with this machine.
As Jason says, Rhino and Grasshopper are mainly single-threaded, so I prioritized single core speed and got an i7 4790k, which comfortably overclocks to 4.7GHz (with a decent air cooler, but no fancy liquid cooling).
The Kangaroo2 solver is actually multi-threaded now, but the difference this makes is not great as you might imagine. Using 4 cores is certainly nowhere near 4 times faster, because although parts of the calculation are easily parallelized, everything still needs to be recombined at each iteration, and this is usually the bottleneck. I think there is still room for some improvement in how it is multi-threaded, but I wouldn't hold your breath for any massive changes on this front soon.
I'd be interested to know how the performance scales with the Xeon chips (more cores, significantly more expensive, but relatively low clock speeds). At the time I made the guess that they weren't worth it, but it would be good to really test this out.
RAM is relatively cheap these days, so I went with 32GB of it at 2133MHz. It does seem that the speed of the RAM matters, as enabling XMP in the BIOS (to make it run above the default 1333) seemed to make a noticeable difference.
Graphics-wise my personal feeling is that the gaming oriented GTX cards offer better value than the much more expensive 'professional' Quadro range - and have read that the hardware between the 2 has historically been very similar or even identical despite the Quadros being several times the price, with the difference being mainly in the drivers. There are some threads on discourse.mcneel.com about this, and it seems that recent GTX cards like the 970 do very well in Holomark (the Rhino performance benchmarking tool).
I got a GTX 770 (this was just before the 900 series came out), which is probably way overkill just for Rhino/Grasshopper, as they don't use the GPU for more than display (Though some of the render plugins do, and I think for those more CUDA cores is what matters, so there GTX is probably still better value.)
Probably swapping this for a much cheaper card wouldn't make much difference to Rhino/GH performance anyway (though if you want to use the PC for other stuff like gaming or virtual reality it does).
I don't have much experience with AMD cards, so can't comment on how they compare to Nvidia.
Eventually I do hope to make Kangaroo run the physics on the GPU, and potentially this does have a big speed impact. Nvidia recently released some impressive demos of their FLEX engine, which really fly with a decent graphics card. That is very much game-physics, and not suitable for most of the things Kangaroo is used for, but theoretically Kangaroo could also be adapted to use CUDA (or OpenCL), though it involves a lot of big changes, and I don't have a timeline for this yet.
In the much shorter term there are some things in the pipeline that should speed up Kangaroo for certain things like collisions between large numbers of objects, just by using some different algorithms.
Altogether my machine was still well under €2K, and I've been really happy with it. That said, the difference in performance between this and my 4 year old €700 i5 laptop is actually not that huge in day-to-day Grasshopper usage. It does seem that there is a strong case of diminishing returns with buying a PC - I'd hazard a guess that even spending 3 times this amount (as another thread on this forum was discussing recently) you'd be hard pushed to get anything that made a really significant difference to the experience of using it, and if you really want to spend more money, you would be better off just upgrading more frequently (and getting a nice monitor(s)).
Anyway, a long ramble, I hope some of it is useful. As I said, I'm no hardware expert, and would be interested to hear different opinions.
I also think it will be nice to make a simple benchmarking tool for Kangaroo and have people run it on their various machines and report back results (as with Holomark), to help others make informed decisions on these things. I'll try and put something together for this soon.
…
onents (radiation, sunlight-hours and view analysis) which let you study the effect of the orientation of your building and the analysis result. When you come to a question similar to "what is the orientation that the building receives the most/least amount of radiation?" is probably the right time to use this component.
HOW?
I'll try to explain the steps using a simple example. Here is my design geometries. The building in the center is the building to be designed and the rest of the buildings are context. I want to see the effect of orientation on the amount of the radiation on the test building surfaces from the start of Oct. to the end of Feb. for Chicago.
First I need to set up the normal radiation analysis and run it for the building as it is right now. [I'm not going to explain how you can set up this since you can find it in the sample file (Download the sample file from here)]
Now I need to set up the parameters for orientation study using orientationStudyPar component. You can find it under the Extra tab:
At minimum I need to input the divisionAngle, and the totalAngle and set runTheStudy to True. In this case I put 45 for divisionAngle and 180 for the totalAngle which means I want the study to be run for angles 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180.
[Note1: The divisionAngle should be divisible by totalAngle.]
[Note 2: If you don't provide any point for the basePoint, the component will use the center of the geometry as the center of the rotation.]
[Note 3: You can also rotate the context with the geometry! Normally you don't have the chance to change the context to make your design work but if you got lucky the rotateContext input is for you! Set it to True. The default is set to False.]
You're all set for the orientation study, just connect the orientationStudyPar output to OrientationStudyP input in the component and wait for the result!
The component will run the study for all the orientations and preview the latest geometry. To see the result just grab a quick graph and connect it to totalRadiation. As you can see in the graph 135 is the orientation that I receive the maximum radiation. Dang!
If you want to see all the result geometries set bakeIt to True, and the result will be baked under LadyBug> RadaitionStudy>[projectname]> . The layer name starts with a number which is the totalRadiation.
Mostapha…
2: https://vimeo.com/107502226
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
1. Chris, Chien Si and I will present Ladybug and Honeybee at IBSA-USA NYC this Thursday (August 21st). The presentation will include some of the latest developments that we are working on. If you are interested to know more about some of the new developments and see some of the workflows and you are around New York then just stop by. If can't attend in person you can still watch the presentation online. Check the links below. (Make sure to register by Wednesday if you are attending in person.)
2. We would like to show some of the works that you have done with Honeybee and Ladybug during the presentation so if there is anything that you think is interesting and can be presented publicly send it to us at thisisladybug@gmail.com or just post it here. Make sure to let us know who do you want us to credit the image.
3. That's it for now. I copy the information about the presentation below and hope to see some of you there. Thanks for your help and support.
Cheers,
Mostapha
IBPSA-USA New York Regional Chapter presents:
Parametric Modeling Tools | Ladybug and Honeybee
Location: Thornton Tomasetti, 44 East 27th street (between Madison and Park)
Date & Time: Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 6:00-7:30 PM.
6:00-6:30 PM Networking
6:30-7:30 PM Ladybug and Honeybee
Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Thornton Tomasetti
Chris Mackey, MIT
Chien Si Harriman, Terabuild
7:30-7:45 PM Q & A
Click here to register**: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6507378565592582402
**Please register at least a day in advance if you wish to attend in person
Descriptions
Ladybug + Honeybee
Ladybug and Honeybee are open source environmental plugins for Grasshopper that help architects and engineers create an environmentally-conscious architectural design.
Ladybug imports standard EnergyPlus Weather files (.EPW) into Grasshopper and provides a variety of 3D interactive graphics to support the decision-making process during the initial stages of design. The plugin also provides further support for designers as they test their initial design options with radiation, sunlight-hour, and shading analyses. Integration with Grasshopper allows for an almost instantaneous feedback and, since the plugin runs within the design environment, the information and analyses are interactive.
Honeybee connects Grasshopper3D to EnergyPlus, Radiance, Daysim and OpenStudio for building energy and daylighting simulation. The Honeybee project intends to make many of the features of these simulation tools available in a parametric way. Just as users have made changes to geometry for years in Grasshopper, now users can parameterize system types, zoning schemes, schedules of operation, daylight sensor placement and controls - all of the “hardcore” simulation parameters that have never been exposed to parametric modeling tools.
https://www.facebook.com/LadyBugforGrasshopper http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug
…
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Hi Clemens I've analysed a plate structure using Karamba and wanted to do a convergence analysis on results computed as a function of the number of elements.
Now, when strictly looking at the result magnitudes of internal energy (IE) and maximum displacement (w_max), it's acceptable, that their relative deviations are very small. But I cannot explain the tendencies of their graphs. From what I know, FEM should always compute underestimated results when compared to analytical solutions. So I don't understand why both the IE and w_max seem to be decreasing for an increasing number of elements.
But my main concern is the behaviour of the peak moment, it seems to be simply hill climbing untill suddenly a singularity kicks in. I initially wanted to use the peak moment as a fitness value for optimisation, but with this behaviour, I don't think that would make sense. I've attached my GH file as well.
It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me on these subjects. Cheers Daniel Andersen
2)
Hi Daniel,
I could not run your definition because I have not all the plug-ins installed that you use.
You are basically right that the displacement should increase with a finer mesh. However the result of the shell analysis also depends on the shape of the triangles (well formed vs. very distorted). In order to test this, I think it would be interesting to use a very simple example (e.g. rectangular plate with one column) where you can easily control mesh generation. Would you like to start a discussion on this in the karamba group at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba?
It is not a good idea to use the bending moment at a singularity for optimization because the result will be heavily mesh dependent. Also real columns do have a certain diameter and modeling them as point supports introduces an error.
Best,
Clemens
3)
oh, and by the way!
Here's some relevant literature on handling peak moments: https://books.google.dk/books?id=-5TvNxnVMmgC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=blaauwendraad+plates+and+fem&source=bl&ots=SdDcwnrSA1&sig=6HulPmKNIhqKx4_rGxitteMC4CU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIg66k0LPaxgIVgY1yCh1KPAeY#v=onepage&q=chapter%2014&f=false (Blaauwendraad, J., 2010. Plates and FEM : Surprises and Pitfalls, see Chapter 14) It would be great if a feature dealing with peak moments could be incorporated in Karamba. In my work, I ended up exporting my models to Robot in order to verify the moment values. Best, Daniel
4)
Hi Daniel,
thank you for your reply and the link to Blaauwendraads excellent book!
At some point I hope to include material nonlinearity in Karamba which will help in dealing with stress singularities.
If you want you could open a discussion with a title like 'moment peaks in shells at point-supports'. Then we could copy and paste the text of our conversation into it.
Best,
Clemens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------…
nside a script.
However, it should be noted that to do so introduces a significant amount of overhead, which may impact performance. This is because (to the best of my understanding) all the methods described below actually instantiate and execute a virtual Grasshopper document, with components and everything else. Whenever possible, it is advisable to simply call RhinoCommon functions - these are designed to be called in code and are more streamlined.
Python
Grasshopper's Python is unique among the scripting languages in that it has a "node-in-code" mechanism for this purpose in the form of the ghpythonlib library and its "components" class. Here is some example code:
from ghpythonlib import components as ghcomp import Rhino a = ghcomp.Circle(Rhino.Geometry.Plane.WorldXY,25.0) result = ghcomp.DeconstructBrep(b) faces = result[0] edges = result[1] vertices = result[2]
This code will call the "Circle" component with the world XY base plane and a radius of 25, and then call the "Deconstruct Brep" component on a brep (input to the script as "b").
The arguments passed to the function will correspond to the inputs of the component, and the function will return the output (the data itself in the case of a component with only one output, and a tuple of data in the case of multiple outputs, as in the second example above).
For more info on this technique, see this post by Steve Baer.
C#/VB.Net
James Ramsden has described a method for doing this in these two posts on his blog:
Run a Grasshopper Component from C# Code
Read and edit persistent data in Grasshopper components with C#
His examples are in C#, but everything he describes can also be done in VB.net with some syntax tweaks.
The core of his method is to programmatically instantiate a component, populate its inputs, and then create a virtual grasshopper document in which to execute the code. He then harvests the outputs and converts them back to simple data. Here is his example code for calling the "Circle by Normal and Radius" component:
var cs = new CurveComponents.Component_CircleCNR(); //add the circle centre (input 0) var pp = cs.Params.Input[0] as Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_PersistentGeometryParam<Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Point>; pp.PersistentData.ClearData(); pp.PersistentData.Append(new GH_Point(new Point3d(0, 0, 3))); //add the circle radius (input 2) var pn = cs.Params.Input[2] as Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_PersistentParam<Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Number>; pn.PersistentData.ClearData(); pn.PersistentData.Append(new GH_Number(y)); //y is another variable //run calculations cs.ExpireSolution(true); //add to a dummy document so we can read outputs var doc = new Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Document(); doc.AddObject(cs, false); //read output circle cs.Params.Output[0].CollectData(); A = cs.Params.Output[0].VolatileData.get_Branch(0)[0]; //remove that component doc.RemoveObject(cs.Attributes, false);
Final notes
For a great many of the simple components, there are in fact methods in RhinoCommon that accomplish exactly the same thing. Note the complexity of the above code, and then look at the equivalent code using RhinoCommon methods:
Circle circle = new Circle(new Plane(origin, normal), radius);
In my experience it is preferable to just call or construct the methods you need using RhinoCommon rather than relying on trying to call components from inside your code.
Lastly, It is my understanding that this concept is central to David's thinking around GH2 - so that it in the next version it will be significantly more streamlined to switch between components and code representations. (I have no special knowledge of GH2 development - this is just what I have seen David say on the forums, and as usual any statements about future features are subject to change.)
Hope this is helpful!
…
e chosen to dive into Grasshopper. I’m about 6 months in. If some of my comments are completely off, please take that to mean that a feature is too inaccessible to a newish user rather that it’s just missing, as I may have stated.
One of my primary pain points is this. Things that can be done in other programs are invariably easier in other programs. This is a big enough issue that I doubt there’s an easy solution that an armchair qb like myself can offer up.
The interface:
I’ve used a lot of 3D programs. I’ve never encountered one as difficult as grasshopper. 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. Yet PTC (Parametric Technology Corp.) has been doing parametric design software since 1985 and has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others.
In the early 2000's, when parametric design software was all the rage, McNeel stated quite strongly the Rhino would remain a direct modeler and would not become a parametric modeler. Trends come. Trends go. And the industry has been swinging back to direct modeling. So McNeel’s decision was probably ok. But I have to wonder if part of McNeel’s reluctance to incorporate some of the tried and proven ideas of other parametric packages doesn't have roots in their earlier declaration to not incorporate parametrics.
A Visual Programming Language:
I read a lot about the awesomeness and flexibility of Grasshopper being a visual programming language. Let’s be clear, this is DOS era speak. I believe GH should continue to have the ability to be extended and massaged with code, as most design programs do. But as long as this is front and center, GH will remain out of reach to the average designer.
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.
Sliders:
I hate sliders. I understand them, but I hate ‘em. I think they should be optional. Ya, I know I can r-click on the N of a component and set the integer. It’s a pain, and it gives no feedback. The “N” should turn into the number if set. AAAnd, sliders should be context sensitive. I like that the name of a slider changes when I plug it into something. But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly. I shouldn't be able to plug in a “50” and have everything after turn red.
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.
And this item I’m guessing on. I’m not yet good enough at GH to know if this may have adverse effects. Reverse, Flatten, Graft, etc.; could these be context sensitive? Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?
Tighter integration with Rhino:
I'm not entirely certain what this would look like. Currently my work flow entails baking, making a few Rhino edits, and reinserting into GH. I question the whole baking thing, btw. Why isn't it just live geometry? That’s how other parametric apps work. Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset. I have to bake, offsetserf, and reinsert the geometry. I’m currently looking at the “Geometry Cache” and “Geometry Pipeline” components to see if they help. But I haven't been able to figure it out. Which leads me to:
Update all of the documentation:
I'm guessing this is an in process thing and you're working toward rolling GH from 0.9.00075 to 1.0. GH was being updated nearly weekly earlier this year. Then it suddenly stopped. If we're talking weeks before a full release, so be it. But if we're looking at something longer, a documentation update would help a lot. Geometry Cache and Geometry Pipeline’s help still read “This is the autogenerated help topic for this object. Developers: override the HtmlHelp_Source() function in the base class to provide custom help.” This does not help. And the Grasshopper Primer 2nd Ed. was written for GH 0.60007.
Grasshopper is fundamentally a 2D program:
I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen? Pretty much every 3D program in existence has this. I’m sure I can probably figure out how to deconstruct the breps, join the curves, loft, trim, and so forth. But does writing an algorithm to do what all other 3D programs do with a dialog box seem reasonable? I'm sure if you go command by command you'll find a ton on such things.
If you look at the vast majority of things done in GH, you'll note that they're mostly either flat or a fundamentally 2D pattern on a warped surface.
I've been working on a part that is a 3D voronoi trimmed to a 3D model. I've been trying to turn the trimmed voronoi into legitimate geometry for over a month without success.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/question-voronoi-3d-continued
I’ve researched it enough to have found many others have had the exact same problem and have not solved it. It’s really not that conceptually difficult. But GH lacks the tools.
Make screen organization easier:
I have a touch of OCD, and I like my GH layout to flow neatly. Allow input/output nodes to be re-ordered. This will allow a reduction in crossed wires. Make the wire positions a bit more editable. I sometimes use a geometry component as a wire anchor to clean things up. Being able to grab a wire and pull it out of the way would be kinda nice.
I think GH has some awesome abilities. I also think accessing those abilities could be significantly easier.
~p…
me of the dimensions that changed ( become Diagonal after they were Vertical or Horizontal)
I sometime use Record History in rhino for saving time, but when I change some points of curves or trim curves , I have problems with dimensions (see the two pictures below).
Problem 2 :
After trimming , only two dimensions should be changed depending on their place in changed curves . But what happens is that all the dimensions become crazy!!!!!!
I always use Aligned dimension in rhino. Now I know that dimensionsdo not exist in grasshopper. So I ask you if we have expertise in BV , C#, can we create a script for dimensions or is it impossible ??
If we can , I only need Aligned dimension.
I hope that I find or create a script that can define all points: start and end of curve ribs and create dimensions from grasshopper to rhino directly with or without the ability to change automatically .
Thank you
…
mesh by an infinite plane
Namespace: Rhino.GeometryAssembly: RhinoCommon (in RhinoCommon.dll) Version: 5.0.15006.0 (5.0.20693.0)
Syntax
C#
public Mesh[] Split( Plane plane )
Visual Basic
Public Function Split ( _ plane As Plane _ ) As Mesh()
Parameters
plane
Type: Rhino.Geometry..::..Plane[Missing <param name="plane"/> documentation for "M:Rhino.Geometry.Mesh.Split(Rhino.Geometry.Plane)"]
Return Value
[Missing <returns> documentation for "M:Rhino.Geometry.Mesh.Split(Rhino.Geometry.Plane)"]
See Also
Mesh Class
Rhino.Geometry Namespace
Last updated 3 June 2011 - Robert McNeel and Associates
Send comments on this topic to steve@mcneel.com
Report wishes and bugs: https://github.com/mcneel/rhinocommon/issues
Is this the function?
I have a VB component with this:
a = rhino.Geometry.Mesh.CreateBooleanSplit(x, y)
but this is a boolean split, so I have only one mesh, with the intersection. I would like to have several splitted meshes.
Thank you in advance again.
…