ng in Grasshopper?
As a general recommendation for developers in Grasshopper who are writing a part of their library which is performance-sensitive (please note: often the performance sensitive part is very limited) is to write it in C#, or maybe even C, or maybe even assembly :). Of course, the closer to the machine you will be, the easier it will be to harness all minimal optimizations. However, there is always a compromise between "getting things done" and "making them best" and this boundary is not very easy to catch, right?
If you want to have significant speed improvements for numerical calculations, I would at least recommend developing with C# in a compiled component using Visual Studio or SharpDevelop. The reason is: in order to provide the line number of possible errors, Grasshopper compiles C# scripts in debug mode! They will be much less optimized than what is possible even with today's technology. This does not preclude keeping the project open-source, if that is one of your goals.
Regarding the actual list:
1) Yes, the implied loop will probably be slower than just a simple for loop. This is because Grasshopper code has to keep track of more things than the ones you could be considering with your knowledge of of your very-special case. However, a factor of 10 is simply not acceptable and is likely a symptom of something else. In fact, I think I remember fixing a bug around that in Rhino WIP. However, it appears to be still slower also there. I've added a bugtracking item here.
2) If you are able to do all casts that are involved, and do them as Grasshopper does, please write that code that way. For example, if you supply a curve to an input with number hint, Grasshopper computes the length of the curve. There will have to be an "if" that checks if the input is a curve somewhere (or some similar construct). This aid for designers is what slows down the hint input.
3) Grasshopper has to keep side effects at bay. For example, components B and C are both connected to outputs of A. If you edit data in component B, and that data came from A you of course expect that data to be unchanged in C. This means that, for even lists of numbers, Grasshopper has to perform a deep copy of the output for each input. Otherwise, what happens if B sorts the list and C finds the index of the smallest number? This could be improved if GH components had some way of flagging themselves as non-data-mutating (constant). The fact that, by supplying special types, Grasshopper has no way of performing copies will likely speed things up. But be aware of possibly very annoying side effects creeping in if data is not immutable. Another option is performing the copy "optimally", just where you need it, because you know where your data is used. This is not information that is available to GH at present.
Does this help?
Thanks again for your input,
Giulio--Giulio Piacentinofor Robert McNeel & Associatesgiulio@mcneel.com…
ints. Anyway this is made for AEC purposes (wavy roofs/envelopes and the likes) and is classified as internal (but I could provide a "light" version).
To give you a very rough idea: C# rebuilds first any input list of nurbs > then samples the control points in a tree > then excludes (or not) the "peripheral" points (case: closed in U/V surfaces) > then "picks" some of them according a rather vast variety of options (~30) > then modifies these either individually (that's only possible with code and it's a bit tricky) or via any collection of push/pull attractors or randomly or ... > then "joins" the 2 sets together (modified + unmodified) > and finally does the new nurbs. Only 456 lines of code that one.
With regard the Dark Side: C# would be my recommendation (P is ala mode, mind) for a vast variety of reasons (less than 10% of them are GH related).
If you decide to cross the Rubicon:
How to go to hell (and stay there) in just 123 easy steps:
Step 1: get the cookies
The bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).
The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).
The bible PlanC: C# 5.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favorite
The reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334
The candidates:
C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)
C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)
C# Language (Jones)
Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)
Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)
...
Step 121: open computer
Step 122: get the 30 steps to heaven (i.e. hell)
Step 123: shut down computer > change occupation/planet
May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.
…
serveral questions:the first thing is in c++ i have to implement more methods than in my c# test project.
they are:
int MyGhComponent::MasterParameterIndex::get(){ return 0;}void MyGhComponent::MasterParameterIndex::set(int index){ }bool MyGhComponent::IsValidMasterParameterIndex::get(){ return 1;}
i found no hint for the implementation of that interfaces. could someone tell me that is correct ?OK, it works, but is it well writen ? What is the MasterParameterIndex?
the second "bigger" problem is, i want to have an output of an pointlist.X y Z 1.2 1.3 1.12.1 5.2 9.2...
my first approch was to use a
void MyGhComponent::RegisterOutputParams(GH_Component::GH_OutputParamManager^ pManager){pManager->Register_PointParam("Coordinate", "XYZ", "Node-Coordinate");}
and
void MyGhComponent::SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess^ DA){Collections::Generic::List<GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D>^ pnt = gcnew Collections::Generic::List<GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D>(); for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D^ point = gcnew GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D(i, i, i); pnt->Add(i); } DA->SetDataList(3, pnt);}
but this exampel doesn't work...i wirte a small workaround and use the following
pManager->Register_DoubleParam("X-Koordinate", "X", "X"); pManager->Register_DoubleParam("Y-Koordinate", "Y", "Y"); pManager->Register_DoubleParam("Z-Koordinate", "Z", "Z"); Collections::Generic::List<double>^ pntx= gcnew Collections::Generic::List<double>(); Collections::Generic::List<double>^ pnty= gcnew Collections::Generic::List<double>(); Collections::Generic::List<double>^ pntz= gcnew Collections::Generic::List<double>(); ... add .. ect.
this workaround do the job, but i want a better soulution. and i know somewhere out there sould be a better solution. i want to use 3D Points directly in GH without list conversation.
so somebody a familiar with c++ / cli ? and could give me some tipps or a soulution ?
the first thing is: what is the right RegisterOutputParams ?
and witch data type is the right ? Point3d doesn't work. so i try GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D and Rhino::Geometry::Point3d ...
br Friedrich…
as one element.
Thank you
Comment by karamba on October 7, 2014 at 11:27pm
Hello Patricio, divide the beams in such a way that each boundary vertex of the shell becomes an endpoint of a beam segment.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 8, 2014 at 8:30amDelete Comment
Hi Clemens,
I did what you suggested but now assemble element doesn´t work properly. Could you please tell me how to fix it? Thanks in advance, Patricio
8-10-14losa%20cadena.gh
Comment by karamba on October 8, 2014 at 11:59am
Hi Patricio, if you flatten the 'Elem'-input at the 'Assemble'-component the definition works. The triangular shell elements have linear displacement interpolations whereas the beam deflections are exact. In order to get correct results you should refine the shell mesh.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 9, 2014 at 8:35amDelete Comment
Hello, succeeds in creating the mesh to the slab, and built the beam segment, but when I see the deformations are not expected because the beam is deformed as the slab.
Thanks for the help
PS: maybe I'm using the program for a type of structure that is not the most appropriate, as I saw in the examples of other structures. But this type of structure is that students taught
best regards
Patricio
9-10-14%20Example%201.gh
Comment by karamba on October 9, 2014 at 10:46am
You could use the 'Mesh Edges'-component to retrieve the naked edges and turn them into beams - see attached file:91014Example1_cp.gh
Best regards,
Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 15, 2014 at 3:41pmDelete Comment
Dear clemens
I was doing a rough estimate of the deformation, and I can not achieve the same result with Karamba. When I make a rough estimate of the result with Karamba beams and mine are very similar, I think the problem is when I connect the shell, because there are no similar results.
I sent the GH file, and an image of the calculation
The structure is concrete The result I get is 0.58cm
thank youPatricio
15-10-14%20Example.gh
Comment by karamba yesterday
Dear Patricio,
try to increase the number of shell elements. As mentioned in the manual they are linear elements. A mesh that is too coarse leads to a response which is stiffer than the real structure.
Best,
Clemens
…
ndrea Graziano (Co-de-iT) Arch. Salvo Pappalardo (AION architecture) Arch. Giovanni Basile (Officina Ermocrate)
[.] Descrizione:
Modulo 1 Il workshop è finalizzato a fornire ai partecipanti i fondamenti della modellazione parametrica e generativa attraverso Grasshopper, plug-in di programmazione visuale per Rhinoceros 3D (uno dei più diffusi modellatori NURBS per l‘architettura e il design). Il workshop mira a gestire e sviluppare il rapporto tra informazione e geometria lavorando sui sistemi di involucro in condizioni specifiche. La discretizzazione di superfici (pannellizazione sia Nurbs che Mesh), la modellazione delle geometrie attraverso informazioni (siano esse provenienti da dati di analisi ambientali, da mappe di colore o da database), l’estrazione e la gestione di informazioni richiedono la comprensione delle strutture dei dati al fine di definire un processo che va dalla progettazione alla costruzione. I partecipanti impareranno come costruire e sviluppare strutture di dati parametrici per informare geometrie ‘data-driven’ e come estrarre le informazioni rilevanti da tali modelli per il processo di costruzione.
Modulo 2 Il workshop, volto a promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e alla fabbricazione, fornirà ai partecipanti, utilizzando Grasshopper, gli strumenti per la preparazione dei modelli 3D di elementi modulari decorativi "bricks & tiles" in argilla la cui successiva prototipazione avverrà tramite fresatura dello stampo con pantografo CNC a 3 assi. Il workshop darà quindi ai partecipanti i fondamenti per l’utilizzo di tale strumento di fabbricazione digitale e si concluderà con la fabbricazione di un proprio modello realizzato durante il corso.
[more info]
[Press Kit]…
ight be able to provide more insight). Whenever you run a new simulation in Radiance, it is not always necessary to re-write all of the initial simulation files from scratch. These initial simulation files include both a .rad geometry file as well as a separate .pts file that contains the test point locations. If all that you are changing in a given parametric run is the locations of the test points (like your case), it is not necessary to re-write (or reinterpret) the entire .rad geometry file. My guess is that there is some type of check for this built into either code Mostapha wrote or radiance functions that Mostapha is calling. As such, it seems that the rad geometry file is not being re-written (or re-interpreted by radiance) completely when all that you change is the test points and this actually seems to be saving you an extra 10 seconds each time that you run the component without changing the materials or the building geometry. Other times (like when you plug in custom radParameters), it seems that it re-writes (or re-interprets) the .rad geometry file from scratch since this file is probably affected by customized rad parameters.
So far, if this explanation is holding, it seems like there would be no concern on your end but I also recognize that the difference between these long and short simulations is giving you radiation results that are ever so slightly different from each other (by my estimates, they differ by about 0.2%). Compared to the other types of assumptions that the radiance model is making, though, these are mere rounding errors that probably originate from the number of decimal places in the vertices of the rad geometry file. Rather than worrying about whether your simulations are giving you the right rounding errors to give you matching results, I would encourage you to instead contemplate how much your radiance results are matching reality given all of the assumptions that you are making about the climate (with the epw file for a "typical" year) and with the number of light bounces in the radiance simulation. To give you an example, I ran your model with a higher quality of simulation type (3 ambient bounces) and this gives you results that differ by 1.1% from the original simulation that you were running with only 2 ambient bounces (this is practically an order of magnitude larger than 0.2%).
To address your unease I will say that, for a long time, I also felt uneasy any time that I encountered something that seemed unpredictable in software that I was using. Once I started coding my own stuff, though, I realized quickly that unpredictable behavior is an unavoidable aspect of all software. There is always a tradeoff between accurate results and the time it takes to get them, which produces a multitude of possible ways to arrive at a solution. Add into this complex situation the fact that you might have an almost infinite number of possible inputs to a given set of code.
Because of the unpredictable multitude of cases, there is no application that is completely free from limitations and assumptions. In this light, what ends up being more important than the actual calculation method used is the social infrastructure that is in place to help understand what is being run under the hood, hence why both Radiance and Honeybee are open source and why we try to build a robust community of support through forums like this one!
-Chris…
,with OpenfoamV1612+ in Windows 10 64bit.The blockmesh worked good.And the snappyhexmesh crashed in the process.My computer memory is not enough? Or some settings wrong?Could you help me solve this question?/---------------------------------------------------------------------------| ========= | || \ / F ield | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox || \ / O peration | Version: v1612+ || \ / A nd | Web: www.OpenFOAM.com || \/ M anipulation | |*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/Build : v1612+Exec : snappyHexMeshDate : Aug 27 2017Time : 09:39:54Host : "default"PID : 13443Case : /home/ofuser/workingDir/butterfly/outdoor_airflownProcs : 1sigFpe : Enabling floating point exception trapping (FOAM_SIGFPE).fileModificationChecking : Monitoring run-time modified files using timeStampMaster (fileModificationSkew 10)allowSystemOperations : Allowing user-supplied system call operations
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //Create time
Create mesh for time = 0
Read mesh in = 2.14 s
Overall mesh bounding box : (-241.5472 -241.4418 0) (496.4376 536.2438 144.8633)Relative tolerance : 1e-06Absolute matching distance : 0.001081851
Reading refinement surfaces.Read refinement surfaces in = 0.01 s
Reading refinement shells.Refinement level 3 for all cells inside around_buildings_area.stlRead refinement shells in = 0 s
Setting refinement level of surface to be consistent with shells.For geometry outdoor_airflow.stl detected 0 uncached triangles out of 120Checked shell refinement in = 0 s
Reading features.Read features in = 0 s
Determining initial surface intersections
Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1684728Number of edges to retest : 1684728Number of intersected edges : 5583Calculated surface intersections in = 1.68 s
Initial mesh : cells:554112 faces:1684728 points:576779Cells per refinement level:0 554112
Adding patches for surface regions
Patch Type Region
outdoor_airflow:
6 wall buildings
Added patches in = 0.03 s
Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1684728Number of edges to retest : 0Number of intersected edges : 5583Selecting decompositionMethod none
Refinement phase
Found point (127.4452 147.401 72.43167) in cell 402042 on processor 0
Surface refinement iteration 0
Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 8820 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 3.87 sSelected for refinement : 8820 cells (out of 554112)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1883850Number of edges to retest : 250376Number of intersected edges : 21198Refined mesh in = 1.77 sAfter refinement surface refinement iteration 0 : cells:615852 faces:1883850 points:652499Cells per refinement level:0 5452921 70560
Surface refinement iteration 1
Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 38502 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 0.04 sSelected for refinement : 40392 cells (out of 615852)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 2787132Number of edges to retest : 1118049Number of intersected edges : 85655Refined mesh in = 3.17 sAfter refinement surface refinement iteration 1 : cells:898596 faces:2787132 points:990317Cells per refinement level:0 5432351 486812 306680
Surface refinement iteration 2
Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 159213 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 0.1 sSelected for refinement : 168471 cells (out of 898596)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 6576117Number of edges to retest : 4737635Rhino Model and GH files is in t'he zip file.Please help me solve this question!~~…
ll-Facade using Rhino and Grasshopper Participants will learn; Rhinoceros Grasshopper Advanced Parametric Design Brick Formations and Explorations Shadow-Design Relationship
Session 2: Advanced Digital Modeling for Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) Participants will learn; How to prepare a 3D design to 3D Printing process in Rhinoceros Advanced Methods for 3D Print optimisation for time and cost effective production 3D Printing software education Cura
INFO
Date Saturday, 28 September 2019 Schedule 9:30am – 2:30pm (Session 1) | 2:45pm – 7:00pm (Session2) Venue (TBC) Pada Labs, Istanbul Language English/Turkish Softwares Rhinoceros Grasshopper 3D Cura Participants will need to bring their own laptops with software installed; other plugins will be distributed at the workshop. Prerequisites All tutorials are open to beginner level. No previous knowledge of Cura and Grasshopper needed. Basic knowledge of Rhinoceros recommended. Participation The workshop is limited to the first 20 applicants. Each student will receive a certificate of participation. Prices for each session: (You can pick one and attend one) Special Early registration (Deadline 1 August ) Students 310 TL Professionals 400 TL Regular registration Students 390 TL Professionals 480 TL Prices for Session 1&2 Combined: (Full Day) Special Early registration (Deadline 1 August ) Students 540 TL Professionals 690 TL Regular registration Students 620 TL Professionals 790 TL DISCOUNTS Group registration of 3 or more people will get a 15% discount. * Previous Pada workshop students will get a 10% discount. DIRECTOR Begum Aydinoglu, M.Arch AA DRL will be instructing and directing the following workshops. REGISTRATION: Email to pada.workshops@gmail.com for registration instructions. Please note that we have limited seats and there won't be any exceptions. …
large scale prototyping techniques. The programme continues to build on its expertise on complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. Autumn DLAB brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
The research generated at Autumn DLAB has been published in international media – ArchDaily, Archinect, Bustler – and peer-reviewed conference papers, including SimAUD (Simulation in Architecture and Urban Design), eCAADe (Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe).
Autumn DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation and prototype making. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by the use of robotic fabrication techniques, with the aim of integrating of form-finding, material computation, and structural performance.
The programme is structured in two stages:
PART 1 – participants are introduced to core concepts of material processes, computational methods and digital fabrication techniques. Basic and advanced tutorials on computational design and analysis tools are provided. The programme performs as a team-based workshop promoting collaboration, research and ‘learning-by-experimentation’.
PART 2 – participants propose design interventions based on the skills and knowledge gained during phase 1 and supported by scaled study models and prototypes. The fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques will then unify the design goals of the programme.
Applications
1) A limited number of 10 places are available. To apply, please send a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.2) PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE. Please send a letter of intent and a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.3) As this programme has a limited number of places it requires a selection process, if you are offered a place on programme, the Visiting School Office will inform you of how you can complete the registration process.
The deadline for applications is 13 AUGUST 2021.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 6. No prior knowledge of software tools is required for eligibility.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £975 per participant, which includes a £60 Digital Membership fee.Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools.
…