ahams's question about how shades are accounted for in the simulation/thermal map and Theodore's thought that just accounting for shades in the E+ run was sufficient. I think that it may be clearest to explain what is going on with this infographic:
As the graphic shows, the thermal maps are made from 4 key types of inputs. The radiant temperature map is formed through a consideration of both the temperature of the surfaces surrounding the occupants and the direct solar radiation that might fall onto the occupants through un-shaded windows. The first surface temperature effect is easily computable from your Energy simulation results and the HBZone geometry. However, the second is calculated by seeing how sun vectors pass through the windows of the zones and uses the SolarCal method of the CBE team (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89m1h2dg) to compute an MRT delta resulting from solar radiation. This delta is then added to the initial values computed through surface temperature view factor. When you do not connect up your shading brep geometry, internal furniture breps, or outdoor context geometry that might block sun to the additionalShading input, the thermal map will assume that sun can pass unobstructed through the window or through indoor furniture to fall onto occupants. It is important to stress that the EnergyPlus simulation does not count for blind geometry or internal furniture as actual geometry. Just as numerical abstractions of surface area and material properties. So we need you to plug in the actual geometry of these things when we compute the MRT delta resulting from sun falling directly onto people.
Next, to clear up the definition of window transmissivity. The important thing to clarify here is that, whether it refers to the tranmittance of glass or to the amount of sun coming through a fine screen of blinds, the value is multiplied by the radiation falling on the occupant and thus has a direct correlation to the MRT Delta from sun falling on occupants. So, if you set transmissivity to zero, the sun falling on the occupants will not be considered in the calculation and, if you set the transmissivity to 1, the assumption is that there is no window (or the window glass is 100% clear). So, Abraham, your definition of it as a coefficient is appropriate.
Normally, I would just recommend that you leave this value at the default 0.7, which corresponds to the transmittance of the default glass material in Honeybee. However, there are 4 cases in which you might consider changing it:
1) You are not using the default Honeybee glazing material, in which case, you should change the transmissivity to be equal to this new value.
2) You have a lot of really small blind/shade geometries and you do not want the view factor component to take several minutes to trace sun vectors through the detailed shade geometry and so you are ok with using just a simple abstraction instead of plugging shade breps into the additionaShading. In this case, you might try to estimate the average percentage of radiation coming through the blind geometry (maybe with some simple Ladybug radiation studies or with your intuition about the amount of sun blocked by the shades). You will then multiply this by the tranmissivity of your glass and this will be the value that you input to the component.
3) Your blinds for your Honeybee simulation are dynamic, in which case, plugging shade breps into additionalShading is not going to work because the component will assume that those shades are always there. In this case, you should be plugging a list of 8760 values into the transmissivity that correspond to when the shades are pulled. When the blinds are completely up, the value should be the tranmittance of your window and, when they are down, the value should be the window tranmittance multiplied by the fraction of light coming through the shades.
4) You have shades/blinds but they are transparent or are not completely opaque. The additionalShading_ input assumes that all shade geometry is opaque and so you cannot use it to account for such shades. Accordingly, you will need to account for it through the tranmissivity.
In the future, I may try to pull more information about blinds and glass properties off of the HBzones inside the view factor component but, for now and for the next few months, the above describes how it works.
Theodore, for curved geometry, I think that your safest bet is going to be planarizing the Rhino geometry before you turn it into a HBZone (so you just divide the curved surface into a few vertical planar panes of glass that approximate the curve well enough). This is essentially what the runSimulation component does for you automatically (it meshes the geometry as you see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ2Pau4q6c&index=12&list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_). If I were to figure out a way to incorporate shades in this automatic meshing workflow, your EnergyPlus simulation would take a very long time to run and I am not even sure if the result will be that accurate with the way E+ abstracts shades. So I don't think that it's really worth it over just planarizing the geometry yourself.
Lastly, I won't be able to figure out the problem with your current run Theodore, unless I get the GH file from you. Make sure that you are using all up-to-date components.
-Chris…
Because the Adaptive methodology is founded upon the notion that there are hundreds of social factors that influence comfort and that the best we can do to forecast comfort is to find variables with good correlations to these social factors (like outdoor temperature), the premise that these published Adaptive model holds regardless of cultural norms is dangerous. Notably, the founders of the adaptive model have stressed that this particular linear correlation that you cite comes from recent surveys of buildings where people have both the the ability to open windows AND a great freedom to dress down. Hypothetically, if occupants were able to open the windows in Abraham's building but the cultural norm was that everyone was expected to wear multi-layered suits or dresses (as in historic Britain), a different correlation between outdoor temperature and comfort temperature would exist. In fact, historical European comfort surveys show that people likely preferred cooler temperatures in buildings (about 1-2C cooler) than today's occupants. Accordingly, after recognizing this social premise in the Adaptive model, I have built in a few ways to adjust/alter the version in Ladybug based on the literature I have read (even though these alterations are not a part of any official ASHRAE or European standard).
Abraham, you might have to be a bit more specific about how you would like to adjust the Adaptive comfort model for me to help your particular case and this may lead to me adding in new functionality. For the time being, I can tell you that the 'Ladybug_Adaptive Comfort Parameters' component is going to be your friend and I would recommend using the Adaptive Comfort Chart to visualize how you are changing the model. You can plug these 'Adaptive Comfort Parameters' into the 'Adaptive Comfort Recipe' component to have the microclimate analysis run with these parameters. Here are a few examples of how to alter the model:
1) Mixed-mode Building - Humphreys and the European Adaptive comfort team derived two separate correlations.
One for naturally ventilated buildings:
and conditioned buildings:
The dimensionless value between 0 and 1 for _levelOfConditioning allows you to create different correlations depending on whether occupants have complete freedom of dress and window operability (0) or have slight restrictions like in a mixed mode building (0.5, for example):
2) Changing Response Time of Occupants - There has been a bit of a debate in Literature about whether it is better to use the average monthly temperature or a weekly running mean temperature. The avgMonthORRunningMean input allows you to adjust this like so:
Average Month:
Running Mean:
3) Greater Temperature Range Tolerance - While this last one is actually a part of the European and Adaptive standards, you can adjust the range of the comfort band with either the 'eightyOrNintetyComf' input or the comfortClass input like so:
Ninety Percent Comfortable
Eighty Percent Comfortable
Abraham, let me know if you would like more controls over the model or if this is enough to do what you are thinking of. This example file allows you to construct the images I have above:
http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Adaptive_Comfort_Chart&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0
-Chris…
ther math and logic. i can usually conceptualise what i want to do and cobble some semi working thing together but don't know which components to use and how to patch it. so i'm super happy to have someone who knows what he's doing to find this interesting.
and i'm glad you mention the fanned frets again, there is one input parameter that's still missing for the multiscale frets to be fully parametric, it's the angle of the nut or which fret should be straight. it depends a bit on personal preferences and playing posture what is more comfortable. so being able to adjust this easily would be cool. again i have no idea how the maths for that work or if you can just rotate each fret the same amount around it's middle point. The input either as fret number (for the straight fret) or as a simple slider from bridge to nut should do as input setting.
Here are the two extremes and the middle ground:
i've been thinkin today while analysing your patches and cleaning up my mess what exactly the monster should do.
Here are the input parameters needed, i think it's the complete list
scale length low E string
scale length high e string
fret angle/straight fret
string width at nut
string width at bridge
number of frets
fretboard overhang at nut (distance from string to fretboard bounds)
fretboard overhang at last fret
string gauges
string tensions
fretboard radius at nut (for compound radius fretboard radius at bridge is calculated with the stewmac formula)
fretwire crown width
fretwire crown height
action height at nut (distance between bottom of string and fretwire crown top)
action height at last fret
pickup 1 neck position
pickup 2 middle position
pickup 3 bridge position
nut width
the pickup positions should be used to draw circles for the magnet poles on each string so they are perfectly aligned and can be used for the pickup flatwork construction. ideally they would need a rotation control aligning the center line of the pickup so it's somewher between the last fret angle and bridge angle. personally i do this visually depending on the design i'm looking for, some people have huge theories on pickup positioning but personally i don't believe in it.
that should result in everything needed to quickly generate all the necessary construction curves or geometry for nut/fingerboard/frets/pickups. this is the core of what makes a guitar work, the more precise this dynamic system is the better the guitar plays and sounds.
i posted another thread trying to understand how i could use datasets form spreadsheets,databse, csv to organize the input parameters. What would make sense for the strings for example is hook into a spreadsheet with the different string sets, i attached one for the d'Addario NYXL string line which basically covers all combos that make sense.
The string tension is an interesting one, and implmenting it would sure be overkill albeit super interesting to try. it should be possible to extrapolate from the scale length of each string what the tension for a given string gauge of that string would be so that you could say 'i want a fully balanced set' or 'heavy top light bottom) and it would calculate which SKU from d'addario would best match the required tension. All the strings listed in the spreadsheet are available as single strings to buy.
i'm trying to reorganize everything which helps me understand it. i just discovered the 'hidden wires' feature which is great since once i understood what a certain block does or have finished one of my own, i can get the wires out of the way to carry on undistracted. a bit risky to hide so many wires but it makes it so much easier not to get completely lost :-)
btw, the 'fanned fret' term is trademarked, some guy tried to patent it in the 80's which is a bit silly since it has been done for centuries. there is a level of sophistication above this as well, check out http://www.truetemperament.com/ and that really is something else. it really is astounding how superior the tuning is on those wigglefrets, the problem is that it's rather awkward for string bending and also you can't easily recrown or level the frets when they are used. …
me logic produced by running the 2-d voronoi component.
From a given set of polylines we can extract the centers and this can drive both the voronoi component as well as provide the XYZ drill points for the cnc. The definition has a variety of different options. You need Lunchbox, Weaverbird, and Starling. I can't tell you how amazing these 3 tools are from a design perspective. They are extremely powerful so if you don't have these you must install them asap. You can get the tools at http://www.food4rhino.com/
This definition works by first choosing a grid type, next you choose voronoi type, and subdivision type. From the voronoi type list you can choose basic (just grid), truncation (uses truncation calculated via the image sampler), truncation dual (uses the dual of the truncated image based grid), and subdivision (takes the basic grid type and uses different subdivision shcemes). Each of these provide different patterns of polylines from which we can extract our drilling points. I am rather proud of this definition since the overall idea is one which is so simple it's easy to overlook - the idea that drilling with a ball end mill makes voronoi plots. Now when you combine that with all of these amazing tools it can go off right quick. The nice thing is the paatern you see on screen is the pattern that gets made by drilling wysiwyg cnc patterns.
VORONIO_DRILLing.gh
Here are some on screen patterns in process in the following order truncation, basic, subdivision:
here is a video moving over a machined example:
…
or a couple of thingies.
Pattern.gh
I defined parametrically a triangle which I then smoothed out to become more like a blob shape. After that I created a pretty simple pattern that I had in my mind (costed me a lot of time to make this in GH) and finally wanted to rotate each element as it goes higher . The dispatching part seems to be working pretty slow, so it might need an optimization, but I’m still happy with the result as it shows exactly what I wanted, so this is a minor issue in my case.
I then decided to try tessellating my extrusions. You’ll see the voronoi script which is a blob-group in the same Pattern.gh:
I had an idea of something and started the code from scratch, then decided to watch tutorials and implement the code shown there. I somehow coped to combine my code with this in the tutorials, but since my knowledge of Grasshopper is zero to basic my code seems to be very unoptimized and lagging.. When dragging the sliders, it takes a lot of time to compute the changes, although, I’m working on a 24gigs 6th gen i7 machine. It might also need optimization.
Here comes the first tricky part that I couldn’t sort out in an elegant way neither in Grasshopper nor in Rhino. I want a smooth transition between the wall and the ceiling, so that the voronoi tessellation doesn’t get interrupted. If I was to do it in Rhino I’d make a curve with a filleted edge which I’d then revolve/sweep along a rail.
Pattern.gh:
Second thing is – I’ve defined a shape which I want to rotate at a certain degree as it goes higher, however, I don’t have the knowledge to make this happen automatically and just copy the script over and over again. Is there a chance to somehow “loop” the code and parametrically define the degree of rotation and amount of units in the loop?
Next thing is I want to somehow be able to rotate each “6-storey-building” dependently on its surrounding buildings, so that their “terraces” never overlap. I’m using quotes, since they’re still some silly shapes that have nothing to do with buildings and terraces. The principle has to be something like gear wheels or the so-called rack wheels . There has to be some pace which I could set parametrically, but I’m still unsure how to do that in Grasshopper.
The pre-last thing is that I want to control the height of each “building” based on let’s say a topography. I presume this could be done somehow with height maps or some gradient mapper connected to curvature analysis. Not really sure how something like this would work, but I’ve seen such codes that control height depending on a variable.
The last one is more or less similar to the previous. I want to be able to “dissolve” the pattern that I initially created and make it irregular. I suppose this could be done with attractor curve, but again this is just a guess. Please note that this is a top view and the shapes on the upper-left corner have got more "wings" which means there is more floors in the according building. Let's say the buildings in the upper-left corner are 6-7 floors high, in the middle are 4-5 and to the right they're only 3 floors high.
Sorry for that many questions in a single thread. Please let me know if I have to split them in separate threads. All this information is needed for learning purposes. I’m now preparing myself for my bachelor thesis and try as much things as I could, so that I’ll be ready for the final stage of my bachelor’s degree.
Many thanks in advance! Cheers!…
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.
…
looked at autodesk simulation cfd 2015 and was optimistic because it had an export plugin from revit, which i use anyway for material takeoffs and etc, but found that it did not take solar radiation into account. This was a downer because I have heard that solar radiation could effect indoor airflow - convection - as much as 50 percent at a time.
Then I searched again and found that Hyperworks, a software by altair technology can be coupled with a radiation software. So I went through the trouble of obtaining an educational license of Hyperworks. However, though some email exchange I have found that the coupling is a one-way. The radiation analysis software was used, I think, for understanding the solar loading for a SOM project called church of light.
The support guy said : "Unfortunately our coupling with Hyperworks is really a one way coupling. We can accept H coefficients from their software in RadTherm, but they will not read in our wall temps. That said, it still can be a useful coupling in the sense that you can run the analysis in Hyperworks, send H coefficients to RadTherm, and run the analysis to better understand radiation and conduction. Most importantly, that analysis can be done for longer transient analysis, but will require much less compute time and resources."
Not only did I not understand what he means by the H coefficients, my wanting to get a CFD understanding coupled with solar radiation was again, unsatisfied. In the mean while I had to finish a presentation so I haven't had the time to try to get some result on the natural ventilation. I would probably need to look into how their solutions work before I can understand if their software would "do the job"
Thank you for letting me know about your work on this. I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed, but it does not show up in grasshopper.
You pointed out that "The component (and the corresponding equation) is mostly meant for cases where you have zones with windows that are NOT connected by an air wall (or a larger airflow network)." I wondered if you are suggesting it would be a code violation for zones to be connected by an air wall for fire safety reasons. It would be a violation I guess, like not putting an fiber insulation or some kind of smoke stop between Spandrel panels and the edge of a floor plate would be a code violation for a typical office building.
There is a project by kevin daly architects where you can see a section drawing with what seems like a cfd analysis (could be an illustration)
it was my initial visualization/simulation goals were for a facade design I am working on
1) an average air velocity across a zone at noon, for example, if a passive design strategy like this was used. for this I am guessing cfd is not entirely necessary. probably means that it could be used earlier in a design process, too. This would be more about user comfort.
2) at a later phase, like in detailing facade components, if airflow is indeed as expected for a zone that is connected to an air wall / chimney like feature (and to see if there is a proper mixing of air)
3) and a projection of energy savings, of course.
After seeing a video of simulation cfd I was optimistic, but like I said sim cfd does not take account of solar loading. I think I would probably go ahead start with one zone with sim cfd first, try three zones stacked on top of each other, then try hyperworks and try to factor in solar radiation.
For analyzing multiple zones on different levels, being able to add a chimney would be especially useful, I think. Having said that, I don't have a lot of experience of using honeybee except for the daylight component so it would take some time for me to understand the components.
I hope some of the information here is useful for you. after all, both sim cfd and hyperworks are commercial softwares and somewhat different than the e plus project you are working on, I guess but still trying to address a similar problem.
so.. in cased you missed it I was asking I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed and placed in the user object foler, but it does not show up in grasshopper. what could be the reason?
…
o express my gratitude. I've been experimenting with your definitions (and still am), but let me extend my question.
Actually what I'm trying to achieve, is to recreate another project by Andrew Kudless, the spore lamp (I mentioned the Chrysalis at the beginning just because of the animation, which wasn't included in the Spore Lamp presentation).
Basically the spore lamp seems to me to be something like a preliminary study to the Chrysalis III project (I think it's a similar approach).
Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere which then has been planarized, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome.
The trick is to:
1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells)
2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on.
Here is what I have by now. (files: matsys spore lamp attempt)
That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design.
Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation.
1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01)
2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02)
3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03)
The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this:
you can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-released?g...
Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar...
The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve.
So to sum up:
Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever).
Goal no 2: Keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later and obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily
Any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?…
les automatically at the right angle to form the cap of an icosahedron.
To complete the full icosahedron, we consider just the six points we already know, the five pentagon vertices and the raised pyramid tip and reorient one of the vertices using three-point transformation so it obtains the exact same relationship between vertices only one more stage beyond our little cap pyramid, and we do a five-fold polar array:
I used a password-protected cluster I ran into one the forum somewhere to reproduce Rhino's 3-point orient command:
A final 3-point orientation transforms in space the original pyramid tip down to the bottom:
Now we can create a convex hull which gives an icosahedron mesh:
So that's how you build an icosahedron in Rhino from scratch, only using rather long winded Grasshopper.
Now we use the Weaverbird plug-in to subdivide the faces and then project the vertices out onto a sphere via finding the closest points to a sphere and then recreating a convex hull to make a geodesic dome mesh:
Subdividing two times works fine but 3 times blows up convex hull, so I'll just have due with the the subdivision step and leave out projecting back to a sphere, since the algorithm already gives a nice spherical result that you can see inside this disaster:
Now you know what a standard geodescic dome is, just an icosahedron with faces divided into smaller triangles, projected out to a sphere.
Actually, the mere subdivision is just a bit blobby instead of a sphere, damn it, so I'll have to topologically recreate the mesh after projecting the points indeed back onto our sphere.
Using a subdivision plug-in may be slightly throwing the perfect result off, so manually creating subdivision points on each mesh face may be in order, doing them flat against each icosahedron face:
You can also start with the two other triangulated Platonic solids but those give less regular triangles:
…