). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …
. From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e)
with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input
Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...?
MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw,
2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11).
In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results.
Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method?
3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component?
Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12
Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
Thanks a lot for your helpRegards,
Aymeric
…
hope this number will grow in future. Currently available features are:
1) Creation of 2d or 3d context for any kind of building related analysis: automatically generate the 2d/3d surrounding buildings for the location where you would like to perform visibility, solar radiation, cfd or any other type of analysis. You need some other plugin for the last three, like Ladybug. It only creates the context=surroundings! The "automatic generation" process also includes creation of the local topography (terrain) along with buildings.
2) Identification of certain 2d or 3d elements in the created context. For example: selection of all hotels, parks, hospitals, restaurants, residential buildings etc.
3) Performing direct terrain analysis (hillshading, slope, ruggedness, roughness, water flow...)
4) Creation of terrain shading masks and horizon files for further solar and photovoltaics analysis.
Gismo will be very grateful if he could get any suggestions, improvements, bug reports and testing in the following period. In case you are willing to provide any of these, the requirements, installation steps and .gh example files can be found here, here and here.
Thank you in advance !!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 9:10am on January 29, 2017
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.
…
Karamba.
I am using your plug-in for normal forces evaluation in the transvere wires and spreaders of a sailboat. Mast is solved in another way, so I am not taking forces from Karamba in that case.
Basing on the forces value an adequate wire size (diameter) is choosen. Then masses of wires are being calculated. Loads (forces) on longitudinal wires are calculated without Karamba. The problem is when choosing transverse wires’ mass minimization as a criteria, the Octopus doesn’t get any results - is changing the sliders (genes) too fast for Karamba to calculate the forces (so Octopus gets only nulls):
When minimization of a e.g. longitudinal wires’ mass (calculated without Karamba) is taken as a criteria Octopus works fine.
Which suggests that the problem is in interaction of two plug-ins.
Any ideas how to avoid that problem?
Thanks,
M.
Below some screenshots of definition part with Karamba:
1675×807 200 K
image.png1680×789 398 KB
Despite the ‘orange warning’ the values are correct (double checked with other software).However I don't know why does it say that there is a part that can move freely without deformation,as the model looks like this:
image.png1239×343 55.5 KB
…
ne – power of the many è un corso advanced level che studia la produzione di effetti complessi a partire dalla modellazione di comportamenti semplici su un insieme strutturato con un numero alto di elementi. Attraverso un approccio generico e scaleless sarà possibile affrontare la tematica generale su più fronti e in una molteplicità di declinazioni possibili. Il corso è rivolto a chi,indipendentemente dal proprio background (urbanistica, architettura, ingegneria, design, arte o altro) già possiede una esperienza di base con Rhinoceros e Grasshopper, e desidera sviluppare aspetti di gestione avanzata del flusso di articolato di informazioni attraverso una strategia guidata basata su esempi pratici e sull’implementazione di un progetto personale sul tema generale del “field behaviour”. Sarà trattato anche l’utilizzo di alcuni plug-ins quali gHowl e WeaverBird. Il numero dei partecipanti è fissato a un massimo di 20 per offrire un tutoraggio proficuo ed una effettiva esperienza di learning ad ogni iscritto.
[.] Temi:
teoria
. complessità, emergence, effetti di campo (field behaviour), sensibilità, efficienza multiperformance
tecnica
. dati:gestione e manipolazione avanzata del data tree, streaming e visualizzazione; transizione, blending e modulazione delle geometrie; generazione e controllo multiperformance di popolazioni di componenti; attrattori, drivers e tecniche di modulazione avanzate; uso delle mesh con WeaverBird; ottimizzazione con Galapagos
[.] Dettagli :
Tutors: Alessio Erioli + Andrea Graziano – Co-de-iT
Si richiede esperienza di base nella modellazione in Rhino (equivalente a Rhino training Level 1, il Level 2 è gradito – la documentazione per il training è disponibile gratuitamente all’indirizzo: http://download.rhino3d.com/download.asp?id=Rhino4Training&language=it) e nell’uso di Grasshopper (la suddivisione di una superficie NURBS in componenti tramite isotrim è data come base assodata)
. luogo:
IreCoop – via Vasco De Gama 27 _ Firenze
. durata:
25-27 febbraio 2010 – 3 giornate consecutive _ orario 9:00 – 18:00
. costo:
professionisti – 450.00 € studenti – 280.00 €
. note:
scadenza iscrizioni: 20 febbraio 2010 il corso sarà attivato con un numero minimo di 15 iscritti al termine sarà rilasciato un attestato di frequenza gli iscritti dovrano venire muniti dei propri laptop con software installato. una versione free per 30 giorni è disponibile sul sito www.rhino3d.com
. contatti:
iscrizioni + info alloggi: www.irecooptoscana.it (Cosa offriamo > formazione > altri corsi)
info sul corso: info@co-de-it.com…
eather data so it cannot be easily compared to Archsim. My account of the differences between Honeybee and Archsim will be far from complete but here are the key ones that I am aware of:
1) This difference is a bit of a superficial one but points to a deeper thinking about how the software should be used. Honeybee has many more components than Archsim, which means that Honeybee has a steeper learning curve than Archsim and will take longer to master. Along with this, you may also encounter a general mentality in the Honeybee community that "you should not be running a certain type of simulation unless you know how it works" whereas I know that Archsim is a bit more amenable to making things fast and easy to set up even when you are not sure what is going on under the hood. However, as a result of the large number of components in Honeybee, it is more open-ended, customizable, and includes more freedom in terms of cases that you can run and the parameters of the energy simulation that you can change than Archsim. You will also notice that, while there is a general ethos in the Honeybee community that you should not be running certain simulations unless you know what you are doing, we try to provide you with many resources to educate yourself if you are motivated. For example, we have long component descriptions that we assemble into documentation books like this (https://www.gitbook.com/book/mostapharoudsari/honeybee-primer/details), hours of video tutorial playlist like this one (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_), and many GH example files on a github-based file sharing system (https://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/index.html). Not to mention a community of people who would respond to discussions like this one.
2) Archsim as a standalone application will soon be no more and will be instead distributed with the DIVA daylight analysis tool (http://diva4rhino.com/). While I am unclear on the exact trajectory of DIVA, it currently has a price tag attached to it and so I would assume that the future of Archsim will also carry this price tag. On the other hand, Honeybee and any derivative software will forever be free and open source under the GPL licence (https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/blob/master/License_Honeybee_GPL.txt).
3) This third point is a bit of a reiteration of the last one but Honeybee is open source, meaning that, if you need a feature of EnergyPlus that is not yet implemented on either interface, you can usually add it in yourself with a few lines of python code in Honeybee. This type of workflow is not possible with Archsim since it is closed source and requires you to use EnergyPlus's text editor interface after Archsim has exported an IDF in order to implement any additional EnerygPlus features.
4) The libraries and templates for Honeybee come from OpenStudio - the open source interface for EnergyPlus (https://www.openstudio.net/), which is supported by the US Department of Energy (just like EnergyPlus). Since Honeybee is open source, it is able to make use of the large database of building type schedules/loads and constructions that have been assembled by the OpenStudio team over the last several years as well as OpenStudio's SDK. I can also say that almost all of the development efforts of the Honeybee team are now focused now on integrating efforts with OpenStudio, including an exporter from Honeybee to OpenStudio that should be fully functional for the next stable release. I am not certain of the current extent of Archsim's libraries but, last I had checked, the creator was pulling them from his own experience and, as such, only had a few libraries to choose from. For all of my knowledge, through, this may be changing with the integration of Archsim with DIVA.
Let me know if this is helpful and, if anyone has more up-to-date knowledge on Archsim than I, please post there.
-Chris…
er). With the command "End Bulge" I noticed that G2 moves perpendicular to G1! But with an increase which is not equal... and is different, every time, depending on the angle between G0 and G1 and G2. How do I predict the position of G2 compared to G1 simulating the "End Bulge" command? Thank you for your professional answers.
^___^
Below you can see an example with a curve crimson ... If I move G1 of 1 unit G2 moves of 0.42 units (perpendicular) .. If I move of 2 units the next step is 0.46 unit... 3 units --> step 0,50 units... etc.
And each time changes depending on the initial conditions (G0/G1/G2 angle).
…
Added by Lucius Santo at 4:21pm on September 20, 2012
or GH with: 1. Animation Timeline 2. Rendering 3. API
Summary:
Animation Timeline: Smooth animation system that plays at the real-world speed; so you know the robot will run just right when you upload the code.
Rendering: Extensive options and outputs; so you can generate amazing videos.
API: Access our functions through Python and C# scripting; so you can manage parameters and actions for complex processes for each target.
More info:
Animation Timeline:
Build an animation from a list of Planes, it's that easy! Get these from points, curves or surfaces. Download the example files with the trial and test it yourself.
The unique Timeline component displays all the important robot warnings and the digital Input/Ouput:
RED – clash detection BLUE - singularities YELLOW – over rotation ORANGE – out of reach Digital Inut/Output: red=off, green=on
Rendering:
IO smoothly interpolates between all the Planes you set. This means you can generate keyframes for positions between Planes too e.g. you have two planes defining a tool path, IO can generate 2000 keyframes. Smooooth!
Rendered in full colour as standard, not GH red :-)
LiveBaking - let's you use Rhino render settings in real-time (can be a bit slow!)
Slider animation - use the native 'Animate' option to export hi-res images and create videos easily. Just set the number of frames you need (hint: divide total time in seconds by the frames-per-second rate)
Bake unlimited meshes as keyframes for export to render-pipelines in 3DS etc.
API
Accessing the IO functions through Python and C# let's you build more powerful definitions. You can assign data to every position the robot reaches, allowing you to control speed, acceleration, wait-times, actions and more. Examples comparing C# with Python are included in the examples files.
You can also use teh API build your own plugins that use the IO timeline to do all the hard work like IK and creating valid code, while you enjoy developing your new process...
Check out the website for more features and videos of the example definitions: www.robots.io
Download the PDF guide: 150314_IO_Primer_v1.pdf.
See www.robots.io for more info and pricing.
Developed by RoboFold Ltd. Used by leading academics, researchers and professionals.
…
Added by Gregory Epps at 10:15am on November 7, 2014