and Grasshopper. Recently I tried doing some test project just to see what can I do. My target is to design a small house for an atom family. Though as you might think - it'll be a parametric one. And I encountered exactly what's in the title. So here it goes: 1. Something is wrong with the measuring units in the complex profiles. I met this problem while making I-beam. In ArchiCAD it had 127/76 mm while in Grasshopper i had 127000/76200mm so a little bigger. 2. I'm unable to turn off the preview. I mean when I delete something in Grasshopper/Rhino it still exists in ArchiCAD. I have to unlock it and then delete it. 3. Coordinates for points seem broken. They have to be multiplied 1000 times to match. 4. Now one of the most important. Is it possible to somehow SHOW Grasshopper where are already made in ArchiCAD objects. Even if they'll remain still. For example I want to make a parametrical roof. Do I have to model whole building from scratch in Grasshopper or is there some fast way to "import" existing scene so I can limit my work with Grasshopper only to parametrical one. 5. Is it possible to make "points" as controlling points in AC? Like, if I'd like to make a beam in a desired place which I will mark by that point and then I will "show" Grasshopper that point and tell it to make an object in there so I can control it within grasshopper. I tried ti do this using AC Control Point but when I click "Send changes" button, Grasshopper and Rhino crush immediately. It only happens then, with control points. 6. It seems that "move" component won't work with "2D curve" component connected directly. It is possible that some of those problems are outdated. I was playing around in Grasshopper a few months ago, before summer break, but now I plan to try something new and it would be nice to know what to do. I appreciate any answer to any of those questions. Please help, you guys, are my only hope. Thanks in advance! Karol…
ack to .ghx?
This is in relation to a discussion I've been having with David Rutten & Scott Davidson about GH consuming memory in a relatively large GH definition (~. I think what I've learned from this is that one should limit the size of the GH file, or put some incremental stops in the definition to limit the length of calculations that it runs at once. Is this a valid conclusion?
The GH file we're talking about is 7Mb & the Rhino file is about 120Mb, but when working w/ the GH def. I try to only keep about 2 curves turned on.
Here's a summary of the discussion:
Hi Mike,thanks for sending it over. I've been fiddling with the file for about 10 minutes and it climbed from 1.7 GB to 1.9GB, but then I've been switching previews on which means more meshes get calculated so you'd expect a higher memory consumption. It is possible we're leaking memory, but if you're working for hours on end, memory fragmentation might also explain part of the increase. Basically, memory gets fragmented just like disks get fragmented after prolonged use, difference is that memory cannot be defragmented unless you restart the application and allow it to start with a clean slate. I'll try and find any leaks we may have missed in the past.Goodwill,David
──────────── David Rutten
On 09/03/2011 06:19, Mike Calvino wrote:
Thanks very much David for the quick response. I've attached the files zipped. I can't figure out what's doing it. After working in the file for awhile, the memory usage in the Windows Task Manager climbs . . . it's gotten to 1.57+Gb before I exited GH & Rhino5Wip & let it dissipate, then restart & work for awhile before it does it again. It probably takes like 4 or 5 hours before it gets that high. That's the highest it's gotten, & that only happened while I was working in a Rhino file that had all of the elements baked into it - turned off at least, but it still climbed to 1.57+Gb. It seems to climbs when you work in the file & move around in both the GH def. & the Rhino file. Like turn on a few of the Extr components at the right end of the "StandareRibExtuder" groups, you can watch the MemUsage go up, but when you turn them off, it does not go down. - goes up fast at this point. Maybe I need to figure out how to do the definition with fewer components, I'm sure that's part of it, but I must confess, I think I'm still early on in the learning curve.I really hope that this is not operator error on my part & I do apologize up front if it is. I have done a disk cleanup, I have tried excluding .3dm & .ghx files from my NOD32 antivirus, no change. I hope you can find something.Let me know if you have any trouble with the files.See if you find anything & please let me know . . . thanks!Cheers! --Mike CalvinoCalvino Architecture Studio, inc.www.calvinodesign.com
…
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!
…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
. 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
…
the pipe component .I have one curve ,but Pipe component outputs two pipes .This guide curve have two kinks . Pipe component fails at one of them .
Bug #3
I guess this bug may have been fixed .
Wish #1
I hope adding an "reverse list" option to the right-click menu .I think this would be useful (at least for myself).
Wish #2
I hope the SimplifyTree component would clear the zeros located at the end and middle of branch in condition the branches have same length.For example, I have a tree looks like :
A = {0;1;0} B = {0;1;0;1}
C = {0;1;0;0;1;0;0;0}
After simplify ,I get:
A = {1} B = {1;0;1}
C = {1;0;0;1}
And if the tree structure is something like:
A={0;0;1;0}
B={0;0;1;1}
C={0;0;1;2}
After simplify ,I get:
A={1;0}
B={1;1}
C={1;2}
But If the tree is:
A={0;0;0;0;0;0}
B={0;0;1;0;1;0}
C={0;0;1;0;2;0}
I get:
A={0;0}
B={1;1}
C={1;2}
WIsh #3
I came across conditions that there is no direct way to handle some Datatree matching problems . And now I think I find what's the problem :GH now lack the capability to make cross reference between lists/branches .For example, I have two trees ,the first one have two branches {0}&{1}, the other have three branches{0}&{1}&{2}.Now GH would do:
what I want is :
If this can come true ,I can say it would be very very very useful . I just have a coarse idea on how to do that: Like () wrap items,{} wrap branches, then [] wrap trees .
Say I have a tree [0] ,which have three brabches{0},{1},{2}. So [0]=[{0};{1};{2}] or [0]=[{0},{1},{2}]
If this is ruled, the following fomula is meanningful:
[0]=[{0}] (this means tree[0] just have one branch)
[0]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2}]
[0]=[{0;0};{0;1};{0;2}]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;1};{0;2}]After that, Maybe we could match [{0};{1}] and [{0};{1};{2}] very easily (Longest List;Shortest List;Cross Reference) ??
I tried to explain the concept of "tree" to my friends ,but I am confuzed somewhere myself .For example ,how could we have a tree including branches {0},{0;0}and{0;0;0} at the same time??{0} should be the biggest tree trunk,and {0;0} is part of {0} .{0;0;0} is just the smallest trunk and store the least data inside .How could the biggert trucks are empty while only the smallest branches contain items ?(David drawed a datatree that tell this,remember??)
But if this idea is acceptable ,then I could make a fairy tale about tree to them :
(Long long ago...)
[0] is a tree ,[1] is a tree.
{0},{1},{0;0}.{0;1;0} are branches.
{0}=(0,1,2,3,4,5) is branch.
[0]= [{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2] is a standard tree .
[0]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;2};{0;0;3] is a pruned tree.
[{0};{0;0};{0;0;0}] is an illegal tree .
Gh is lenient enough to allow the existence of illegal tree .
Gh is lenient enough to allow the existence of empty trees& empty branch&null items.
We can use PathMapper to transform an illegal tree into a legal one and vice versa . We can use PathMapper to do any things to tree&branch&item.
Wish #4
wish for Split List component : it would have a wrap option just like many other components.In this way , we can split a list of data at -1 .I think this would be useful .
wish #5
wish for a Preview toggle component .See picture below (it's fake).
this toggle look mostly like the boolean toggle, but it have a input param by which we can control the preview logically and smartly .
When there is no input ,we can control swith the preview with a double click action .This toggle component could control all gh geometry overriding the global setting .The link curve between toggle and target works just like the galapagos.
Wish #6
Wish for adding arc angle output to both Arc 3pt and Arc SED components.This would make things easier sometimes .
Wish #7
Many times I were puzzled that a same gh script would perform perfect if the input is single surface but buggy while the input is more than one surface .After debuging many times ,I just found that if one or two component of the script do things smarter ,this kind of bugs would never happen again !! Simply saying:we need a optional datatree match behavior. Say I have two datatree [{0;0};{0;1}] and [{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2};{0;0;3};
{0;1;0};{0;1;1};{0;1;2};{0;1;3}] Normally {0;0} matchs {0;0;0},{0;1} matchs other branches (Longest List behavior).Now I need {0;0} matchs {0;0;0},{0;0;1},{0;0;2},{0;0;3} separately and {0;1} matchs {0;1;0};{0;1;1};{0;1;2};{0;1;3} separately .I cant describe this matching rules accurately but it's very obvious .I hope you can understand the meaning .
I remember David said once that he would not change anything about the datatree matching rules in order to avoid destroy people's production work .And that is my bottomline too .What I want is when I need one component to match the input datatree in this way ,I can switch it (just it ) into this mode (Assuming these is a "xxx mode" option in component's right-click menu ). In this way ,All the exist Gh def would not be destoryed.
PS. I am not carping but I found the DivideKink param input of Divide Curve component is useless except adding a segments output .
…
diseño, construcción y entendimiento de nuestro entorno.
BIM está poniendo a disposición de los diseñadores y gestores auténticas bases de datos que pueden generarse, conectarse y editarse de forma paramétrica, proporcionando una sólida capa de realidad a los ejercicios de diseño generativo y computación que son objeto de estudio en Algomad, el seminario que busca popularizar la programación y la parametrización en el diseño y en la experiencia de nuestro entorno construido.
Tras un paréntesis en 2015, Algomad vuelve con el objetivo de demostrar cómo una visión computacional del BIM es una oportunidad para mejorar la forma de trabajar de ingenieros, arquitectos, constructoras y operadores de edificios e infraestructuras, tendiendo un puente entre las técnicas de diseño digital más avanzadas y la realidad de la construcción.
Algomad 2016 tendrá lugar en el centro de Madrid, en IE School of Architecture and Design, IE University, los días 3, 4 y 5 de Noviembre de 2016 y comprenderá 4 talleres así como ponencias a cargo de expertos de primer nivel.
Estructura de Algomad 2016
Algomad 2016 se estructura en torno a tres áreas temáticas principales:
BIM, como la metodología total específica para el sector de la construcción.
Computación, englobando las aplicaciones de programación y parametrización al diseño de edificios e infraestructuras.
Realidad, como marco de trabajo, buscando siempre resolver problemas reales a través de los dos puntos anteriores.
Público objetivo
Arquitectos, arquitectos técnicos, ingenieros y en general académicos, estudiantes de últimos cursos y profesionales del mundo inmobiliario y de la construcción que compartan un interés por la digitalización de nuestro sector. Se espera un nivel mínimo en el uso de herramientas BIM y de parametrización. Algomad proporcionará formación adicional y gratuita en las herramientas básicas a emplear en los talleres para asegurar un correcto desempeño.…
an almost planar tissue (your case) can cause a variety of issues up to the undo able state (metal parts/components grow in size as well for no reason). See forces estimated by FF below.
2. Therefor I strongly suggest to consider Plan B (a) mastermind a secondary "anchor" capability in order to achieve a far more stable system (b) use a mount design that can support this (and comply with the attractor concept of yours). Here's a variable mount custom system (mostly machined AND not cast) that is suitable for the scope (Rhino reads the stp file OK .... but makes a colossally big file - thus I attach here the original).
3. On first sight lot's of things in this system appear "odd". For instance: is it stable? Why these double cables are used? How far can be adjusted? (that's a classic case for feature driven parametric design - not doable with Rhino).
4. This concept (strut axis exported only) is tested in FORMFINDER and some other far more complex membrane apps that I use quite often (not RhinoMembrane). Here's is what FF tells us about:
Observe a different kind of "stress" when this is converted to radial type:
5. If you insert the stp file to the Rhino file provided (exactly as exported from FORMFINDER - no mods of mine of any kind) you'll see what goes where (and why). That way the usage of double cables is rather obvious (and a lot other things - for instance the way that the struts achieve "equilibrium", see the slots in the base mount plate.
6. If this approach is worth considering your definition requires some serious rethinking (far more simpler/manageable with the drawback that the real parts they are "static" they can adjust only as far this particular solution allows them to do - controlling them parametrically is clearly impossible with the current state of R/GH capabilities).`
All in all: this case works because the cables push the anchor points downwards and the struts push them upwards.
more in a while
…