now, Grasshopper will be included in Rhino 6 for Windows. We are almost finished with the Grasshopper in Rhino 6 development and you are invited to try it.
There are many enhancements, including:
High DPI displays are now supported.
Compatible with existing Grasshopper plug-ins.
New components including Make2D, Bend, Flow, Maelstrom, Splop, Splorph, Stretch, Taper, and Twist...
GhPython is now included. It features its own GHA compiler and a major node-in-code speed up.
Stable development target: Your plug-ins continue to work each minor Grasshopper upgrade.
RhinoCommon enhanced: More Rhino core functionality is accessible from within Grasshopper.
Developer documentation is online with guides and API references.
Now:
Download the current Rhino WIP for Windows
Try all your existing Grasshopper definitions
Report any problems you find here...
We want to make sure this new Grasshopper works for you. If you have any issues, David needs to hear from you very soon.
Thank you,
- Bob
Visit Grasshopper at: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
______________________________________________________________________
So...
Any news about OS X version? Many of us won't use Parallels or whatever win emulator or have a win machine nearby.
Hope you are working at it.
Cheers
gbrl
…
Added by Gabriel Netto at 3:44pm on October 29, 2016
ect + Geco
TUTORS:
Arturo Tedeschi (Authorized Rhino Trainer) + Maurizio Arturo Degni
Il workshop avanzato ECOLOGIC PATTERNS affronta l’impiego di strategie parametriche all’interno del processo progettuale, approfondendo l’utilizzo di Grasshopper in sinergia con plug-in, software di analisi ambientale e simulazione fisica. Obiettivo fondamentale è la generazione della forma come risultato di tecniche di form-finding e di input ambientali (solari, termici e acustici). Verranno acquisiti nuovi strumenti operativi e di simulazione al fine di costruire modelli parametrici ottimizzati in grado di adattarsi a diverse condizioni di contesto.
MORE INFO…
ive collaborative environment.
TYPE : Course module and Workshop
The event is open for anybody interested from all the fields of design, including: architecture, interior design, furniture design, product design, fashion design, scenography, and engineering.
1. COURSE MODULE (20-23 April 2014) - optional
+ type: 3 days intensive course regarding basic knowledge in parametric design (LEVEL 1)
+ software: Rhinoceros & Grasshopper
+ plugins: Kangaroo, Weaver Bird, Lunch box, Ghowl, Geco
+ achievements:
- acquainting to the components & the concept of Generative Design
- understanding the strategies in Algorithmic Design
- how to easily insert simple mathematical equation into the project to gain more control
- how to utilize proper plugins with respect to their nature of the project
- interacting with different analysis platforms such as Ecotect & remote controller
- solving several exercises with different scales( 2D- 3D ) during each phase of the workshop
2. WORKSHOP (23-27 April 2014)
A 5 day Design-Based Research Workshop exploring new techniques in Digital Architecture/Fabrication, with a specific focus on the use of generative systems and parametric modeling as tools for creative expression.
Our ultimate goal is to increasing the efficiency of utilizing digital tools in parallel with geometric performance of the primitive design agent.
+ + CONCEPT
Fashion and Architecture are both based on basic life necessities – clothing and shelter.
However, they are also forms of self-expression – for both creators and consumers.
Both fashion and architecture affect our emotional being in many ways.
The agenda of this workshop is to investigate on the overlap between these two areas of design, art & fashion.
Fashion and architecture express ideas of personal, social and cultural identity, reflecting the concerns of the user and the ambition of the age. Their relationship is a symbiotic one and throughout history, clothing and buildings have echoed each other in form and appearance. This only seems natural as they not only share the primary function of providing shelter and protection for the body, but also because they both create space and volume out of flat, two-dimensional materials.
While they have much in common, they are also intrinsically different – address the human scale, but the proportions, sizes and shapes differ enormously.
+ + + OBJECTIVES
So far, Architects have been using techniques such as folding, bending etc. to create space, structural roofs or different other structural shapes.
The agenda of this workshop goes further with the investigation of algorithmic thinking through generative tools Integrated in design.
The challenge is creating a bridge that connects these two areas of design, architecture and fashion that perform at two opposite scales.
+ + + + TECHNICAL BRIEF
In the early stages physical models and low-tech strategies will be used, allowing the participants to gain a greater understanding of materials, fabrication and assembly methods as well as simple, yet pragmatic structural solutions.
Later in the workshop these strategies will be digitalized and elaborated using software visualizing tools such as Rhinoceros and the algorithmic plug-in Grasshopper.…