ther math and logic. i can usually conceptualise what i want to do and cobble some semi working thing together but don't know which components to use and how to patch it. so i'm super happy to have someone who knows what he's doing to find this interesting.
and i'm glad you mention the fanned frets again, there is one input parameter that's still missing for the multiscale frets to be fully parametric, it's the angle of the nut or which fret should be straight. it depends a bit on personal preferences and playing posture what is more comfortable. so being able to adjust this easily would be cool. again i have no idea how the maths for that work or if you can just rotate each fret the same amount around it's middle point. The input either as fret number (for the straight fret) or as a simple slider from bridge to nut should do as input setting.
Here are the two extremes and the middle ground:
i've been thinkin today while analysing your patches and cleaning up my mess what exactly the monster should do.
Here are the input parameters needed, i think it's the complete list
scale length low E string
scale length high e string
fret angle/straight fret
string width at nut
string width at bridge
number of frets
fretboard overhang at nut (distance from string to fretboard bounds)
fretboard overhang at last fret
string gauges
string tensions
fretboard radius at nut (for compound radius fretboard radius at bridge is calculated with the stewmac formula)
fretwire crown width
fretwire crown height
action height at nut (distance between bottom of string and fretwire crown top)
action height at last fret
pickup 1 neck position
pickup 2 middle position
pickup 3 bridge position
nut width
the pickup positions should be used to draw circles for the magnet poles on each string so they are perfectly aligned and can be used for the pickup flatwork construction. ideally they would need a rotation control aligning the center line of the pickup so it's somewher between the last fret angle and bridge angle. personally i do this visually depending on the design i'm looking for, some people have huge theories on pickup positioning but personally i don't believe in it.
that should result in everything needed to quickly generate all the necessary construction curves or geometry for nut/fingerboard/frets/pickups. this is the core of what makes a guitar work, the more precise this dynamic system is the better the guitar plays and sounds.
i posted another thread trying to understand how i could use datasets form spreadsheets,databse, csv to organize the input parameters. What would make sense for the strings for example is hook into a spreadsheet with the different string sets, i attached one for the d'Addario NYXL string line which basically covers all combos that make sense.
The string tension is an interesting one, and implmenting it would sure be overkill albeit super interesting to try. it should be possible to extrapolate from the scale length of each string what the tension for a given string gauge of that string would be so that you could say 'i want a fully balanced set' or 'heavy top light bottom) and it would calculate which SKU from d'addario would best match the required tension. All the strings listed in the spreadsheet are available as single strings to buy.
i'm trying to reorganize everything which helps me understand it. i just discovered the 'hidden wires' feature which is great since once i understood what a certain block does or have finished one of my own, i can get the wires out of the way to carry on undistracted. a bit risky to hide so many wires but it makes it so much easier not to get completely lost :-)
btw, the 'fanned fret' term is trademarked, some guy tried to patent it in the 80's which is a bit silly since it has been done for centuries. there is a level of sophistication above this as well, check out http://www.truetemperament.com/ and that really is something else. it really is astounding how superior the tuning is on those wigglefrets, the problem is that it's rather awkward for string bending and also you can't easily recrown or level the frets when they are used. …
me logic produced by running the 2-d voronoi component.
From a given set of polylines we can extract the centers and this can drive both the voronoi component as well as provide the XYZ drill points for the cnc. The definition has a variety of different options. You need Lunchbox, Weaverbird, and Starling. I can't tell you how amazing these 3 tools are from a design perspective. They are extremely powerful so if you don't have these you must install them asap. You can get the tools at http://www.food4rhino.com/
This definition works by first choosing a grid type, next you choose voronoi type, and subdivision type. From the voronoi type list you can choose basic (just grid), truncation (uses truncation calculated via the image sampler), truncation dual (uses the dual of the truncated image based grid), and subdivision (takes the basic grid type and uses different subdivision shcemes). Each of these provide different patterns of polylines from which we can extract our drilling points. I am rather proud of this definition since the overall idea is one which is so simple it's easy to overlook - the idea that drilling with a ball end mill makes voronoi plots. Now when you combine that with all of these amazing tools it can go off right quick. The nice thing is the paatern you see on screen is the pattern that gets made by drilling wysiwyg cnc patterns.
VORONIO_DRILLing.gh
Here are some on screen patterns in process in the following order truncation, basic, subdivision:
here is a video moving over a machined example:
…
l coarse mesh
Subdividing this mesh into strips of thin quads
Relaxing/Planarizing this mesh
Splitting and Unrolling
In this post I deal with the first 2 of these stages.
You can download the example definition here:
developable_strips_tutorial.gh
Drawing the initial mesh
To begin with we need a simple quad mesh. This can be modelled manually in Rhino, and only needs to use enough quads to give the topology and very rough form. No need to worry too much about the exact geometry or dimensions at this point, as we will refine and alter it as we go.
One very important thing that we do need to bear in mind though is that all internal vertices must have even valence (I covered this a bit in the earlier post here).
So for example, this is bad:
(because the highlighted vertex is surrounded by 5 faces)
While this is good (and can still be relaxed to the same shape):
(the top and bottom vertices have valence 8, and the vertices between the arms have valence 4)
With a little practice it should be possible to convert any mesh into one that meets this condition.
The reasons why we need this condition should become more clear in the later steps.
First subdivision
This is where we choose how many strips we want our final model to have, by applying a few rounds of subdivision using the Refine component (you could also use Weaverbird here):
Sorting the face directions
While quad meshes do not carry the same information about u/v directions as a NURBS surface, the individual faces do have a sort of direction given by their vertex ordering. However, these face directions are usually not consistently arranged, especially after subdivision.
The Kangaroo MeshDirection component attempts* to orient all the faces in a mesh so that they match with their neighbours.
For example, before sorting, if we draw a line from the midpoint of the first edge of each face to the midpt of its opposite edge, we might get something like this:
Whereas after sorting, we should get something like this:
*note that I say it attempts to orient the faces consistently. In some cases no valid solution exists, for instance if 3 or 5 faces meet around a vertex, hence the requirement mentioned at the start for even valence vertices.
Directional Subdivision
Now that we have consistent face directions across the mesh, we can apply further subdivision, but this time in one direction only. So we go from roughly square quads to thin rectangles. The idea is that as we apply higher levels of this directional subdivision, the final relaxed result goes towards something semi-discrete. A NURBS surface is fully continuous, and a mesh is fully discrete (made up of separate facets), while this strip model will be smooth in one direction and faceted in the other.
Go to part 2 for the next step of the process
…
ooking for an efficient way to perform glazing of complex shapes.
I've only followed the Energy modelling workshops so far so i may have missed some essential components or workflows to achieve my needs. But i've made an attached definition with all my current attempts to get a proper HBzone with the numerous windows faces i will always have to deal with in this project.
I first thought that i was not using the HBObjWGZ correctly, then after some readings it was maybe an upgrading issue, then effectively i had my Therm 7.5 that needed to be reinstaled, but then ... I must be missing an essential HB tricks or workflow i guess ...
So I divided my attempt in two series :
- The Serie 1 : is a simplier version of the project step i'm working on but i'd be glad to achieve it first !
- The Serie 2 : is the real final direction of the project, which consist in sorting/dispatch faces to windowon one side and to an other material on the other, according to the winter sun and a pourcentage param.
Despite it is more complicated than the Serie one, it seems seems to create the same diversity of issues.
Until now, with the 5 different combinations of Serie 1, and the 3 of Serie 2, with and without using the different Glazing/window components, here are the logs i got from both HBZone component or OpenStudio component:
From OpenStudio - "1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error: ** Severe ** BuildingSurface:Detailed="00073E23257843B6A948", invalid Construction Name="ETFE" - has Window materials.">> Has to deal with the way i'm trying to assign too early a customized EPConstruction material ? Done it wrong ? I tried to reload it in the library but doesn't change anything...
From OpenStudio - "1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error: ** Severe ** BuildingSurface:Detailed="000579CD749E46DFA5EA", invalid Construction Name="EXTERIOR WINDOW" - has Window materials.">> Is it an issue in the way i define my surfs both as "WINDOW" (5) for srfType and Outdoors on the same component ?
From Create HBZone -"1. Solution exception:'EPZone' object has no attribute 'shdCntrlZoneInstructs'"
>> Happens when i try to introduce my ETFE EpMaterial after creating my first HBZone, with a Set EP Zone Construction, so this material seems to be not working either before and after trying to create an HB Zone
From Create HBZone- "1. Solution exception: 73df51a3b2144b1e858b has been moved, scaled or rotated."If you need to move or rotate a Honeybee object you should use Honeybee move, rotate or mirror components. You can find them under 12|WIP tab.
>> >> wich seems to exist in some on other thread Here and was a coding bug supposed to be fixed.
And last but not least ...
From OpenStudio - "1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error: ** Severe ** checkSubSurfAzTiltNorm: Outward facing angle of subsurface differs more than 90.0 degrees from base surface.2. The simulation has failed because of this fatal error: ** Fatal ** GetSurfaceData: Errors discovered, program terminates" .
I'm attaching the file with each attempt in this post. The definitions are disabled and the log already copied separatly so there is no need to compute each of them to see what's wrong.
If someone from the beginner to one of the Kings of HoneyBee has any relevant answer/solution to this attempt with complex geometry Issue it will be really nice for me so i could to move forward !!
Thanks in advance guys and have a great day !
…
y from the Rhino model and having the absorption coefficients of the materials that are entered into Pachyderm, why is it not possible to generate a reverberation time diagram, without the need to start any analysis?
MAPPING METHOD: When for example the mapping of the Strenght Index (G) is generated through the "create map" option, succesively I can´t generate any other energy criterion map, but I have to redo the simulation.
Is it a limitation of the software or am I wrong something?
MAPPING METHOD: I kindly wanted to ask what is the difference between minimum and detailed convergence and why the number of reflections order it takes into account for the simulation is not specified. The mapping method take care only of the Raytracing Method or the Image Source too?
MAPPING METHOD: Why is the mapping value that can be exported to Rhino not generated for all the calculation raster points, but maximal only for 100 values?
MAPPING METHOD: This method hasn't been implemented in Grasshopper yet, has it?
RAYTRACING METHOD (Pach:RT): I did a raytracing through the components of GH, using only the Pach_RT, and I had these curious results in terms of time:
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:1 = 5min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:2 = 12min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:3 = 3min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:4 = 8min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:5 = 3min
Why a raytracing with only 2 order, is more and more extensive than the 3/4 and 5 order?
ANALYSIS RESULT: Would there be a way to export all the results of a simulation, as is done via Odeon, to a .txt list?
I apologize in advance for asking so many questions, I hope you can find the time to answer,
Yours sincerely from Müller-BBM…
e 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.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"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.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] 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.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
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'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. 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.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. 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 [...] 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.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. 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.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"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.
6. 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.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. 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.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 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.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
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
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
3. receiver gets data from sender via input (0) < the data here may be changed in the meantime, for instance if its a double then I would like to add 1 to it.
4. receiver sends data to sender's input(2)
5. go to 1.
VS 2013 studio project folder
SENDER
Public Class loopStart Inherits GH_Component
Dim cnt As Integer
Friend Property counter() As Integer Get Return cnt End Get Set(value As Integer) cnt = value End Set End Property
Dim iData As New GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)
Friend Property startData() As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo) Get Return iData End Get Set(value As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)) iData = value End Set End Property
Public Sub New() MyBase.New("loopStart", "loopStart", "Start the loop with this one.", "Extra", "Extra") End Sub
Public Overrides ReadOnly Property ComponentGuid() As System.Guid Get Return New Guid("bdf1b60d-6757-422b-9d2d-08257996a88c") End Get End Property
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterInputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dIn", "Data to loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) pManager.AddIntegerParameter("Steps", "S", "Number of loops", GH_ParamAccess.item) pManager.AddGenericParameter("<X>", "<X>", "Please leave this one alone, don't input anything.", GH_ParamAccess.tree) pManager.Param(2).Optional = True End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterOutputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_OutputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dOut", "Data to loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) End Sub
Public Overrides Sub CreateAttributes() m_attributes = New loopStartAttributes(Me) End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub SolveInstance(ByVal DA As Grasshopper.Kernel.IGH_DataAccess)
Dim numLoop As Integer DA.GetData(1, numLoop)
Dim loopDt As New Grasshopper.Kernel.Data.GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)
If cnt = 0 Then Me.startData.Clear() DA.GetDataTree(0, Me.startData) loopDt = startData.Duplicate DA.SetDataTree(0, loopDt) End If
If cnt < numLoop - 1 And cnt > 0 Then DA.GetDataTree(2, loopDt) DA.SetDataTree(0, loopDt) Me.ExpireSolution(True) Else DA.GetDataTree(2, loopDt) DA.SetDataTree(0, loopDt) End If
cnt += 1
End Sub
End Class
RECEIVER
Public Class loopEnd Inherits GH_Component
Dim aData As New GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)
Friend Property anyData() As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo) Get Return aData End Get Set(value As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)) aData = value End Set End Property
Public Sub New() MyBase.New("loopEnd", "loopEnd", "End the loop with this one.", "Extra", "Extra") End Sub
Public Overrides ReadOnly Property ComponentGuid() As System.Guid Get Return New Guid("3ffa3b66-8160-4ab3-87c9-356b2c17aadd") End Get End Property
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterInputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dIn", "Data to loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterOutputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_OutputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dOut", "Data after the loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub SolveInstance(ByVal DA As Grasshopper.Kernel.IGH_DataAccess) Me.aData.Clear() DA.GetDataTree(0, Me.aData) runner()
DA.SetDataTree(0, Me.aData) End Sub
Sub runner()
Dim doc As GH_document = Grasshopper.Instances.ActiveCanvas.Document Dim docl As list(Of iGH_DocumentObject) = (doc.Objects)
For i As Integer = 0 To docl.count - 1 Step 1 Dim comp As Object = docl(i) If comp.NickName = "loopStart" Then Dim compp As IGH_Param = comp.Params.input(2) compp.VolatileData.Clear() compp.AddVolatileDataTree(anyData) Exit For End If Next End Sub
End Class
…
looked at autodesk simulation cfd 2015 and was optimistic because it had an export plugin from revit, which i use anyway for material takeoffs and etc, but found that it did not take solar radiation into account. This was a downer because I have heard that solar radiation could effect indoor airflow - convection - as much as 50 percent at a time.
Then I searched again and found that Hyperworks, a software by altair technology can be coupled with a radiation software. So I went through the trouble of obtaining an educational license of Hyperworks. However, though some email exchange I have found that the coupling is a one-way. The radiation analysis software was used, I think, for understanding the solar loading for a SOM project called church of light.
The support guy said : "Unfortunately our coupling with Hyperworks is really a one way coupling. We can accept H coefficients from their software in RadTherm, but they will not read in our wall temps. That said, it still can be a useful coupling in the sense that you can run the analysis in Hyperworks, send H coefficients to RadTherm, and run the analysis to better understand radiation and conduction. Most importantly, that analysis can be done for longer transient analysis, but will require much less compute time and resources."
Not only did I not understand what he means by the H coefficients, my wanting to get a CFD understanding coupled with solar radiation was again, unsatisfied. In the mean while I had to finish a presentation so I haven't had the time to try to get some result on the natural ventilation. I would probably need to look into how their solutions work before I can understand if their software would "do the job"
Thank you for letting me know about your work on this. I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed, but it does not show up in grasshopper.
You pointed out that "The component (and the corresponding equation) is mostly meant for cases where you have zones with windows that are NOT connected by an air wall (or a larger airflow network)." I wondered if you are suggesting it would be a code violation for zones to be connected by an air wall for fire safety reasons. It would be a violation I guess, like not putting an fiber insulation or some kind of smoke stop between Spandrel panels and the edge of a floor plate would be a code violation for a typical office building.
There is a project by kevin daly architects where you can see a section drawing with what seems like a cfd analysis (could be an illustration)
it was my initial visualization/simulation goals were for a facade design I am working on
1) an average air velocity across a zone at noon, for example, if a passive design strategy like this was used. for this I am guessing cfd is not entirely necessary. probably means that it could be used earlier in a design process, too. This would be more about user comfort.
2) at a later phase, like in detailing facade components, if airflow is indeed as expected for a zone that is connected to an air wall / chimney like feature (and to see if there is a proper mixing of air)
3) and a projection of energy savings, of course.
After seeing a video of simulation cfd I was optimistic, but like I said sim cfd does not take account of solar loading. I think I would probably go ahead start with one zone with sim cfd first, try three zones stacked on top of each other, then try hyperworks and try to factor in solar radiation.
For analyzing multiple zones on different levels, being able to add a chimney would be especially useful, I think. Having said that, I don't have a lot of experience of using honeybee except for the daylight component so it would take some time for me to understand the components.
I hope some of the information here is useful for you. after all, both sim cfd and hyperworks are commercial softwares and somewhat different than the e plus project you are working on, I guess but still trying to address a similar problem.
so.. in cased you missed it I was asking I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed and placed in the user object foler, but it does not show up in grasshopper. what could be the reason?
…
o express my gratitude. I've been experimenting with your definitions (and still am), but let me extend my question.
Actually what I'm trying to achieve, is to recreate another project by Andrew Kudless, the spore lamp (I mentioned the Chrysalis at the beginning just because of the animation, which wasn't included in the Spore Lamp presentation).
Basically the spore lamp seems to me to be something like a preliminary study to the Chrysalis III project (I think it's a similar approach).
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 which then has been planarized, 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)
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 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-released?g...
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: Keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later and obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily
Any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?…