hours/day (40 hours) Future University in Egypt (FUE) Department of Continuing Education(DCE) ________________________________________ The aim of this workshop is to teach participants how to create a parametric housing model which can be associated with day lighting and thermal analysis. Moreover, participant will get the opportunity to develop passively design envelope. The workshop is highly interactive giving different examples that develop a strong understanding of Grasshopper Workflow & different passive strategies using the performance simulation tool (DIVA). The participants are divided into groups to study the different orientations and the final outcomes of each group are presented thus concluding the recommendation strategies for each orientation. At the end of the workshop, each participant will receive a Certificate of Attendance from Future University in Egypt. Target Participants: ‐Professional architects. ‐Master and PhD students. ‐ Last year of undergraduate students (ONLY). Prerequisite: -None, however, a basic Grasshopper & Rhinoceros knowledge is preferred. Used Software:(will be provided by the instructor). ‐Rhino 5 SR 3 ‐Grasshopper 0.90066 ‐DIVA Version 2.1.0.3 ________________________________________ Workshop Outline: 1st DAY (Wednesday 29 Jan): 1.Introduction to passive design strategies (efficient envelope) 2.Introduction to parametric design logic 2nd DAY (Thursday 30 Jan) : 1.Developing technical tools based on reverse engineering technology. 2.Examples for parametric facade design 3rd DAY (Saturday 1 Feb): 1.Enforcing the parametric logics with Grasshopper 2.Introducing the performance simulation tool (DIVA) 4th DAY (Sunday 2 Feb): 1.Facade design using grasshopper ‐Studio work. 2.Associative techniques – Day lighting and thermal simulation 5th DAY (Monday 3 Feb): 1.Final optimization and final results 2.Group work presentation ________________________________________ Participants are required to bring their own laptops. To register: 1.Fill in the application form found in this link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/18OrcwwDks5-vd0irZITC430bjMVb8I8pdw0i5OefyMg/viewform 2.Kindly pay the workshop fees at FUE DCE Admission or in the Bank account Number of participants is a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 24 ________________________________________ Workshop Trainers: Ayman Wagdy Mohamed Ibrahim Researcher at Sustainable Design research group | AUC Lecturer at Parametric design | AUC M.Sc. Architecture – Architecture and Building Technology| Politecnico Di Milano Haitham Salah Ali Mahmoud Teaching Assistant of Design course | AASTMT Head of design team | YBA Architect Principal and cofounder | Arkan Architect ________________________________________ For any questions or info please do not hesitate to contact us at : Mob. : 01003220017 - 01008551772 Email : Fue_ppd@outlook.com…
Added by ayman wagdy at 12:12pm on January 17, 2014
finalizzato a fornire i fondamenti della modellazione parametrica e generativa attraverso Grasshopper, plug-in di programmazione visuale per Rhinoceros.
“Tools are extension of our minds and our nervous systems. Through devices we are able to capture more invisible data to make it visible and readable. Self monitoring triggers selfknowledge and self awareness. This new and enormous potential about aquiring data can drive better our design explorations and customized solutions.”Lo spazio in cui viviamo è in ogni suo aspetto monitorabile e risulta essere un gradiente di dati in continua evoluzione e cambiamento. Uno dei maggiori vantaggi degli strumenti parametrici è quello di poter informare i processi progettuali con flussi di dati accurati, specifici e variabili nel tempo e nello spazio. “Data Fields” è un workshop dedicato al plug-in Grasshopper di Rhino3D che si focalizzerà sulla sua principale natura di processore di informazioni. Il workshop delineerà anche in che modo Grasshopper può essere usato per acquisire e manipolare flussi di dati provenienti da varie fonti, e come tali dati, a loro volta, possono essere utilizzati per informare sia i processi logici che le geometrie, dalle più semplici fino a quelle più complesse.L’obiettivo è quello di fornire una comprensione del valore delle informazioni e dell’articolazione dei dati, e di come siano già di per sè un’operazione progettuale, spaziale e architettonica. I risultati potranno quindi variare da puri protocolli di comunicazione dati, dataViz o geometrie “data-driven”.…
easy. There is room for discussion and clarification. The most wanted ideas quickly, and clearly, rise to the top. Voting is limited in a clever way and forces users to choose their most valued features.
The general rules, copied from: http://3dsmaxfeedback.autodesk.com/forums/80695-general-feature-requests/
Each user has 20 votes for each forum
Each idea can have no more than 3 votes by a single user
If you enter an idea, it will cost you 1 vote – therefore try to make sure the idea doesn’t already exist
The more precise and detailed a description you give, the more likely your idea will be considered
When an idea is implemented (or declined), votes are returned to all the users that voted
Users can change their votes at any time
Admins can move, edit and delete ideas as they see fit to better meet the goals of the forum
We will flag ideas that are getting our attention as “under review”. Because of limits on what we can say publicly, that is as far as we can go with commenting on a particular idea. If it is “under review” it simply means we’re studying it for possible implementation or gathering data, but there is no commitment to do it.
…
Added by Jonah Hawk at 6:13pm on September 9, 2014
ly one (Cost of the structural material in my case) and penalize the individuals that not satisfy the structural verification by multipliyng the cost for that iteration for a factor 10. This seem to work really good, infact I obtained a convergence of the results in a specific area and number of beams.
Now, I've to modify something because the thickness of the insole, tend to minimum of the range (only because it's the most expensive material in my case), despite the validation of structural verification that is satisfied with the maximum height of the beams.
I'm expecting a insole thickness about 20-30 cm and beams height less that the maximum. I increase the range of the thickness insole to a minimum of 20 cm, but I hope the solution tend to a larger value.
Do you have some suggestion in this case?
Your post was really helpful, thank you so much again for the perfect explanation!
Leonardo…
d the workshop PDF from this link: http://goo.gl/bcvRNH Download event poster from this link: http://goo.gl/Q0KWCM Brief: Cairo is filled with barriers controlling people movements, suppressing them as well as detaining green and public spaces to the extent that most people have been taking these spaces for granted. Public spaces have been for a while the periphery of our daily life. We will explore in this workshop how we can manipulate and alter people’s perception and direct their attention to how these spaces are integral for city life. This exploration will be backed up by intensive technical tutorials introducing computational design and fabrication techniques and tools mainly Rhino, Grasshopper, Geco and Ecotect. Not only will this be the typical technical workshop, but rather you will also have the chance to be guided step by step on how these tools are used through out different design stages in a real world scenario. Design prototypes will be produced through 3D printing, the main workshop output will be a fabricated one to one functional model for one of the designs using our new in-house CNC machine. Tutors (check the PDF for bio): Olga Kovrikova, MArch DIA Alexandr Kalachev, MArch DIA Karim Soliman, MArch DIA Islam Ibrahim, MArch DIA Sherif Tarabishy, B.Sc. AAST Application: Application deadline 1 September 2013 ** For students (undergrad / Master), teachers and PhD proof of status is required (university ID with a date or a certificate of enrollment) to apply for the students package. Packages (choose one of the following in the application form): 1. Standard registration Course fee is 4250 EGP For Students 3500 EGP 2. Early bird registration discounted fee For Professionals 3750 EGP For Students 3000 EGP ** Early bird offer ends on 14 August 2013 3. Group registrations discounted fee (5 or more) For Students 20% off - You will have to fill out an application form here: http://goo.gl/0QxAga - You will need to submit your CV and Short Portfolio (max. 10 MB) to info@morph-d.com, email subject: “Morphing Norms Application” (we will decide if you are eligible for an early bird discount or not based on the date of your email submission) - We will confirm receiving emails from all applicants. Successful applicants will be contacted 5 days after each deadline (early bird/final) and will have to confirm participation within 3 days, if they fail to do so, places will be given to others on the waiting list. - A maximum of 30 applicants will be selected.
…
re not clearing at each rebuild.
I was finding that if I send in 10 lines to "Riblist", on the first instance it reports holding 10 items. Upon the rebuild, without the explicit Riblist.Clear(), it reported holding 20 items.
I included an explicit xxx.clear() before I call DA.GetDataList and that fixed it (for now at least). For example:
RibList.Clear()
SubDivision = 1If Not (DA.GetDataList(0, RibList)) Then Return
If Not (DA.GetData(1, SubDivision)) Then Return
DA.GetData(2, ClosedDiagrid_bool)
In this component, I had declared the variables after the "Inherits GH_Component" as private. Example:
Inherits GH_ComponentPrivate RibList As New List(Of Curve)
Private SubDivision As Integer = 1
Private ClosedDiagrid_bool As Boolean = False
Might this be messing things up since upon a rebuild of the solution, the class is not getting reinstantiated but just the "solve instance" sub routine is run?
Oddly, this was messing up any other custom component without the grasshopper file.
Hope this make some sort of sense.
Thanks.
Kermin
…
need to be able to select the outer grid too. So I tried a different approach.
The first picture shows how the inner grid in the breps should look like(up in the air).
The intersecting points as shown in picture 2 are also right picked as you can see through the curve/curve panel.
I got it done with dispatch for just one brep, but the seperation of the inner and outer grid doesn't work with multiple breps. I'm pretty sure it is a small data tree problem, but I can't find the problem.
Could you please help me another time?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/92424750/Workplace.3dm
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/92424750/outer%20and%20inner%20...
…
s on a building. It's been since then reviewed and improved by someone who knows what she's doing.
BUT I still have 2 problems that I want to solve because I don't understand why.
- why after a flip the offset side of the surface doesn't change ?
Generally how to ensure that all my breps will offset outwards the building....?
(I have around 20 of them for the whole building as I have various densities, one brep=one density)
- why some of the louvers always go the wrong way ? It's very time consuming because my boss makes me change them every week and and I have to remove/redraw these one by one...
And for every brep, I have to re-check and re-enter all the louvers dimensions, invert them or put them to negative values, untill most of them are ok on a given brep...
Generally speaking, how to force a sweep to be rotated always in the way we want, without having to change the values to negative...?
Hope someone can give me a direction ! See files attached. Thanks
fanny…
ied images (in the form of a time series). At first, the idea was to take time series of satellite imagery and label them accordingly into urban and non-urban. Since this step alone seemed too time consuming for now, we took a different approach. We photographically documented the growth of the slime mold Physarum Polycephalum in a Petri dish (about 2000 images in 2-min increments) and then labeled them into fungal and non-fungal.
We would now like to use this labeled data (in the form of a list of black levels for each pixel) to make a prediction using Crow. Our first consideration is to use as input the pixel values of time step n and as output those of time step n+X and to train the network in this way (X could be 1, i.e. 2 min in the future, or 10, i.e. 20 min in the future). We would then use a later time step as a test, which is not included in the training set. So we could then compare the real output with the generated one.
Now the questions:
How realistic is it to perform such a prediction using the backpropagation approach in Crow? Especially also with regard to the structure of input and output (both times long lists of pixel values)? Will this detect the patterns of the temporal component, even if they are not explicitly stored in the inputs and outputs?
Or in general, is it realistic to do this kind of time prediction with Crow?Thank you to anyone in advance who might be able to help!…
nt should stand up to reasonable, Socratic interrogation with logical and descriptive rigor. For example, I find entirely credible an architect who suggests that he placed his buildings 20 meters apart because he thought that it would make people more comfortable in light of his reading of the space relative to its environment, materiality, expected time of habitation/circulation, etc. His "thinking" such things is, for the most part intuitive, and backed by deductive logic. (Of course integration of wind analysis and other harder readings is obviously desirable) But I interpret the active denial of intuition's crucial role in design as at the heart of its current deplorable trending toward misuse of terminology, application of pseudo-science and intellectual over-reach. Architects wade out of their waters precisely when they invoke such things as human psychology or perception.
Furthermore, I believe that architects - student and professionals alike - regularly make formal decisions according to their aesthetic judgement. To suggest that students aren't qualified to make a design decision during their studies because they think it's formally successful seems exceedingly stingy; likewise, suggesting that a professional architect shouldn't rely on it is puzzling to me. I find architects' attempts to justify what are obviously decisions based on formal taste using other means often taking the same form of obfuscation that makes architects appear to be intellectual charlatans to specialists in other fields. Taste is taste. I would agree that it can't be taught. But good architectural design certainly remains at least somewhat grounded in artistic sensibility.
3) I'm by no means advocating that all architects must master every detail in their work. Rather, that architects have at least a generalist's working knowledge of materials and construction systems. Floors don't levitate, and windows require depth; rules of thumb count as vital knowledge.
4) I would say that consideration of performance-driven properties falls under basic understanding of how a building will operate in its given environment. For example, if you've designed a glass house in Arizona, ur doing it wrong. The more simulation and science you have, the better. Indeed, I think that such elements - wind analysis, solar gain analysis, structural performance - represent the most solid opportunities today for architects to assert the harder lines of defense in their design decision making...say for example, being able to demonstrate using basic geometry that your shade keeps the sun out in summer, but lets it in when it's cold.…