st sampled into data trees (if not we must "add" them "manually" == code: get this item from Rhino and put it there) into collections.
2. Then we must perform some kind of selection(s) on a per individual item basis and THAT is in 99% of cases "manual" (== code) or on a per "global basis" (hard or soft clusters et all == code). If clusters are hierarchical and some kind of dendrogram is required ... this obviously means ... er ... more code.
3. Doing the 2 we use some kind of input by means of sliders (say pairs of 2: for branches and items) and therefor MAY their values cause slider control issues (== code). For instance IF this slider yields a x event > do this and that to some other sliders.
4. Then perform the "histogram" required and obviously treat this as just a variant (i.e. a possible solution out of a given collection witch is variable) meaning ways to "store" this into parameter(s) (as persistent data). This also requires code.
In a nutshell (and oversimplified): given a collection of "shapes" pick some make the histogram, store the result (or do something with that and store the outcome as well) recall some other for any reason, modify it, stored it ... and then repeat until the end of time (or worst: until you are out of espresso).
As I said: NOT a task for a novice AND NOT a task for someone not familiar with code matters (But I guess that you qualify in both areas, he he).
I do this type of things day in day out (but for real-life AEC purposes) therefor I could make a "simple demo" (add some "" more) but ... well ... you are warned, he he
But in case that you take the wrong decision (you are warned) we must use Skype a bit.…
m
-Area of blue line: min. 80% of the rectangel a x b
-Max. hight h of the top point: h,max = a
-Min. Volume between rectangel a x b and membrane: 500 m3
Can anyone help me?…
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.…
ou will see all of the available components on a ribbon at once so there is no need to keep clicking drop down menus.
It's all about discoverability with GH. What if you're a beginner and don't know about the Create Facility (dbl click canvas) how can you find Extr?
Even if you hover over every component or use the drop down lists you will not see the name Extr appear anywhere.
Sure it makes sense that Extr is short for Extrude but it's also the Nick Name of Extrude to Point component
So you can easily miss the fact that one has a Distance Input verses a Point Input.
I think I made the move to Icons around about the move from version 0.5 to 0.6, possibly before. I initially thought that I would go back to text because I loved the mono chromatic look of the text but I soon realised that Icons were the way forward. The greatest benefit is speed. You don't need to digest and decipher every component (which is written 90 degrees to the norm).
I'm not saying you should move to Icons forthwith but at least consider that once you have a better knowledge and understanding of GH, Icons will set you free.
My top ten tips that I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to better themselves with GH.
1) Turn on Draw Icons
2) Turn on Draw Fancy Wires
3) Turn on Obscure Components
4) Use the Create Facility like a Command Line eg "Slider=-1<0.75<2" or "Shiftlist=-1"
5) Use Component Aliases to customise your use of the Create Facility eg giving the Point XYZ component an alias of XYZ will bring it up as the first option on the Create Facility as opposed to the other possibilities.
6) Try to answer other people's questions even if it's not relevant to your own area. By looking into solving a problem outside of your comfort zone and then posting your results it is very rewarding but it also lets you see the other approaches that get posted in a new light.
7) Take the time to understand Data/Path structures.
8) Buy a second monitor - There is nothing that can compare to real estate when working in Grasshopper.
9) Read Rajaa Issa's Essential Mathematics
10) Pick a panel in a tab on the ribbon and get to know every component inside and out and then move on. Start with the Sets Tab > List Panel…
Integer = 0 To 9
val *= 2
lst.Add(val)
Next
Since val is a ValueType, when we assign it to the list we actually put a copy of val into the list. Thus, the list contains the following memory layout:
[0] = 2
[1] = 4
[2] = 8
[3] = 16
[4] = 32
[5] = 64
[6] = 128
[7] = 256
[8] = 512
[9] = 1024
Now let's assume we do the same, but with OnLines:
Dim ln As New OnLine(A, B)
Dim lst As New List(Of OnLine)
For i As Integer = 0 To 9
ln.Transform(xform)
lst.Add(ln)
Next
When we declare ln on line 1, it is assigned an address in memory, say "24 Bell Ave." Then we modify that one line over and over, and keep on adding the same address to lst. Thus, the memory layout of lst is now:
[0] = "24 Bell Ave."
[1] = "24 Bell Ave."
[2] = "24 Bell Ave."
[3] = "24 Bell Ave."
[4] = "24 Bell Ave."
[5] = "24 Bell Ave."
[6] = "24 Bell Ave."
[7] = "24 Bell Ave."
[8] = "24 Bell Ave."
[9] = "24 Bell Ave."
To do this properly, we need to create a unique line for every element in lst:
Dim lst As New List(Of OnLine)
For i As Integer = 0 To 9
Dim ln As New OnLine(A, B)
ln.Transform(xform)
lst.Add(ln)
Next
Now, ln is constructed not just once, but whenever the loop runs. And every time it is constructed, a new piece of memory is reserved for it and a new address is created. So now the list memory layout is:
[0] = "24 Bell Ave."
[1] = "12 Pike St."
[2] = "377 The Pines"
[3] = "3670 Woodland Park Ave."
[4] = "99 Zoo Ln."
[5] = "13a District Rd."
[6] = "2 Penny Lane"
[7] = "10 Broadway"
[8] = "225 Franklin Ave."
[9] = "420 Paper St."
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 6:26am on September 9, 2010
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…