is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…
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
…
o I can apply your color gradient code (not shown but in GH file, off screen) after the Z sort:170316_SpheresStandardizer_2017Mar16b.gh
The fact that sphere 'Volume' is required a second time, after 'Pull' to wires, reminds me of a similar issue we dealt with last week: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/trimming-points-pulled-fr...
Seems to me that 'Pull Point' has a serious defect that requires extraordinary effort and/or kludgy code to remedy. If you don't graft the curves, 'Pull' returns each point pulled to it's nearest curve - exactly what you want, except without knowing which curve puled it?
In this code (above), you are using 'Pull D (Distance)', 'Smaller' with an arbitrary value as 'B' and 'Cull' to associate the closest curve with each point. In the other thread, I ended up creating brep cylinders around the curves to get the correct result. Ridiculous!!
I've spent a lot of time trying and utterly failing to find a truly proper solution. Is there one? (see "AHA!!!!" below!)
Searching the forum, I quickly found a couple old posts referring to the same problem:
pull point (bug?) May 27, 2009http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/pull-point-bug
Small request April 18, 2013http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/small-request
=========================
AHA!!!! I had given up and was about to post the above when I finally solved it. Created a cluster called 'PullT' that does the job, sorting by 'D (Distance)'. Here's the cluster:
And here's how it's used: 170316_SpheresStandardizer_2017Mar16c.gh
Notice that 'PullT' emits a cull pattern ('Pc') that can be used on related data to structure it into the same tree pattern - 'Volume (V)' in this case, so it's only used once. Could do the same with the original mesh spheres if there was reason to do so.
I've tested it on last week's code in the other thread and it seems to work fine; will post it there shortly.…
basis" problem ... all of a sudden - quite recently - a girl posted the MITESIGF (Most Important Thread Even Seen In Grasshopper Forums). She doesn't even realized that: she's novice:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/array-1
4. Why this MITESIGF is MITESIGF? For 2 reasons:
4.a: Wooden pairs (Beams) Profile Curves (belonging in some tree) MUST allow individual control on a per "item basis" (OK, that's obvious) - see Images posted in the thread. No attractor (or any other "global" policy) can cut the mustard here (to tell you the truth this happens in 99% of pure engineering cases, but they appear very rarely in GH Forums - if at all, mind). If the profile curves are defined with 5 points (or 9 for the double thing) we need "on-the-fly" control over this Array (like the radii in your Sphere Manipulator) :
4.b: Critical Bottom-to-Top issues arise: Create a "global" topology (call it "parent") - the beams - and then place real-life "components" (call them "childs") that affect (most probably) the "parent". OK, that's impossible to do with GH/Rhino (peace of cake with CATIA/Microstation) but you can "approximate" things up to a point. Alternatively: you can "trigger" some interest from GH/Rhino developers if they have any AEC market(s) in mind.
Topic 4.a requires the master-to-slave slider thingy (iterate over branches (index slider:master) > reset the 5 values (value slider:slave) > modify them on the fly > save > increase/decrease branch > ...).
Other than that my definitions are far more challenging than this simple case ... but ... anyway ... long is the path (and hilly).
more soon.
best, The Troll
…
, but without modifying the lists order:
suposing i have a structure list
(Paths = 75)
{0} (N = 51)
{2} (N = 51)
{3} (N = 51)
{4} (N = 51) ...............
I`m trying to apply to that list of values the statement:
if x>y then x=0
if x<y then x=x/z
but i need the list structure to keep exactly the same.
I`d be very thankful for any ideas on how to approach this problem.
Many thanks,
Roberto
…
that aren't relevant anymore or if there are any I missed please let me know. Maybe we can get a list like this in a better place as well.
Thank you.
Right Mouse - When wiring, plugs wire into multiple inputs.Shift+Click - Pick component aggregate.Shift+Clicking - Place component aggregate.Alt+Left - Click Split canvas tool.Ctrl+Q - Preview toggle.Ctrl+E - Enable toggle.Ctrl+Left - Navigate upstream.Ctrl+Right - Navigate downstream.Ctrl+M - Mesh Edge display toggle.Ctrl+1 - No previewCtrl+2 - Wireframe preview.Ctrl+3 - ShadedCtrl+Alt+Shift+Click - Save image of canvas.Ctrl+Alt and Shift+Ctrl+Alt - Highlights components on the canvas and component palette.Ctrl+Shift - Rewire component input/output.Double Click - Find/SearchAlt+Drag - Copy component on canvas.Ctrl+Tab - Document cycling.Ctrl+Shift+P - PreferencesCtrl+N - New fileCtrl+O - Open fileCtrl+S - Save file.Ctrl+Shift+S - Save as.Ctrl+Alt+S - Save backup.Ctrl+W - Close open document.Ctrl+Z - Undo copy.Ctrl+Y - RedoCtrl+X - CutCtrl+C - CopyCtrl+P - PasteCtrl+Alt+V - Paste in placeCtrl+Shift+V - Paste in centerCtrl+A - Select allCtrl+D - DeselectCtrl+Shift+I - Invert SelectionCtrl+Shift+A - Grow SelectionCtrl+Shift+Left Arrow - Grow UpstreamCtrl+Shift+Right Arrow - Grow DownstreamCtrl+Left Arrow - Shift upstreamCtrl+Right Arrow - Shift downstreamCtrl+G - Group selectionF3 - FindF4 - CreateF5 - RecomputeCtrl+B - Send to backCtrl+F - Bring to frontCtrl+Shift+B - Move backwardsCtrl+Shift+F - Move forwardsInsert - Bake selectedCtrl+Q - Toggle previewCtrl+E - Toggle enabled selected
…
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
o an index, but then you'd end up with consecutive value ranges for the slider that all map to the same index, which I think is actually worse than your current setup. One major benefit of integer sliders is that the number of unique values you can get is usually far less than with floating point sliders.
There is an alternative way to set this up, but I don't know if it's better or worse or indifferent. Instead of definitely using the a and b values, and min/maxing the c and d values to be within some valid domain, you could pit a and c against each other, using those two integers to come up with a' and c'. So for example if {m=10, a=6, c=4}, you'd modify c to be 6+1. Any value of c between 0 and 7 thus yields the same outcome. Instead, you could define a' and c' to be something like a' = Min(a, 0.5*(a+c)), and c' = Max(c, 0.5*(a+c)). This way c will still have a different effect if it's lower than a, by depressing both the a' and c' values. It does sound quite complicated to get right though, I'm not sure I'd bother.
Galapagos doesn't deal with dynamic sliders. It creates genome constraints from the slider properties at the start of the process, and it remembers exactly how many different unique states each slider can be in. Genes then get assigned integers that index each of these unique states.…
ood Samaritan) said: well ... since the Ducati won't start (not my fault officer) help that girl.
Good news: Almost ready, well for a pair of curves ... but the rest are bureaucracy than any(?) intelligence(?). Took me 27 minutes, 23 seconds and 45,78 milliseconds using the famous cut and paste method of mine - US patent pending (from other C# stuff, that is).
I hear you: but the planes don't rotate. Well, that's exactly "almost" is used: the rotation logic IS NOT that simple (can you guess the reason?).
How to use it (up to that point - FULL detail Louvers used, he he):
(a) Load the Rhino file first. It doesn't display anything but the Block Manager can tell you a different story.
(b) Load the definition (it doesn't look that impressive at least as regards the graphics, he he) AND read all the comments.
(c) Go there and enable the second script (turn false to true, DO NOT turn false the second boolean flag because the simplified Louver is not yet imported).
(d) Prior changing the geometry via the first C#, disable the script (or keep it active if your computer is fast). But ... if you change the widthOfPanel value ... you'll need CATIA for that I'm afraid (create on the fly the parametric Louver assembly in full detail, in REAL-TIME).
I hear you: where are the wooden things? Well ... that's kid's stuff my dear just extruding a BrepFace both sides (V2 does this).
I hear you: are you saying that you'll make ALL the curves with C# (control their shape individually PER pair) and not just place the louvers into the existing curves provided? Yes that is what V3 does (it's ready but some minor things remain).
I hear you: and what V4 does then? Well ... have faith, he he
All that provided that ... that |$@%@$ Ducati could start (what's wrong with this thing? that's the 1M question).
best, The Troll…