lName, signalValue, operationMode):
sigV=signalValue
if sys.version_info[0] == 3:
if type(signalName) is str:
signalName=signalName.encode('utf-8')
if type(signalValue) is bytearray:
sigV = (ct.c_ubyte*len(signalValue))(*signalValue)
if type(signalValue) is str:
signalValue=signalValue.encode('utf-8')
sigV = (ct.c_ubyte*len(signalValue))(*signalValue)
else:
if type(signalValue) is bytearray:
sigV = (ct.c_ubyte*len(signalValue))(*signalValue)
if type(signalValue) is str:
signalValue=bytearray(signalValue)#<========This is line 1052
sigV = (ct.c_ubyte*len(signalValue))(*signalValue)
sigV=ct.cast(sigV,ct.POINTER(ct.c_ubyte)) # IronPython needs this
return c_WriteStringStream(clientID, signalName, sigV, len(signalValue), operationMode)
It displays the following error:
Program started
Connected to remote API server
Runtime error (TypeErrorException): unicode argument without an encoding
Traceback:
line 1052, in simxWriteStringStream, "C:\Program Files (x86)\V-REP3\V-REP_PRO_EDU\programming\remoteApiBindings\python\python\vrep.py"
line 70, in script
Any hint?…
are hotter than the least overlapped parts.
I'm trying to create gradients when overlapping between closed surfaces occur. The gradient goes from the center of the most overlapped figure to the edges of the least overlapped figures.
To help understand how I'm thinking it, I will first show you my solution for one figure.
As I said in the title, it's kind of a pseudo gradient. It's a way of organising areas (rings) inside of the geometry. To achieve this I thought in creating a series of rays that then can be divided in segments, in this case 3 segments of same lenght per ray, I could get more resolution in the gradient by dividing in more thus creating more rings...
in this picture the rays are in dark red and go from the center to 4 points in the perimeter, if I wanted more resolution I could have more rays, but with this simple figure 4 is enough
the rings are in a gradient of colors from the center to the perimeter, lighter in color each time:
so when I have 2 overlapping geometries
the center of the gradient should be on the center of the most overlapped part (in red) and go to the perimeter of the pink parts
for the red figure I draw the rays from the center to its perimetry. and for the pink figures the gradient should go from the parts that are in contact with the red figure to the perimeter, something like this:
still that is something I did with rhino and it's pretty intuitive...
the problem gets worse when i have more figures and more "heat centers"
like in these examples
maybe the approach should not be with rays to create the rings... maybe with offsets..
not sure if it's not too complicated to achieve in grasshopper and maybe there's another way of creating a gradient with multiple focuses...
would aprecciate any help
cheers…
But not just any gum tree. The angophora, no less:
Why? Because I like nature, that's why. Every time I see new designs –especially architectural designs– it worries me that the natural environment is being taken over. Not just that, but even the new materials used in all product designs has to come from nature as well [read: mines].
So. People are forgetting that we still need trees and I believe that if someone sees a beautiful [read: established] tree in their architectural plans, they are going to be much more likely to build around it and not cut it down. That alone would no doubt increase the value of the house.
My thinking is that current tree models suck. They look unnatural and I think I know why. They're not random or organic enough. They're not detailed enough. That's basically my 'rationale' for this project. Just look at how different all of these tree trunks are!
So I am not being paid for this project. It's a personal project of mine. I'm just worried about the trunk shape for now — I'll worry about all the leaves... when I get to that.
I am a grasshopper beginner. Please keep that in mind. I am also fairly hopeless at traditional programming, but I find the visual approach of grasshopper much easier to grasp. So unfortunately I have gotten stuck and need some help, even just a clue, as to how to proceed.
That said, here is my current progress:
About a year ago, I started modelling with straight trunks using pipe sections, to see if I could get a very basic "tree" shape. And to see if I could join the segments together. Yes it works but it looks hopeless as you can imagine. Then I stopped for a long while. Now I'm back at it, hoping to improve a lot more.
I have already made one basic vertical nurbs curve with tangents at either end as the main "trunk".
I tried creating two ellipses at each end of the main trunk/curve and lofting between them but it omitted the main curve/rail. So it ended up being an elliptical trunk with straight sides which of course still didn't look right.
Then I divided the first main curve up into a number of segments. I think that is a better approach.
I have taken the parameters of the curve at each segment (probably the tangent, but I am unsure what the exact parameter is) and used that to form a basic angled plane at each segment/division.
I have been able to draw ellipses at each segment and rotate them onto the plane.
I was going to loft it together later on. A Curved loft with elliptical cross-sections looks much better than straight a pipe does, but still looks too unnatural.
I quickly realised that tree trunks are not elliptical, but rather, shaped more like 'kidneys'.
The next step was to create >3 points on each of those planes (spaced fairly evenly around the ellipse so as not to create a really funky/unwanted shape).
Maybe it would be better to model with a triangle or other polygon instead of an ellipse. I haven't got that far yet... because here is where I am getting stuck.
I managed to find a way of getting three roughly 'triangular' points along each that ellipse.
I also managed to create three nurbs cuves in the Z direction which intersected those three points, a bit like three seams down the side of the tree trunk, but couldn't figure out how to loft it all together.
I think it was the wrong approach anyway... I'd rather try to create a bunch of nurbs curves at each of the XY planes so as to get more control of the shape.
What I am trying to do now is create three roughly triangular-spaced points on a basic ellipse through which I can then draw a simple nurbs curve (think like a cross section of the trunk).
I would then like to add some XY-only randomness to the positions of those points. Not Z randomness, otherwise the trunk is going to get messed/kinked up. That's probably very important.
Then I would like to loft those nurbs curvs at each XY plane together forming the basic tree trunk, which also tapers based on some other variable (a non-linear factor, not simply distance from ground plane, perhaps something else?).
I have attached the GH file.
I am also open to suggestions if you have a better way of solving a problem. I would like to retain control over a lot of factor such as number of branches, spacing, average branch length, etc. My main contrsaints are that the entire thing has to be somewhat random and non-linear.
…
arq, que se celebrará entre el 28 de Enero y el 1 de Febrero de 2013 en el Colegio de Arquitectos de Granada.
El taller está destinado a arquitectos, artistas y diseñadores, tanto como profesionales, como estudiantes de grado y posgrado, que, sin necesidad de haber tenido ningún contacto previo con entornos de programación o herramientas informáticas de dibujo paramétrico o generativo, están interesados en probar y experimentar con las opciones que nos pueden ofrecer a los diseñadores.
El taller está dividido en tres bloques:
Curso intensivo: del 28 de Enero al 30 de Febrero, en horario de mañana, de 10 a 14. Taller de proyectos: del 28 de Enero al 30 de Febrero, por la tarde, de 16 a 20; y el 31 de Febrero, durante todo el día.
Presentaciones: viernes 1 de Febrero, mañana y tarde.
Utilizaremos Grasshopper, el editor algorítmico asociado al software de modelado tridimensional y dibujo Rhinoceros, por su facilidad de aprendizaje, al tratarse de un entorno gráfico, facilidad de adquisición, al ser gratuito y haber disponible una versión de prueba de Rhinoceros también gratuita, y amplia difusión en los últimos años. Y lo emplearemos tanto como modelador, como conector entre otros softwares y varias disciplinas. Por este motivo, también utilizaremos algunos de sus plug-ins, como Geco, para análisis ambiental, Elk, para enlazarlo con OpenStreetMap o Kangaroo, para simulación de sistemas físicos.
Lo único que necesitas es un ordenador portátil (si no pudieras conseguir), hacer el ingreso con el importe correspondiente y mandarnos tus datos y el recibo bancario del ingreso a smartlabgranada@gmail.com. Puedes ver los detalles en el apartado de Inscripción. El resto del material, tanto software como hardware, lo ponemos nosotros.
Nuestro acercamiento a estas herramientas es entusiasta acerca del potencial creativo que pueden ofrecer a diseñadores y artistas, pero también crítico y especulativo. Nos alejamos tanto de una posición puramente formalista, como del estricto funcionalismo, a los que desde los últimos años frecuentemente se ha asociado a esta disciplina.…
Added by Miguel Vidal at 8:42am on January 19, 2013
ahams's question about how shades are accounted for in the simulation/thermal map and Theodore's thought that just accounting for shades in the E+ run was sufficient. I think that it may be clearest to explain what is going on with this infographic:
As the graphic shows, the thermal maps are made from 4 key types of inputs. The radiant temperature map is formed through a consideration of both the temperature of the surfaces surrounding the occupants and the direct solar radiation that might fall onto the occupants through un-shaded windows. The first surface temperature effect is easily computable from your Energy simulation results and the HBZone geometry. However, the second is calculated by seeing how sun vectors pass through the windows of the zones and uses the SolarCal method of the CBE team (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89m1h2dg) to compute an MRT delta resulting from solar radiation. This delta is then added to the initial values computed through surface temperature view factor. When you do not connect up your shading brep geometry, internal furniture breps, or outdoor context geometry that might block sun to the additionalShading input, the thermal map will assume that sun can pass unobstructed through the window or through indoor furniture to fall onto occupants. It is important to stress that the EnergyPlus simulation does not count for blind geometry or internal furniture as actual geometry. Just as numerical abstractions of surface area and material properties. So we need you to plug in the actual geometry of these things when we compute the MRT delta resulting from sun falling directly onto people.
Next, to clear up the definition of window transmissivity. The important thing to clarify here is that, whether it refers to the tranmittance of glass or to the amount of sun coming through a fine screen of blinds, the value is multiplied by the radiation falling on the occupant and thus has a direct correlation to the MRT Delta from sun falling on occupants. So, if you set transmissivity to zero, the sun falling on the occupants will not be considered in the calculation and, if you set the transmissivity to 1, the assumption is that there is no window (or the window glass is 100% clear). So, Abraham, your definition of it as a coefficient is appropriate.
Normally, I would just recommend that you leave this value at the default 0.7, which corresponds to the transmittance of the default glass material in Honeybee. However, there are 4 cases in which you might consider changing it:
1) You are not using the default Honeybee glazing material, in which case, you should change the transmissivity to be equal to this new value.
2) You have a lot of really small blind/shade geometries and you do not want the view factor component to take several minutes to trace sun vectors through the detailed shade geometry and so you are ok with using just a simple abstraction instead of plugging shade breps into the additionaShading. In this case, you might try to estimate the average percentage of radiation coming through the blind geometry (maybe with some simple Ladybug radiation studies or with your intuition about the amount of sun blocked by the shades). You will then multiply this by the tranmissivity of your glass and this will be the value that you input to the component.
3) Your blinds for your Honeybee simulation are dynamic, in which case, plugging shade breps into additionalShading is not going to work because the component will assume that those shades are always there. In this case, you should be plugging a list of 8760 values into the transmissivity that correspond to when the shades are pulled. When the blinds are completely up, the value should be the tranmittance of your window and, when they are down, the value should be the window tranmittance multiplied by the fraction of light coming through the shades.
4) You have shades/blinds but they are transparent or are not completely opaque. The additionalShading_ input assumes that all shade geometry is opaque and so you cannot use it to account for such shades. Accordingly, you will need to account for it through the tranmissivity.
In the future, I may try to pull more information about blinds and glass properties off of the HBzones inside the view factor component but, for now and for the next few months, the above describes how it works.
Theodore, for curved geometry, I think that your safest bet is going to be planarizing the Rhino geometry before you turn it into a HBZone (so you just divide the curved surface into a few vertical planar panes of glass that approximate the curve well enough). This is essentially what the runSimulation component does for you automatically (it meshes the geometry as you see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ2Pau4q6c&index=12&list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_). If I were to figure out a way to incorporate shades in this automatic meshing workflow, your EnergyPlus simulation would take a very long time to run and I am not even sure if the result will be that accurate with the way E+ abstracts shades. So I don't think that it's really worth it over just planarizing the geometry yourself.
Lastly, I won't be able to figure out the problem with your current run Theodore, unless I get the GH file from you. Make sure that you are using all up-to-date components.
-Chris…
l coworking. Il corso prevede la trattazione delle tematiche di base della modellazione generativa, con l'inserimento di lezioni basate sulla filosofia progettuale della modellazione generativa e basi di analisi matematica.
Il corso ha durata di 30 ore con appuntamenti bisettimanali (lunedì e mercoledì) a partire da lunedì 03 ottobre. Per maggiori informazioni contattate il docente del corso e scaricate il programma
____________
Cavallette Generative is the new Grasshopper Level I course offered by Mandarino Blu visual communication LAB. The event is organized by the support of Multiverso, a co-working company. The course includes the discussion of the basic themes of generative modeling, such as design philosophy and mathematical analysis.
The course lasts 30 hours with twice-weekly meetings (Monday and Wednesday) from Monday, October 3. For more information contact the instructor of the course and download the program…
difference consists of.
An Evolutionary Solver/Genetic Algorithm is an implementation of Metaheuristics. Metaheuristics tend to be flexible solvers, applicable to a wide variety of problems, fairly easy to implement, but slow. Other examples of Metaheuristic algorithms would be Random Search, Scatter Search, Simulated Annealing and do on. These algorithms are often modelled on physical or biological processes.
Simulated Annealing for example simulates the physical process of annealing (who'd have thunk it), which is basically the slow cooling of a material which allows it to settle into a crystalline lattice, i.e. a low energy distribution of all the atoms. I'm currently adding an SA solver to Galapagos, and in fact just yesterday managed to get the first successful run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWtYLv-4oP0
Metaheuristics are especially useful for those cases where little is known about the problem ahead of time. If the problem search-space is mathematically well defined (differentiable, especially), then you can use more targeted algorithms such as the Newton-Raphson method, Pareto-search or Uphill search. You can still use these methods on non-differentiable search-spaces, but it involves sampling the local region to death to get an estimate of the differential. This can be a very costly enterprise, especially in high dimensional search-spaces. In a two-dimensional search-space you'll need 3 to get a lame estimate and 4 to get a halfway decent estimate and 8 to get a good estimate. In three-dimensional search space you already need 26 samples, and the number of samples grows exponentially with higher dimensions.
If you have a specific problem you're trying to solve, Metaheuristics are probably not the best solution, even though they may be easiest to program. Rhino uses something akin to Newton-Raphson for certain problems and that's fast enough to run in real-time.
Divide-and-Conquer algorithms are also quite popular. Sometimes they are called Binary-Search or Tree-Search algorithms as well. Their basic premise is to sample the search-space at a few intervals (but enough to capture the needed detail), then find two neighbours with promising values and sample again in between these two. Then repeat. Each new iteration typically doubles accuracy, which is great because then you only need ~30 ~40 iterations to get an answer as good as possible with double-precision floating point accuracy. However not all problems lend themselves well to this sort of search and in higher dimensions it starts getting slow with disconcerting alacrity.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 1:54am on August 15, 2011
er from moltiple curves the represent the area of floor plans,
but the problem is, I cant fine a way to intelligently divide the curves - responsively to the radiation analysis color (for example - that yelow area on of the building will have more division on each floor plan)
do you have any ideas on how to do that?
i tried to use attractors be failed miserably..
THANKS,
Limor.…
write a definition that represents the following surface that I have created out of paper.
This is essentially a squared surface subdivided into triangular segments. For that reason I was hoping I could use Zubin's example about triangles in chapter 3 of his book.
I'm sure, you guys know these kind of folding technique, but to clarify the pattern of the surface, here's a quick diagram:
My approach was to use the point cloud out of Zubani's example and select points with the Cull Nth component according to the pattern shown in the diagram. These points I would then offset with a z-vector component while keeping the distance between the points fixed.
However, after spending now several days trying to figure this out, I definitely ran into a wall..
As I see it, the example generates multiple points for the same coordinates, meaning there are occasions where there 6 points on top of each other.
Further, the Cull Nth component doesn't work exactly as I've hoped, the problem lies in the transition from one row to another..
I was also thinking instead of creating a series of points and then trying to filter specific points out to create (a) the surfaces and (b) the offset, maybe I should start creating these separate lists from the beginning?
Or, instead of point cloud series, using a surface and the sDivide component?
As you see, I am pretty confused/lost in the problem... any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
…
a competition this year where we will be constructing the complete house.
http://www.heliomet.org/
The house has always had the notion of large self shading screen on its south facade. However the self shading aspect of this had never really been developed and it was only ever really an extruded pretty dia-grid pattern.
Ultimately we imagine the perforations to be milled out of foam which could then be laminated in a surf board kind of fashion.
I have done some work with optimization through geco and galapagos before, so I imagined I could do something similar to optimise the openings for maximum radiation in winter/minimum in summer to the internal space.
Because of the nature of the pattern and large number of perforations though, each time galapagos will try a different iteration, it has to trim all the openings on both faces of the screen, or boolean difference for it to be meshed and exported. Whicever way i do it, it just seems too heavy a process for testing iterations.
I've also thought about maybe optimising a single opening, or set of openings, and then trying to combine them back into an overall.
I have attached the grasshopper file I was messing around with, where i was predominantly just looking at a dia-grid on front on back face of my 'screen' with a number variables to manipulate them. Lofting between the corresponding shapes gives some idea of a pattern with more '3 dimensionality' and interest. As I said, once i started trying to set this up ith geco/galapagos to look at shading optimisation it was way too heavy.
I would just be interested in anyones take/experience in how to approach this self shading project in grasshopper, to get me started on a good path as I'm sure there are better ways i dont know of.
Thanks
Arrash
…