lysis, and large-scale prototyping techniques. The research generated at Summer DLAB has been published in international media and peer-reviewed conference papers.
AA Summer DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by robotic fabrication techniques.
Prominent Features of the programme:
Teaching team: Summer DLAB tutors are selected from recent graduates / current tutors at the AA and the small student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, and 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms.
Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Grasshopper and various computational analysis tools.
Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
Robotic Fabrication: Scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools each year, followed by the fabrication of 1:1 scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots.
Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1950 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details.
The deadline for applications is 16 July 2018. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=537
For inquiries, please contact:
elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)…
+ Easily debug your system by displaying individual force vectors. + High performance, parallel algorithms, spatial data-structures. + Write your own custom forces, no coding required. + Open source framework for others to build custom behaviors. + Boid forces: Cohese, Separate, Align, & View. + Contain Agents within Brep, Box, Surface, and Polysurface environments. + Forces: Path Follow, Attract, Contain, Surface Flow, Seek, Arrive, Avoid Obstacle, Avoid Unaligned Collision, Sense Image, Sense Point, & more to come. + Behaviors: Bounce Contain, Kill Contain, Initial Velocity, Eat, Set Velocity, & more to come.
Future work:
+ Behaviors to drive simulations of people and vehicles.
+ Temporal inputs can change the actions of the system over time.
Download the add-on on Food4Rhino
If you find any bugs or have any feature requests please post them on the GitHub Issue Tracker which will allow everyone to see which bugs are open or closed and allows me to update you when it is fixed.
This is an open source project so if you need custom defined forces or behaviors for your project reach out to me about becoming a committer.
View the project on GitHub
To get started check out this video tutorial on how to set up a basic particle scene. Follow along with this example script.
Learn how to set up a flocking simulation with agents in this video tutorial and example file.
To learn more about the polymorphic type system in the latest release of Quelea see this video explanation.
For questions on how to use Quelea, please create a new Discussion.…
Added by Alex Fischer at 1:20pm on February 16, 2015
ur setup. Can you say what sensor you are using? Are you using an Arduino to write this ascii information to the serial port? If so, there may be some formatting code for the string that you'll need to do to get the Read component to function properly. I see that you were able to open the port and Start reading... so my first thought is that the data is formatted correctly....
All of the read components look for a specific character (in this case two characters) to indicate when it has reached the end of the line being read and should spit out the data. In this case, Firefly uses the Carriage Return (\r) and Line Feed (\n) to know when it has reached the end of the line. In arduino, these are automatically added to any line if you use the Serial.println("blah, blah, blah"); command. Notice, this is different from the Serial.print("nothing to see here"); command. This doesn't mean that you can't still use the regular print command... it's just you need to use the println command to indicate when you've reached the end of the line. Let's take a look at a simple example.
void setup() { Serial.begin(9600);}void loop() { int sensorValue = analogRead(A0); Serial.print("The value of the sensor is: "); Serial.println(sensorValue);
delay(20); // important to wait some small time so you aren't sending just a ton of info over to GH which will cause it to crash :(
}
The first print statement prints a string to the serial port... and the next one adds the current sensor value... and THEN adds the carriage return and line feed to start a new line. The nice thing about using these together is that you can concatenate any type of data you want. If you were to upload this sketch, you should see a sentence being printed to the serial port that says "The value of the sensor is: 512". I made up the number, but you get the idea. Notice, I also had to include a delay function. You don't always need this (there are other ways to go about this) but the important thing to note is that the loop cycle on the Arduino can run really fast. I mean... really fast. So, you wont want to send so much data over to GH, because this could flood the string buffer in the Read component and cause it to crash (eventually). It's a good idea to add some small time interval just to slow it down a bit. I should say that I've optimized the refresh rate in the next release so it's significantly faster... so hopefully this wont be as big of a problem... but hopefully that helps some.
Now... Why are you writing data to a sensor? Sensors by default are considered inputs... so I'm quite confused as to why you would want to send data back (if you are... then you need some way to handle the string data being sent from GH... this is the whole reason we built the Firefly firmata... it sets up the two-way protocol so you don't have to deal with all of that mess... If you're going to read and write, you're better off just uploading the firmata and using the Uno Read and Write components). Also, I'm not very familiar with the Hyperterm or Advanced Serial Port Terminal... but I will say that could get COM conflicts if you're trying to open the port with different tools. Anyway, I hope some of this helps you get up and running.
Cheers,
Andy
…
laxation have been around much longer than any of the tools you mention, or indeed Rhino itself. A particularly well known one is Ken Brakke's Surface Evolver from over 20 years ago. Of the examples listed, some of them were inspirations when starting Kangaroo in 2009, and I've always tried to acknowledge those. (of course, surface relaxation is only one part of what Kangaroo is about)
I also was helped by conversations with many people, including Moritz as you mention, and especially yourself with the coding. Indeed the .Net class you ran back then for McNeel, as well as the other correspondence in your own time was really useful in getting started - thanks again!
As for mesh relaxation not being 'not so difficult', well - for sure there are many implementations of these things out there. Similarly there are dozens of examples of subdivision implementations (Andrew Heumann even showed you don't need to code anything, but can do it with standard grasshopper components), but let's not start being too dismissive of each other's work, hey ? Of course there's a lot more to making a flexible and useful tool than individual algorithms - making them part of a larger framework or system of tools makes a big difference.
Being the first to implement a particular existing algorithm on a particular platform maybe isn't as big a deal as inventing a new algorithm or technique. When other implementations of the same technique come along, we should just assess them on their merits. If the new tool owes something to previous contributions, then that needs to be acknowledged, and then if it improves in some way on what is already available then great. Even if it doesn't then it may still be useful as an exercise for the author or as an example of a different approach - though of course too much duplication of effort tackling already solved problems is a waste, and if there is no significant new contribution then it doesn't deserve to replace what is there.
If a new tool comes along that improves in some way on what we've done already (such as some of the topology tools available in Starling compared to what is in WeaverBird, or the material properties in Karamba compared to Kangaroo), then let's just learn from that and let it spur us on to greater things and improve even further!
So I'll look forward to using this and future versions of WeaverBird in conjunction with Kangaroo, as I think their feature sets complement each other very nicely.…
used of 180 being for the northern hemisphere and 0 for the southern hemisphere.For the optimal tilt, to my knowledge, they are mostly based on correcting location's latitude through a single formula.TOF component is more sophisticated. It essentially replicates the Solmetric's Annual Insolation Lookup tool.What it does is that it creates a grid of points. Each point represents the calculated annual insolation on the surface (PV module, SWH collector, facade, any kind of surface) for a single tilt and azimuth angle.Each point is then elevated according to the annual insolation values. The mesh is created from that grid of points. The portion of the mesh which is the highest, represents the optimal tilt and azimuth angles. So the higher your "precision_" input is, the more points in a mesh you'll have - thus the more precise final optimal tilt and azimuth will be.For the diffuse component of the annual incident solar radiation for each point the Perez 1990 modified model is used. Direct is from classical cosine law, and Ground reflected component from Liu and Jordan (1963).So TOF component calculates the optimal tilt and azimuth based on annual incident solar radiation, not AC energy....…
eps are represented by multiple surfaces so the discussed techniques are not fully workable.
the attached files include my test gh and a solid file to input. I have been able to map a suitable voronoi latticework onto the brep surface - but then I'm stuck. I cannot offset the curves on the brep and create a useable strut surface that way. I cannot intersect swept pipes with the brep surface to create surface patches that could then be joined.
I need some elegant ideas; I seem to be going down a rabbit hole at the moment where I am doing ever more complex workarounds for the grasshopper capabilities. (A case in point; the rail sweep is not working for me for closed 3D polylines, so I am having to cut them up and sweep and cap the segments. Ugh).
Example input brep
Curves on brep - but no simple offset / trim mechanism
Potential rail defining strut trim - but no way to do so...
Brep / rail intersect - but no way to turn this into a surface...
Programme
Voronoi%20strut%20on%20brep%20test.3dm
Voronoi%20struts%20-%20volume%202.gh
…
llet Distance]
[Slider=0..1..10]-->[D][Fillet Distance]
[Slider=1..5..20]-->[F][Unit Z]
[Fillet Distance][C]-->[B][Extrude]
[Unit Z][V]-->[D][Extrude]
This still leaves the problem of having more than one of a single component on the canvas. Referral can be made unambiguous by simply picking the most recent component with the same name. But how do you indicate you want a second Polyline component?
Possible solutions:
Separators in the text:[Point=SetMultiplePoints]-->[V][Polyline]----------------------------------[Point=SetMultiplePoints]-->[V][Polyline]
Keywords or symbols to indicate the creation of a new component rather than the re-use of an existing one:new [Point=SetMultiplePoints]--> new [V][Polyline]new [Point=SetMultiplePoints]--> new [V][Polyline]
(2) is a lot more flexible and (1) may not work at all as it will prevent any reuse above and below the separator.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
d. If what you say is correct about the small difference between the global horizontal and direct/diffuse calculations in the MENEX model, than the discrepancy likely has more to do with the difference between the approximation of human geometry in the MENEX model (plane or cylinder) and the human geometry approximation in the SolarCal model (some coefficients derived from radiation studies of mannequins). I noticed some fairly large differences between using a suggested global horizontal method and a direct/diffuse method with the SolarCal model (differences on the order of 20%) but I imagine that this is because a mannequin human geometry is more sensitive to changes in solar orientation than a cylinder or plane. All of this is very good to know.
Yes, I guess this might be the case: the sensitivity of the SolarCal model to different parts of human body surfaces and surfaces areas.
Am I correct in understanding that you recently corrected the grey-body assumption about sky temperature in the Thermal Comfort Indices component with this commit? https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/ladybug/commit/a2a37b6dccc4e750...
The previous incoming long-wave radiation was derived by Ångström for clear sky conditions. The added correction "(1 + 0.22*((N/10)**2.75))" is a fractional cloudiness factor by Maykut and Church (I attached the publication below which mentions it).
So the emissivity coefficient of the (cloudy) sky is now:
epsilon_sky = (0.82 - 0.25*(10**(-0.094*0.75*e))) * (1 + 0.22*((N/10)**2.75))
I do not think that you could use the same value to calculate the sky temperature with Stefan-Boltzmann law, as the incoming long-wave radiation has been derived from the air temperature (2 meters above the ground), not the sky temperature. So by:
skyTemp = (La / [epsilon_sky * sigma])^0.25 - 273.15
One would get the air temperature from which La is derived, not skyTemp.The possible reason why SolCal Mean radiant temperature is currently getting similar values to Thermal Comfort Indices Mean radiant temperature could be that fact your epsilon_sky is almost equal to 1 (0.95), so it depends solely on La.I spoke with Dr. Blazejczyk, and got a publication on different sky temperature models. Apart from upper mentioned Swinbank, Berdahl-Martin, Melchor it has a lot more methods with mutual comparison of their resulting values. I attached it below.…
rested in specializing in the field of Computational design.
The workshop will help understand how Grasshopper facilitates during the design process allowing one to Generate, Automate and Manipulate data.
To Register:
http://goo.gl/forms/gvUTyZihVK
Workshop Structure:
Day 01: 16 August 2018
Introduction to Computational Processes in Architecture
Understanding Grasshopper and its relation to Rhino3D
Working with fields and Grids (Supplementary readings for Architectural theory)
Spatial Concepts using Data
Day 02: 17 August 2018
Understanding Data in Grasshopper - LISTS
Managing Data in Grasshopper (Supplementary reading)
Experimentation on Massing and Architectural Forms
Day 03: 18 August 2018
Understanding Data in Grasshopper – Trees
Surface Logics (Supplementary reading)
Design Exercise and Prototyping
Day 04: 20 August 2018
Architectural Skins
Day 05: 21 August 2018
MasterClass Project
Introduction to various types of Digital Fabrications
Prototyping of works during the Workshops
Basic knowledge of Rhino 5 is required to be able to take this training.
CERTIFICATION: All participants will receive a Workshop certificate from Authorized Rhino Trainer.
3D Printing: Prototyping of works during the Workshops
Workshop Tutor:
Kavitha M, an Architect and Computational Designer, 3D Printing Specialist is also the co-founder of INTO Design Research, will head the Computational Process in Architecture using Grasshopper workshop. Graduated from Stadelschule Architecture class with Masters in Advanced Architecture Design, has been researching on teaching methodologies on digital tools and their influence on Design thinking.…
about it.
2. Nick's comment below got me thinking about unit testing for clusters. Being able to work will data flowing in from outside the cluster or having multiple states to test against could be really cool. Creating definitions that were valid across a general cross section of possible input parameters was a significant issue for us. It was all too easy to write the definition as if we were drawing (often we were working from sketches) and then have it fail when the input parameters changed slightly.
4. I wasn't thinking about threading the solver itself. I was thinking along the lines of some IDEs that I've seen which compile your project while you type it. I know that threading within components and at the rhinocommon-level is a freaking hard problem that has been discussed at length already. (although when, 5-10 years from now, it's finished it will be very cool)
Let's say the solver is threaded and the canvas remains responsive. As soon as you make a change to the GH file, the solver needs to be terminated as it is now computing stale data.
What if the solver was a little more atomic and like a server? A GH file is just a list of jobs to do with the order of the jobs and the info to do them rigidly defined - right? The UI could pass the solver stuff to do and store the results back in the components on a component by component basis (i have no idea what the most efficient way to do this is in reality - I'm just talking conceptually) this might even allow running multiple solvers to allow for at least the parallelism the might be built into a given GH file to be exploited (not within components but rather solving non-interdependent branches of components simultaneously). This type of parallelism would more than make up for the performance hit you alluded to for separating the UI and the solver (at least for most of the definitions i write).
I was imagining a couple of scenarios:
a) Writing a parallel module: solver starts chewing away - you see it working - you know it's done 1/3 of the work - if you have something to do at that point you could connect up to some of the already calculated parameters and write something in parallel to the main trunk which is still being solved.
b) Skipping modifications: you need to make a series of interventions at different intervals along a section of code. Sure you could freeze out that bit of a section of down steam code and make modifications so you can observe the effects more quickly. Unfreeze a bit more and repeat etc. etc. until your done and then unfreeze that big chunk at the end to make sure you haven't blown anything up. Just letting it resolve as far as it can while you sit there waiting for inspiration seems a lot more intuitive to me though.
On a file which takes 15 minutes to solve that's no big deal, but you certainly don't want to be adding a 20 millisecond delay to a solution which only takes 30 milliseconds.
You also wouldn't notice it at that point :-) perhaps for things where it would really make a difference, like Galapagos interactivity, it could be disabled - or could the existing "speed" setting just digest this need? Since the vast majority of time that Gh is solving is on files under active development not on finished code, i think qualitative performance is probably more important that quantitative performance (again with cases like Galapagos needing to be accommodated). In our case the code only had to "work" once since its output went to a cnc machine to make a one off project and it didn't really matter if it took 15 seconds or 15 hours for the final run.
Lastly, I have no way to predict how long a component is going to take. I can probably work out how far along in steps a component is, but not how far along in time.
that's ok, from a user point of view, just seeing a percentage tick along once in a while would be nice reassurance that the thing is just slow and has not, in fact, crashed. Maybe there could be two modes of display: the simple percentage version for unpredictable code and, for those of us able to calculate the time taken for our algorithm based on the number of input parameters, a count down in seconds or minutes or whatever.
I think a good place to start with these sort of problems is to keep on improving clusters, ... etc etc
i totally agree.
…
Added by Dieter Toews at 7:53pm on September 4, 2013