h i get 5 points (kinkos), Lets say 0,1,2,3,4,...But all segments are of different sizes,..that is, I know the distance between 0 & 1 is 2 units,Distance btw 1 & 2 = 3 unitsDistance btw 2 & 3 = 1 unitDistance btw 3 & 4 = 4units,..How do i do this division,. Could anyone help please,..Thank you…
n the SetA lenght there could be a boolean to toggle an append function.
SetA = {U, V, W, X, Y, Z} ,
SetB = {1, 2, 3}
Imap = {10}
Append = True >> Result = {U, V, W, X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3}
Append = False >> Result = {U, V, W, X, Y, Z}
This is different from the "list insert" component that you wrote but I find it more intuitive. Maybe I just have a problem with the name, I would understand it better if it was called "Item insert"... I'm no english expert so I may be completely wrong.
Perhaps there could be two components one "Item Insert" and another "List Insert"...
ReplaceItem would also be very useful.…
Added by Frane Zilic at 1:57pm on September 10, 2010
same simulation with two different settings, with _numOfCUPs_ set to 1 and again with it set to 10. I'm running it on a 6 core/12 thread CPU so I should have no problem handling 10 threads.
I've attached an Excel file with my results for how long it took with a single thread vs. how long each of threads took on the 10 thread run. What it amounts to is that with a single thread it took 51 minutes, and with the 10 thread option it took 47 minutes for it all to finish. With the latter the first 9 threads finished between 28-34 minutes which is a significant time savings over the single thread run, but the last thread still took almost as long and gave us only about an 8% time savings.
This is only one simple comparison and only one simulation type, but I've seen this same result happen over and over again over the past year or so with several simulations (annual, irradiance, illuminance,...). I also don't think it's necessarily a Honeybee problem, because even running the simulations myself by creating the octree mesh and running radiance and daysim from the command line I had the same issue where splitting a model up and running parallel simulations that were then recombined took just about as long as running it all in one thread. Add into this the time necessary to combine the different files at the end and your multithreading time savings become even less.
So is it me, my machine, radiance, bad karma?…
ee 3)
{5}
0 15
{6}
0 16
And I want to place points at every possible combination of these coordinates, treating Tree 1 as X coordinates, Tree 2 as Y coordinates, and Tree 3 as Z coordinates. Also, I would like the list of points to be a tree with paths corresponding to the coordinates. Wouldn't it be nice if I could plug these trees into a Point XYZ, with a new "branch cross reference" method, and get the following result?
{0:3:5}
0 {10.0, 13.0, 15.0}
{0:3:6}
0 {10.0, 13.0, 16.0}
{0:4:5}
0 {10.0, 14.0, 15.0}
{0:4:6}
0 {10.0, 14.0, 16.0}
{1:3:5}
0 {11.0, 13.0, 15.0}
{1:3:6}
0 {11.0, 13.0, 16.0}
{1:4:5}
0 {11.0, 14.0, 15.0}
{1:4:6}
0 {11.0, 14.0, 16.0}
{2:3:5}
0 {12.0, 13.0, 15.0}
{2:3:6}
0 {12.0, 13.0, 16.0}
{2:4:5}
0 {12.0, 14.0, 15.0}
{2:4:6}
0 {12.0, 14.0, 16.0}
In this form of cross referencing, every combination of individual branches from the different lists is used as separate input, and the output for each combination is put onto a branch in the result whose path is the concatenation of the input branch paths used.…
Added by Andy Edwards at 7:03pm on November 3, 2009
en 3 of them, and one poolyline between two of them.
It would also be very nice if i could control it so that only the successive ones can be connected
so if {0:0:0} has 8 points and {0:0:1} has 8, as do {0:0:5} and {0:0:6} i would like to have this as two polylines, not one continoous that would in this case jump three branches (or curves that are shorter).
Does this make any sense?…
Added by Dusan Bosnjak at 2:08pm on September 28, 2009