re is my problem... I need to arrange Boxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints.
The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables:
(1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!
…
cy of design communication and the control of information-flow are as important as the creativity of ideas. In response to the concurrent digital evolution emerging in the architectural industry world-wide, the Faculty of Architecture at The University of Hong Kong will host a two week intensive summer program named Digital Practice.Led by professors from The University of Hong Kong, as well as invited practitioners with expertise in practice of cutting edge digital techniques, the program offers participants opportunities to experience applications of computational tools during different stages of an architectural project, i.e. concept design, form finding and optimization, delivery, management and communication of design information under the team-based working environment. By learning advanced computational techniques through case studies in the context of Hong Kong, participants are expected to go beyond the conventional perception of technology, considering users and tools as a feedback-based entity instead of a dichotomy. The program, which is taught in English, includes a series of evening lectures related delivered by teaching staff and invited local architects.對於高品質的建築專案,創意之外,專案過程中高效的設計資訊管理和交流成為項目設計深化和實施必不可少的環節。今天,數字化技術不但改變了建築師的繪圖工具,影響了設計的過程,而且提供了工程建造和管理實施的更有效、更高效的手段。針對建築的數位化演進,香港大學建築學院將於2011年暑假期間,在香港大學建築學院舉辦“數位化實踐”國際研習班。在香港大學建築學院教授及有著相關豐富經驗的外聘實踐建築師的指導下,學員將有機會體驗在專案的不同階段(如概念設計、設計形式的生成、優化,設計資訊的管理和交流),如何有效地應用各種運算智慧化技術(從設計的數位化生成和建築資訊類比到物理模型),提升設計實施的品質,增加設計團隊對於方案的控制。我們將挑戰對於“技術”的傳統認知,即相對於使用者它不僅是工具,更是與使用者互動的媒介,二者形成一個有機的合體。研習班期間會安排系列講座,展現數位化技術在實踐工程中的廣泛應用。…
hino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper. I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali. Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Argomenti trattati: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2914…
e design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working. The big speed/usability advantage for the user that apps like Inventor provide is: All the defining, handling, assembling/gluing to the adjacent components is done as part of its 'main loop' with all the hooks that can cater to user interaction, ie traditional modeling. I guess one example of this is how Revit handles the placing of Adptive Components. AC's (and GC's GFT's) is pretty much a copy of Catia PowerCopies (which are probably a copy of something else). When placed, the AC's input points are transferred one by one to the cursor for the user to interactively place them. When copied, it tries to keep the same inputs, while changing its position/parameters. This saves a lot of time/nerves.
Catia, OTOH, is still thinking in terms of scripting and looks for matching property names, or uses a script to match strings, that nearly match. Sure, sometimes, this is unavoidable, but I think that there is a lot of room for incorporating a more traditional 'event-based' interface or 'wrapper' around the scripted components.So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results? An example of this is how Modo's Toolpipe works. The Toolpipe is a simple tool to record the active selection, snap/alignment/working plane, tool settings for re-use. I could see the user benefitting if the GH component was aware of the app's 'state' when placing/assembling components.
Also, a lot of simple things could be 'modeled' first and translated into scripted form if GH could read the active workplane, snap settings etc. Draw first, convert to hand-scripted script later?Columns: Looking at your description, the vertical elements were modeled in Rhino, and referenced in GH? 5hrs to get some points on the lines? And using Excel as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model? The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.Would love to understand what you did by sketching.Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
With a manager, If one of the beams is connected to the column, changes in either component would trigger changes in the other to preserve the connection, regardless of the creation history. In GH, the dependencies are fixed, and the connection points would probably need to be defined independently, and placed 'upstream' of both elements. This makes editing laborious... but DAG processing is a lot quicker than constraints solving. Switching direction seems to be possible in the animation world. Maya etc have IK/FK switching, which seems to be able to reverse the solving direction on demand. Not sure how or whether the rig is scripted.…
. From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e)
with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input
Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...?
MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw,
2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11).
In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results.
Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method?
3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component?
Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12
Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
Thanks a lot for your helpRegards,
Aymeric
…
oCommonSDK, I modified a working C# component that does something similar (ReduceMesh, written by Andrew Heumann). Both scripts are attached.
Aside from changing the component name and eliminating the P parameter, I made two modifications to the script:1) changed line 87 from private void RunScript(Mesh M, double P, ref object A) to: private void RunScript(Mesh M, ref object A)2) changed line 93 from: Rhino.RhinoApp.RunScript("_-ReduceMesh _ReductionPercentage " + Convert.ToString(P) + " _Enter", false); to: Rhino.RhinoApp.RunScript("_-MatchMeshEdge " + " _Enter", false);When I run the ReduceMesh component, the mesh object I feed it gets baked, the ReduceMesh command is run, the temporary object is deleted, and the reduced mesh result is returned. (Thanks, Andrew).When I run the MatchMeshEdge component, the mesh object I feed it is baked, the MatchMeshEdge command is run, but the temporary object is not deleted and no result is returned. The runtime error reads: "Sequence contains no elements (line 0)". I have a feeling that the command line string I am handing to RunScript is incomplete. When I enter it manually on the Rhino command line I see that it wants a mesh and three parameters. Of course I can hit Enter to accept the default values, but when you invoke a command through RunScript do you have to supply all parameters regardless? Also, where would I find details on the argument types that the command wants? For example, the last parameter reads "RatchetMode=On" or "RatchetMode=Off". How do I know if the type is Bool or the literal string "On" or "Off"?I am a complete novice at this so any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated! …
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…