ing the maps to the broader community.
At the moment, there are just a few known issues left that I have to fix for complex geometric cases but they should run smoothly for most energy models that you generate with Honeybee. Within the next month, I will be clearing up these last issues and, by the end of the month, there will be an updated youtube tutorial playlist on the comfort tools and how to use them.
In the meantime, there's an updated example file (http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Indoor_Microclimate_Map) and I wanted to get you all excited with some images and animations coming out of the design part of my thesis. I also wanted to post some documentation of all of the previous research that has made these climate maps possible and give out some much deserved thanks. To begin, this image gives you a sense of how the thermal maps are made by integrating several streams of data for EnergyPlus:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2PwDvkjovJaTMtWDRHMExvLUk/view?usp=sharing)
To get you excited, this youtube playlist has a whole bunch of time-lapse thermal animations that a lot of you should enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sj3ehUTSfKa1IHPSiuJU52A
To give a brief summary of what you are looking at in the playlist, there are two proposed designs for completely passive co-habitation spaces in New York and Los Angeles.
These diagrams explain the Los Angeles design:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2PwDvkjovJM0JkM0tLZ1kxUmc/view?usp=sharing)
And this video gives you and idea of how it thermally performs:
These diagrams explain the New York design:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2PwDvkjovJS1BZVVZiTWF4MXM/view?usp=sharing)
And this video shows you the thermal performance:
Now to credit all of the awesome people that have made the creation of these thermal maps possible:
1) As any HB user knows, the open source engines and libraries under the hood of HB are EnergyPlus and OpenStudio and the incredible thermal richness of these maps would not have been possible without these DoE teams creating such a robust modeler so a big credit is definitely due to them.
2) Many of the initial ideas for these thermal maps come from an MIT Masters thesis that was completed a few years ago by Amanda Webb called "cMap". Even though these cMaps were only taking into account surface temperature from E+, it was the viewing of her radiant temperature maps that initially touched-off the series of events that led to my thesis so a great credit is due to her. You can find her thesis here (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/72870).
3) Since the thesis of A. Webb, there were two key developments that made the high resolution of the current maps believable as a good approximation of the actual thermal environment of a building. The first is a PhD thesis by Alejandra Menchaca (also conducted here at MIT) that developed a computationally fast way of estimating sub-zone air temperature stratification. The method, which works simply by weighing the heat gain in a room against the incoming airflow was validated by many CFD simulations over the course of Alejandra's thesis. You can find here final thesis document here (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/74907).
4) The other main development since the A. Webb thesis that made the radiant map much more accurate is a fast means of estimating the radiant temperature increase felt by an occupant sitting in the sun. This method was developed by some awesome scientists at the UC Berkeley Center for the Built Environment (CBE) Including Tyler Hoyt, who has been particularly helpful to me by supporting the CBE's Github page. The original paper on this fast means of estimating the solar temperature delta can be found here (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89m1h2dg) although they should have an official publication in a journal soon.
5) The ASHRAE comfort models under the hood of LB+HB all are derived from the javascript of the CBE comfort tool (http://smap.cbe.berkeley.edu/comforttool). A huge chunk of credit definitely goes to this group and I encourage any other researchers who are getting deep into comfort to check the code resources on their github page (https://github.com/CenterForTheBuiltEnvironment/comfort_tool).
6) And, last but not least, a huge share of credit is due to Mostapha and all members of the LB+HB community. It is because of resources and help that Mostapha initially gave me that I learned how to code in the first place and the knowledge of a community that would use the things that I developed was, by fa,r the biggest motivation throughout this thesis and all of my LB efforts.
Thank you all and stay awesome,
-Chris…
j
1
c
e
h
k
2
f
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To these...
0;0
0;1
0
a
i
------------------------------------------------------------
0;0
0;1
0;2
0
b
g
j
1
c
h
k
------------------------------------------------------------
0;0
0
d
1
e
2
f
------------------------------------------------------------
Thanx……
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.
…
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…
noceros 3D, en caso de aprobar satisfactoriamente el examen, se les otorga un reconocimiento avalado por el CMJ y la Secretaría del Trabajo. Este workshop va dirigido principalmente a estudiantes de arquitectura; sin embargo, ya que la parametrización es una herramienta que abarca diferentes ámbitos del diseño, se pueden integrar estudiantes de diseño industrial, artistas o estudiantes que tengan relación con lo gráfico y lo formal. Al finalizar el curso, los asistentes serán capaces de manejar Rhinoceros y Grasshopper en un nivel medio, con el objetivo de que el alumno pueda continuar aprendiendo con alguno de nuestros workshops subsiguientes o de manera autodidacta.
Las personas inscritas deben tener conocimientos básicos de geometría y de preferencia utilizar algún programa de dibujo en 2D o modelación en 3d. Rhino.GetMe Rigid // Enfocado a construir un objeto de diseño parametrizado a cualquier escala, el workshop se divide en tres módulos: Módulo 1 // Rhinoceros 3D // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 2 //Grasshopper // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 3 // Ejercicios prácticos /Tres sesiones de diez horas c/u. Es necesario traer el equipo necesario para trabajar, se cuenta con equipos en caso de que algún alumno no cuente con laptop pero son limitados, por favor avísanos a la brevedad si lo requieres. Se les recomienda que traigan dispositivos de almacenamiento en caso de que necesitemos compartir información.
El costo del Workshop es de $6500.00 para profesionales y $5000 pesos para estudiantes.
Pre-venta únicamente para estudiantes, hasta el día viernes 29 de junio, con un costo de $3500.00 pesos.
El cupo del evento es limitado puedes apartar tu lugar y terminar de liquidar antes del 29 de junio en pre-venta, antes del 6 de junio en admisión general.
Para hacer tu registro al workshop por favor envía un correo a workshop@transformalab.com incluyendo:
Nombre
Universidad u oficina de procedencia
Teléfono móvil
En el caso de estudiantes por favor incluyan una copia escaneada de su Constancia de Estudios para hacer válido su descuento.
Una vez recibida su información se les enviará un correo con la información necesaria para realizar su pago mediante depósito bancario, y posteriormente un mail de confirmación de su participación en el Workshop.
www.transformalab.com…
rst option is the type of Point Grasshopper will display in the Rhino Viewport.
Dot
Point
Cross
Dot is a small dot of single colour.
Point is a slightly larger dot with a white center.
Cross an X-shaped cross. (Default)
Preview Plane Size
The option to change the size of the Plane appears as a fly out menu where an input box allows you to enter a value in Rhino Document Units to set the size of the Plane. (You must press Enter to accept the change)
Preview Mesh Edges
The option to hide/show mesh edges catches a few users out, thinking that the Meshing of the Object has failed.
And without...
There is a handy Shortcut of Ctrl+M to toggle between the two options.
Gumballs
As of version 0.9.0064, Grasshopper allows the user to move individual points that are Persistent[3a] by means of a Gumball in the Rhino Document. Volatile[3b] points can be made persistent by way of the Internalising feature found on the Context Menu of Components and Parameters
[3] Glossary:
Volatile - "liable to change rapidly and unpredictably". Referenced objects in Rhino are considered volatile.
Persistent - "continuing to exist or endure over a prolonged period". Internalised objects are considered persistent.
…
ust assume this is really what is being imported with the standard import line I see in all the examples:
# scriptcontext moduleimport RhinoPython.Host as __host'''The Active Rhino document (Rhino.RhinoDoc in RhinoCommon) while a scriptis executing. This variable is set by Rhino before the exection of every script.'''doc = None'''Identifies how the script is currently executing1 = running as standard python script2 = running inside grasshopper component3... potential other locations where script could be running'''id = 1'''A dictionary of values that can be reused between execution of scripts'''sticky = dict()def escape_test( throw_exception=True, reset=False ): "Tests to see if the user has pressed the escape key" rc = __host.EscapePressed(reset) if rc and throw_exception: raise Exception('escape key pressed') return rc def errorhandler(): ''' The default error handler called by functions in the rhinoscript package. If you want to have your own predefined function called instead of errorhandler, replace the scriptcontext.errorhandler value ''' return None…
Added by Nik Willmore at 7:47pm on October 10, 2015
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…
ave pointed out, if the older version of Honeybee EPZone does not have the recirculatedAirPerArea proprety, then it must be the cause of the error as I am using the Honeybee_Export to OpenStudio component (VER 0.0.58 Nov_07_2015). Given the discrepancy between the version of the Honeybee components used to setup everything in the file all the way prior to the point feeding the zones' data into the Export to Open Studio component, I can see different options/questions to tackle this issue:
1- I have the OpenStudio 1.9.0 that works with EnergyPlusV8-3-0 installed on my computer and the reason that I had to use the newer version of the Honeybee_Export to OpenStudio component (VER 0.0.58 Nov_07_2015) is that I had initially received an error message using the component of the same version as consistent with the rest of the project (VER 0.0.57 Jul_15_2015) with the following content:
"Cannot find OpenStudio libraries. You can download the libraries from the link below. Unzip the file and copy it to C:\Users\Alireza\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\OpenStudio and try again. Click on the link to copy the address.https://app.box.com/s/y2sx16k98g1lfd3r47zi"
The download link provided in the error message appears to be not active and thereby, I could not follow the instructions on the error message and make the Hoenybee_Export to OpenStudio component (VER 0.0.57 Jul_15_2015) work.
Therefore, if there is a way to make this version (VER 0.0.57 Jul_15_2015) of the Hoenybee_Export to OpenStudio component work by downloading the OpenStudio libraries or switching to a legacy version of the OpenStudio application prior to 1-9-0, then probably this would be one option to solve this issue.
2- When I realized I could not download the OpenStudio libraries as described in section 1 (see above) and make the Honeybee_Export to OpenStudio Component (VER 0.0.57 Jul_15_2015) work with the installed OpenStudio application (V1-9-0), I updated the entire installation of Ladybug + Honeybee User Object files to the new version (Ladybug_0_0_61 and Honeybee_0_0_58). This time the Honeybee_Export to OpenStudio component (VER 0.0.58 Nov_07_2015) seemed to be working with the installed OpenStudio application (V1-9-0) as I did not receive any error messages about missing OS libraries. However, I could not make things work since all other components in my project (eg. Creat HB Zones,Creat HB Surface) have been setup with the 0.0.57 version and obviously, the updated version of the Honeybee User Objects (V0.0.58) could not recognize my HB component of the previous version in the file.
If there is a way to make 'in-place' updates of HB components, for example updating the Honeybee_Create HB Zones in the file without having to re-wire everything from scratch, then it probably would work as the updated version will include the 'recirculatedAirPerArea' property. Otherwise, given the complexity of the scene, it appears to be impossible for me to start everything from scratch and setup the entire scene with the new version of HB components.
3- If none of the options in the last two sections (see above) would be possible, I was wondering if there is a way to open the zones' data as the outcome of the Honeybee_Solve Adjacency component (prior to feeding this data to the Honeybee_Open Studio Systems component and subsequently, to the the Hoenybee_Export to Open Studio) in a text-editor and manually add the missing recirculatedAirPerArea property to the zones' data; then probably I could do that and then eventually feed it to the Hoenybee_Export to Open Studio component.
These are the three options that I could think of in order to tackle this issue of mine. I apologize for the extended reply but I figured it would be better to give a more comprehensive description of my problem and previous attempts to solve it.
Any helps is most appreciated.
Please let me know if you need further information about the described issues in each section or the simulation scene setup in general.
Thank you,
Alireza
…
n the z axis I can not, here's the problem, because the movement is not only on the z axis, I can't do a serie with this vector. I tried to do it by differents columns or rows but its impossible for me.
2. Another problem. How I can fill a surface like this with tetrahedrons? What about change the size of this tetrahedrons? Is it possible like a fractal? :Si'm still working...
Thank you!
Finally I have completed the cloud!! I am a little bit fool. With the help of some sketches it was not so difficult! :).
I found the movement pattern of my tetrahedrons
Then I found the points inside my surface!
But now I cant create lines between points like in the begining of the process, with the pattern with points 1, 2, 3, 4. What I have to do?
??????????
Bye!!!…