t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
n be obtained for curved NURBS surfaces as well as unconventional window configurations".
And I also noticed the following information form the optional input in the runEnergySimulation component.
"meshSettings_: Optional mesh settings for your geometry from any one of the native Grasshopper mesh setting components. These will be used to change the meshing of curved surfaces before they are run through EnergyPlus (note that meshing of curved surfaces is done since Energyplus is not able to calculate heat flow through non-planar surfaces). Default Grasshopper meshing is used if nothing is input here but you may want to decrease your calculation time by changing it to Coarse or increase your curvature definition (and calculation time) by making it finer".
1) My case is an one-story, rectangular-plan large hall (40m*70m*25m) with a curved roof. The roof surface is a part of a standard sphere and the walls and floor are all planar (the each wall has one curved edge as showed in the image).
For testing, I threw the original curved roof surface into daylight and energy simulations without making customized meshings, because I assumed that it might be automatically converted to meshs by Honeybee - Am I right? As showed in the image, how can I reduce the number of meshs in a proper way? Must two connected surfaces (i.e. wall and roof) be STRICTLY/SEAMLESSLY connected or not (considering different divisions of meshs in the respective surface)? - Is a connection tolerance allowed?
2) But, when I run the annual daylight simulation for this case, it gave me a lot of warnings "oconv: warning - zero area for polygon".- is that normal? and how to avoid this? Does the daylight simulation allow "curved NURBS surfaces"?
3) Moreover, when I run an energy simulation for this case, it costed extremely long time. It was just so long that I did not even have results out of one simulation. - I guessed it might be the problem caused by the curved roof surface (or automatic meshing?), but I don't have experience of converting a curved NURBS/spheral surface into correct meshs that can be recognized by Honeybee simulations (Daylight and Energy) in a proper way.
4) The large window on the wall was generated by the "_glzRatio". But the automatically generated wall meshs around this window are just too "fine", which might largely increase simulation time. Is there a proper way to get rid of it? (Considering that the size, shape and position of the window will have large influence on the daylight distribution in the building, it is worthy to keep the size, shape and position of the window as it should be in reality).
In sum, considering all above, could your please provide me some suggestions/tutorials/links that might be helpful for dealing with "curved NURBS surfaces" in Honeybee simulations.
Thank you all in advance!
Best,
Ding
…
erning how to do that on a sphere.
So I know already all the different approches of how to get a relaxed voronoi pattern on a free-form open surface, but still don't know how to obtain the same elegant effect on a sphere (or an ellipsoid closed surface, whatever), or how to relax the facet dome cells.
Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere the cells of which have been planarized later on, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome.
The trick is to:
1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells) on a sphere
2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on.
Here is what I have by now.(files: matsys spore lamp attempt)
That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design.
Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it's certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation.
1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01)
2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02)
3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03)
The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this:
You can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-releasedgroupUrl=kangaroo&x=1&groupId=2985220%3AGroup%3A120977&id=2985220%3ATopic%3A972434&page=2#comments
Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar...
The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve.
So to sum up:
Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever).
Goal no 2: How to keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later, obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily
Have you got any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?
Cheers, and thanks in advance…
t. This was a reasonably effective workflow for the purposes of solving the initial problem. (in reviewing this post, it seems a bit lengthy, but hopefully it's of use to others).
Link to Illustrator Script example:https://forums.adobe.com/thread/508138
Portion I used: This applies to entire illustrator document. I am using Illustrator CC 64 bit and this worked okay. Tested a few times and it failed once, but a restart of Illustrator fixed it.
var v_selection = app.activeDocument.pathItems;SwapFillStroke(v_selection); function SwapFillStroke(objSel) { for(k = 0; k < objSel.length; k++){ var subSel = objSel[k]; var c_fill = subSel.fillColor; var c_stroke = subSel.strokeColor; subSel.fillColor = c_stroke; if(!subSel.stroked) subSel.stroked = true; subSel.strokeColor = c_fill; }} redraw();
My goal was to export colored geometry, (analysis meshes for example), from Rhino and get it into illustrator with solid fills.
If you want to know how meshes are colored in rhino...there are many explanations here on the forum, a quick search will get you more detailed information.
Short version: export your lines from rhino to illustrator and run the script listed above to make the stroke color the fill color. (in illustrator, shift+X will swap the fill and stroke colors on individual objects, but does not work on multiple objects..hence the need for the script).
Detailed Version:
In my case, I had 2 case studies I was working with.1 - wind rose meshes generated from Ladybug/honeybee2 - A mesh terrain that was colored by pre-set slope values.
NOTE: There are a few plugins to bake objects with color. I used Human tools, (Bake Geometry and JustifiedText3D).http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/human (lots of other great stuff in there too!)
I had two types of geometry. (2 different definitions)
1- An analysis mesh, (HoneyBee/LadyBug),
2 - Lines generated from mesh faces. (mesh terrain/slope values).
Export results as a DXF, and choose "do not explode". (these were my settings)
DXF seemed to produce the most consistent results.
(you could export/save as an AI file and just open them in illustrator, but that seemed to give inconsistent results with the script).
Open DXF in Illustrator:
Apply Script in illustrator:
In the terrain example, there are only 5 colors, so selection in illustrator, by color, is very easy. In the results from honeybee/ladybug, (or any analysis process I imagine), the default colors are created with a much wider range of values. I presume the legend is then created by an average of those values within a range. My point is that, with the analysis results, selecting objects by color in Illustrator is probably not a very effective workflow.
I only tested this on my instance of rhino and Illustrator. mileage may vary.
In summation, at this point, it seems that the best way to get colored mesh faces, into illustrator, is to export the meshes, (which really ends up being the mesh face edges...curves), and bringing them into illustrator and running a quick script to swap the colors. Once that is complete, you can then select ALL the objects, and change the stroke color/weight at once.…
r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative."What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it."[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Visual Programming.I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
Context sensitivity."There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal this time around is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed.
Components."Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data."Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
Integration."Why isn't it just live geometry?"This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry."Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
Documentation.Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
2D-ness."I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
ch has a vertex in each of the vertices of the polyline. But, when I try to create the mesh using the Mesh Brep component, I get a simplified mesh, where the extra vertices in the edges of the polyline have disappeared. I think it is easier to understand what I am trying to say with the following screenshots:
Polyline:
Mesh created with the rhino command:
Mesh created using grasshopper:
The last mesh has less faces, as the Mesh Brep component gets rid of the extra vertices that define the polyline.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Diego…
imeBinder.CSharpArgumentInfo.Create'
Is it possible to solve this issue?
using System;
using IronPython.Hosting;
using IronPython.Runtime;
using Microsoft.Scripting;
using Microsoft.Scripting.Hosting;
using Microsoft.CSharp;
namespace Bob.Meshes {
public class pythonFromCShapr {
ScriptEngine engine = Python.CreateEngine();
public pythonFromCShapr() {
}
public void something() {
dynamic scope = engine.CreateScope();
scope.Add = new Func<int, int, int>((x, y) => x + y);
Console.WriteLine( scope.Add(2, 3));
}
}
}…
le and grasshopper timer to simplify simulation control. Double click the main Kangaroo component to open this remote. There are buttons for Stop(reset), Play, Pause, and Step (moves the simulation forward one iteration).
Line-line force - allows interaction between line segments - they are treated as rigid cylinders. As with springs, there are settings for offset and rest distance, so this can be used to simulate colliding rods, and also for keeping cylinders tangent to one another (can be used for reciprocal structures).
Gear simulator - collision between curves in a plane, can be used for various mechanical simulations - cams, gears, rack and pinions etc.
Developablize force - adjusts vertices of a mesh locally, to make angles around each interior vertex sum to 2*Pi, so the mesh can be unfolded to a flat sheet without stretching.
Volume dependent pressure force - allows you to set a rest volume for a mesh instead of just a fixed pressure. When combined with Laplacian smoothing for area minimization, this can be used to optimize for CMC (constant-mean-curvature) surfaces. It will also work on open meshes.
Translation lock - maintains a fixed relationship between a pair of points. This can be used to enforce periodic boundary conditions for TPMS.
Equalize angles force - given a set of angles (defined by 3 points each), this tries to adjust them all to become equal.
Mirror symmetry force - can be used to minimize curvature variation, and optimize for higher order curve continuity. It can also be used for simulating torsional resistance in curved rods.
True minimal surface relaxation - Laplacian smoothing force now includes an option for cotangent weighting, which optimizes for zero mean curvature, unlike spring based methods, or uniform weighted Laplacian smoothing which only roughly approximate this.
Fast sphere collide - allows much faster collision detection between large numbers of spheres. By placing these spheres at the vertices, this can also be used for collision between meshes.
Force-density element - an experimental one, more on this later
Projected-force - adjusts its strength so the component of the force in a given direction stays constant.
New mesh tools:
WarpWeft - sorts the edges of a quad mesh into warp and weft directions. This can be used to assign them different stiffness in fabric form-finding.
Checkerboard - sort the faces of a mesh into 2 lists so that 2 faces of the same colour are never adjacent.
MeshDirection - sorts the vertices of a quad mesh to give it a sort of u-v directionality
Refine Strips - subdivision in one direction only - can be used to generate developable strips
Stripper - separates out the strips of quads from a larger mesh
Unroller - unfolds a quad strip to flat without stretching
MeshMap - maps points from one mesh to another (can be used together with circle-packing to generate conformal mappings)
Reciprocal structure - generates starting geometry for a reciprocal structure from any input mesh (using the Plankton mesh library *Note* If you already have the Plankton components installed, you will need to update to version 0.3.0, which is available from here)
ReMesher - adjusts the connectivity of a mesh by flipping, splitting and collapsing edges to make all edge lengths closer to a target value
Diagonalize - creates a new face for every edge of the original mesh. Can be used on quad meshes to easily convert to a diagrid.
Refine - simple non-smoothing subdivision, splitting quads into 4 quads, and triangles into 4 triangles
QuadDivide - subdivide quads by any number squared, not just powers of 4
Corners - finds the corner vertices of a quad mesh
ByParent - simple quad subdivision, keeping the output grouped by parent face.
User objects:
The download comes with an increased collection of user objects to simplify setting up common simulation types - Including a simple to use origami simulator, a reciprocal structure generator, and a tool to generate compact circle packings from a CP mesh.
General:
Geometry input now accepts polylines and straight curves.
Hinges can now be fold completely flat in both directions.
Various other minor bug fixes and speed improvements (including much faster removeDuplicatePoints/Lines components)
*****
I've not yet updated all the documentation and example files to reflect this new version, but over time I will keep posting here with new demos and explanation of all these new features. I'll try and add a few new examples each week. Vote in the comments below if there is a feature mentioned above that you're particularly keen to hear more about soon.
No doubt there are still some bugs to be discovered. If something isn't working the way you expect or want it to, please post in this forum (ideally with a description or sketch of what you think should be happening, and a clear description of what happens instead and any error messages).
There are also some more new features that weren't quite ready to make it into this release, but are on the way shortly...
Kangaroo remains completely free, for personal, academic, and commercial use. I'm always interested to hear about projects done using it, and suggestions for improvements or additions.
Daniel
…
ly has finally metamorphosed to have all known major bugs fixed and is ready to be used by a larger number of people in our community.
Butterfly is powered by OpenFOAM, which is a validated and open-source engine for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Primarily, Butterfly assists with exporting geometry and other input parameters from the CAD + scripting interface to the OpenFOAM engine. The Grasshopper plugin supports live results visualization that updates as the CFD simulation iterates. The Dynamo plugin supports results visualization once the analysis is over or paused.
For installation instructions and guidance on getting started, check out the Butterfly wiki page. There, you can find step-by-step installation directions and tutorial videos. There also 3 YouTube playlists for getting you started with installing OpenFOAM for Windows and using Butterfly for Grasshopper and Butterfly for Dynamo.
Similar to other ladybug tools, Butterfly uses an external validated engine (in this case, OpenFOAM) and you need to install it first to get the insect up-and-running. However, unlike Radiance and EnergyPlus, OpenFOAM doesn’t have a native installation for Windows and it requires Linux to run. Accordingly, the current version of “OpenFOAM for Windows” uses a technology called docker to run a Linux virtual machine on your system, inside which OpenFOAM operates. While this sounds complicated, the good news is that all of this setup has been packaged into the installer for “OpenFOAM for Windows.” So running this installer with all its defaults should give you everything you need.
The bad news is that the installation can fail if you don’t check your Windows system properly beforehand or don’t follow every step carefully afterwards. You will also need to run Rhino, Revit, and OpenFOAM as an administrator to ensure Butterfly works properly (by right-clicking each launcher for the program and selecting “Run As Administrator"). This said, if you follow the steps carefully, you should have no issues with the installation. You can find some of the issues that people faced during the alpha testing and the solutions to them here.
Butterfly is the first plugin that is fully developed based on the structure that I discussed before which consists of a core library and [+] libraries for specific software (in this case Grasshopper and Dynamo). We hope this structure to extend ladybug tools to more platforms by re-using the current code. We will provide a better documentation with more details on this matter in the near future but for now you can use the API for butterfly, butterfly_grasshopper and butterfly_dynamo for customizing or extending the current development.
Finally, having access to a powerful CFD engine from inside parametric/generative modeling environments is a great power and as Spider-Man or Uncle Ben once said:
“with great power comes great responsibility!”
We believe in learning by doing and we don’t expect you to be a CFD expert to get started with butterfly however we expect you to educate yourself along the way. If you have never used OpenFOAM before here is a great presentation to get started. We also highly recommend checking out the official OpenFOAM User Guide that goes through most of its functionality. Finally, we have also collected a number of other learning resources on this page that can be a good starting point.
We understand that you will have questions about the plugins which you can post to this forum or Dynamo discussion forum however CFD related issues and questions should be posted to CFD Online.
I like to thank everyone who have helped us with the development and testing during the last year or so, and special thank to Theodore who single-handedly educated me through the process of migrating to OpenFOAM and developing butterfly. Butterfly wasn’t possible without Theodore!
As always let us know about your comments and suggestions.
Happy flying the butterfly! Happy Spring!
…