asshopper file seem to work but the results are not sensible at all to changes in loads and materials (i tried to put a 1m-thick concrete wall or 50 people instead of 2 and nothing changes inside!). On the contrary if I change the maximum indoor or outdoor temperature for natural ventilation, it ends up changing a lot.
Can anyone take a look and help me? :)
Thank you,
Irene…
urve") that used a list of numbers to place points on a curve:
Also here in "Incrementally scaled geometry":
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/incrementally-scaled-geometry?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A1332995
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 10:23am on December 8, 2015
CPU (grasshopper-kangaroo sadly lacks in multicore support )
also, for your goal, maybe you need a different type of origami (the type of the video change its area from 1 to 0.2)
maybe this instead: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2840088474_ea513667ce_m.jpg
and: http://bryantyee.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/dsc_0305.jpg
(this change the area from 1 to 0 , "virtually" tought )
i've already some versions of the definition of that...
I'll reply soon to your contact.
Btw I'll try first to explain shortly what I do in the video.
1 from a surface I create a squared grid mesh - all quads;
2 i create a pattern that resemble this specific waterbomb origami type;
3 with this pattern i "save" 1 quad face each 5, the other 4 quad faces are converted to 8 triangle faces;
4 from the target surface i create a second "offsetted" surface;
then with kangaroo functions i:
5 - convert every edge of the mesh to a rigid spring;
6 - every vertex of the remaining quad faces is pulled to the surface "A"
7 - every other vertex (not part of any quad face) is pulled to surface "B"
playing with offset distance, strenght and air friction (kangaroo custom settings)
you can have somehow an origami simulator (3% errors)
note that if you know how and where to use origami its ok, otherwise the errors can easly go up to 50% or worse...…
ding on the topography of your location you will probably end up with a 10 000 meters mask radius.2) Again you would plug in all the geometry (those blocks) into the context_ input. Depending on the topography of the location, you will probably end up with a mask radius higher than 10 000 meters.But in this case the default value of 0 of the minVisibilityRadius_ input needs to be increased, so that the topography near the location gets excluded. Which is exactly what the minVisibilityRadius_ serves for.To my knowledge there is no paper which describes the exact amount of the minVisibilityRadius_ which needs to be used.ShadeUp plugin for example uses 50 meters of minVisibilityRadius_ by default and 50 000 meters of maxVisibilityRadius_ by default, for objects of a tens of meters in diameter.Something similar can be applied to our minVisibilityRadius_ input. For example: for relatively flat location surroundings one can use minVisibilityRadius_ to be at least 3 times larger than the contextRadius output. For more hilly locations surroundings this value can be increased (6, 7 times of the contextRadius).For example if the contextRadius is 600 meters, minVisibilityRadius_ can be 3.6 kilometers, and so on.Let me know if this answers your questions.…
list of points (only if you have too many points, so that you don't have a big delay)
2. Use a data recorder with a record limit (right click on the recorder to set this) at least twice the number of points and as large as possible to still run smoothly. (I am testing 50 points and have set the record limit to 1000 and it works ok)
3. Use [CullPt] set to "Cull All" (right click again).
4. And test when this list of points will be empty (list length equal to 0).
The accuracy of this depends on the number of points tested(larger=better), the record limit of Data recorder(larger=better) and the T input of CullPt(smaller=better).
If you want to be absolutely sure the simulation has finished completely, you could add another data recorder at the output of [Equality] and use [Mass Addition] to count the number of True's, so you could bake only after you have, let's say, 1000 true's.…
within tolerance. If it is than it can be considered as being "On the surface", although if you look closely enough (I'm talking VERY close), then there will always be a gap between a curve that lies on a surface and the surface itself.
Anyway, the Fin command doesn't use a standard surfacing command such as Loft or Sweep 2 rails or something. It constructs the nurbs surface directly, so it can take care of its own sampling. This is something that's likely to be overkill or extremely involved to try and replicate in GH. So if you're going to be using loft to recreate a fin, then throwing a bunch of points at it is pretty much all you can really do. If you throw enough at it (and by enough, I'd say from a couple dozen to about 50, depending on the complexity of the surface), then the resulting surface will be close enough to lying on the original surface.…
(7/32") Diameter.
I want to "Randomly" select 50% of the high lighted points and assign it a new 3/16" Diameter Circle.
I basically want to add a new variable to the field of points I have "baked" out in Rhino.
For some reason the definition that I have isn't working. When I hover over the outputs I have a list of values but when I turn on the circles and center points I only have 2 visible.
What is going on? Any input would be great - thanks. …
possible to send a number back and have the slider reflect that number?
For example:
1. If a number slider is connected to a component that ranges from 0 to 100 would it be possible to set that slider to a point between those two numbers - for example the number 50?
2. If a number slider is connect to a component that knows it's range - can it send that range to the slider to automatically configure it?
Thanks in advance.
NOTE: this discussion is being continued at this link [ here ].
…
Angeles, which has 12% of the year made comfortable, and Shiraz, Iran, which also has 12% comfortable (assuming default parameters).
Jerusalem also makes sense to me. There is only a maximum possible 9% of the year that is inside the polygon (you'll see this if you set the timeConstant to a very high number). The default strategyPar makes 6% of these hours comfortable and 3% without cool enough temperatures in the previous hours. This seems reasonable to me.
I could be convinced to change the default time constant to 12 hours (instead of 8) as I know that 12 is the default of climate consultant but that seemed really idealized in my opinion. You'll need really high exposed mass and insulation without much internal heat gain to make conditions stable for more than 8 hours in my opinion.
As for the solarHeatCapacity, I get changes when I drop it down to 10 W/m2 or boost it up to 100 W/m2. It's definitely a parameter that operates on an "order of magnitude" scale and little tweaks to it won't change it too much. You can think of this number as representative of a lot of other physical properties: most notably the depth of the space being passively heated and the thermal mass of that space's materials that participate in heat exchange over the time constant. Climate consultant uses a default assumption of 30 W/m2 but, from my calculations, this is likely assuming a space that has a facade to floor area ratio that is greater than 1. If we say that we need to raise the temperature of 10 cm of an exposed concrete floor for passive heating purposes, and we have a facade-to-floor area ratio of 1:
Required solar flux = ((1 facade-to-floor ratio) x (0.1 m3 of concrete) x (2400 kg/m3 concrete density) x (880 J/kg-K concrete specific heat capacity)) / 3600 seconds/hour
This lands you with a required solar flux of 58 W, which is almost twice the 30 W climate consultant default. While me might say that not all 10 cm of concrete participates over the course of a default 8-hour time constant (most of the action is probably within the first 5 cm), we also have to account for things like transmittance of solar though the window, which, for triple pane, is probably only half of the incident solar. So 50 W seemed to be a more reasonable rule of thumb from my perspective, essentially assuming a facade-to-floor ratio of roughly 1 with 5 cm of concrete participating in an 8 hour heat exchange and a little more than half of solar heat getting through a fully glazed window.
Let me know if that makes sense or if you have any suggestions,
-Chris…