On the other hand ... well ... we can pretend that this could be some sort of add-on dedicated for broken pieces, (and nerves if loops = a big number) he he.
Anyway:
1. If you enable the history (the yellow things) you can watch the recursion working: get a donor box and "slice" it in 2 (either via an "orthogonal" plane [the fast boxes] or a random one [the slow breps]). Then get each one and repeat until the desired "depth" of "slices" is achieved (the loops, that is). Pure recursion in terms of programming (a function does something, yields results and then calls itself to further process each result).
Double click on the C# to see the code (but don't change anything). For the record this is the function that does the main job (spot the fact that if it's not terminated it calls itself [last line]):
2. The x, xy, xyz options restrict the random plane (actually in the boxes case there's another technique used (Intervals) but never mind). For instance (case random breps) the slicing plane is defined at the brep center and using a random direction:
Vector3d dir = new Vector3d(rand.NextDouble(-1,1), rand.NextDouble(-1,1), rand.NextDouble(-1,1));
If the 3rd value is 0 then the plane's YAxis is parallel to Plane.WorldXY.ZAxis.
3. Now if the "slicing" thing was a random polyline at a random plane the pieces could be far more "elaborated" (and/or "naturally looking") ... but the thing with programming is to know(?) where/when to stop.
4. This approach could use any donor Brep (a blob for instance) or a Brep List. Notify if you want to add such an option.
5. Added some lines more for an option that allows to sample the pieces (due to the last loop) in an automated flat "layout" (it's a bit more complex than it appears on first sight).
6. The x,y restriction mode now affects the random slices as well. See what I mean:
and the same restriction using boxes:
Truth is that all that freaky stuff could be helpful for you if you had serious plans to learn C# (not something achievable without pain and tears aplenty).
best…
e point in each pair that has the lowest Z value (then later the highest Z)... The problem is the intersections are not returned sorted by Z, sometimes the lower point is first in the list, sometimes last. So I need to sort those pairs of points by Z value.I noticed the sort points component does not have any inputs for sort criteria... RhinoScript SortPoints allows you to sort by:
blnOrder
Optional. Number. The component sort order, where:
Value
Component Sort Order
0 (default)
X, Y, Z
1
X, Z, Y
2
Y, X, Z
3
Y, Z, X
4
Z, X, Y
5
Z, Y, X
Will we get something like this in GH? For now I think I can manage to analyze the Z for each and re-order the points, but a more comprehensive point sorting tool might be nice... no? Or did I miss something obvious? --Thx, --Mitch…
n due at the end of march. i am hoping to see if i can do this as a sort of "HIVE MIND" experiment with one or two or more posters to the forum. i have uploaded two files to http://www.formpig.com/nine_bar-FAR and I have the following goals:
1. To "kinematically iterate" various formal building envelopes based upon a 50' x 100' lot that "conform" to the nine bar linkage geometry.
2. This lot would have "setbacks" consisting of two 5' side setbacks, a 10' rear yard setback and a 25' front yard setback. max height on the structure is 32' and the allowable overhangs into the setbacks are 2'. I would like to find a way to use the "nine bar geometry" to construct a series of iterations for "floors", "walls" and "ceilings", which would then be tied to a volumetric (cubic volume), or a total square footage (perhaps based upon two horizontal section cuts) which was based upon a given number that I will provide per local building code.
3. Laid on top of this we would also have "mcmansion ordinance" requirements based upon the pdf enclosed. i expect to have this "tent restriction" data in digital form to upload to ftp shortly.
It would be up to you individually or collectively to determine how best to position this "in the real world" based upon the lot, setbacks, zoning requirements etc. For instance, perhaps the nine bar configuration has its vertices coplanar with the 50' x 100' x 32' envelope restrictions and then the chosen volume is "trimmed' by the setback requirements. Or perhaps the nine-bar configuration is generated completely within the setbacks, or perhaps it is generated 2' outside of the setbacks so as to take advantage of the 2' overhang allowance on the setbacks, etc.
*
Given an opportunity to develop the work in a second phase we would have an opportunity to tie this into various efficiencies such as Bill of Materials (wall floor and ceiling square foot calculations), envelope to volume calculations, solar panel efficiencies (solar orientation and envelope geometry) etc, etc (love to get suggestions for this).
*
I've become /really/ convinced that this would be a /really/ interesting entry based upon my just finishing up Kas Oosterhuis' Towards a New Kind of Building: A Designer's Guide for Non-Standard Architecture". In an ideal world I was hoping that it would be possible to hash this out discussion-wise and then literally passing it around on the list after someone eventually made the first move by tossing out a rough ghx script. My expectation would be to finalize it rapidly in the next two weeks. Something of a contemporary version of a design charette.
However, I realize this may not be workable so if you have experience in this arena and particularly if you think this is a brief that is straighforward enough to be almost literally implemented in Grasshopper, please contact me for any wage and/or contract fee requirements.
I'm getting a bit of a late jump on this but my hope is that with the right participant(s) that I can thrash it together quick enough for the first round.
info@formpig.com…
case for sure (started by Giorgio a couple of days before). Ive got involved because I exploit ways to "relax" shapes on nurbs (say patterns created by Lunchbox or "manually) without using any kind of mesh (more explanations soon).
Here's 5 test cases (SDK appears that doesn't have some "thicken surface" thing ... thus the algo that finds the "whole" shapes is rather naive) VS 2 Kangaroo "methods" and the why bother (he he) option as well.
If the goal is to "fit" these shapes within the nurbs ... does it work so far? No I'm afraid (appears that "springs" used are not the proper ones - or [Kangaroo1 option] the lines that pull should been originated from valance 2 points only)
Tricky points:
1. Internalize appears having a variety of serious issues (see Input inside definition) - Load Rhino file first (but even so ...).
2. Pull to surface is deactivated - this is not the issue here (and it's very slow).
3. Since Starling/WB alter the "curves - points" related order
the issue here (Pull points to curves) is to correspond apples to apples:
and that's what Anemone does:
From chaos :
to order:
this means that prior activating Kangaroo you should double click to the Anemone start component in order to "sort" properly the curves.
But .. fact is that results are pathetic:
more soon
best, Peter…
putational Planning Group (CPlan) and is a result of long term collaboration between academic institutions and praxis partners across the globe with the common goal to increase the efficiency and quality of architecture and urban planning.
For additional information, updates, examples and tutorials please visit DeCodingSpaces-Toolbox.org
Authors
Abdulmalik Abdulmawla1,
Martin Bielik1,6,
Peter Buš2,
Chang Mei-Chih2,
Ekaterina Fuchkina1,
Yufan Miao4,
Katja Knecht4,
Reinhard König1,4,5,
Sven Schneider1,3,6
Partners
Member institutions of the Computational Planning Group (CPlan):
1Bauhaus-University Weimar (Chair Computer Science in Architecture, Chair Computational Architecture)
2ETH Zürich (Chair Information Architecture)
3Emerging City Lab - Addis Ababa
4Future Cities Lab Singapore
5Austrian Institute of Technology Vienna 6DecodingSpaces GbR
Gallery
…
Added by Martin Bielik at 10:13am on September 28, 2017
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.
…
uier momento del diseño de un modelo 3D y este se readapta sin necesidad de redibujar la zona alterada.
Otra de las principales características del trabajo paramétrico es que nos permite automatizar procesos de trabajo o diseño. Esto quiere decir que, con procesos sencillos, podemos generar geometrías complejas y siempre justificadas en función de unos parámetros que nosotros definamos; lo que, en cierto modo, elimina la arbitrariedad en el diseño y nos arma de argumentos en la toma de decisiones de proyecto. Por otro lado, se pueden generar texturas y patrones de manera aleatoria o variable en función de atractores.
Tras la realización de este workshop, el alumno será capaz de desarrollar sus propias gramáticas, con la confianza que da comprender los términos básicos de programación sobre los que se apoya todo el sistema de trabajo de Grasshopper.
Grasshopper nos abre todo un mundo de posibilidades en el diseño y en la fabricación digital.
PARA QUIÉN
El workshop está dirigido a estudiantes y profesionales de la arquitectura, el interiorismo, la ingeniería, el diseño de producto, el diseño industrial y, en general, perfiles creativos y disciplinas artísticas que quieran introducirse en el mundo del diseño paramétrico.
Es recomendable tener conocimientos previos de Rhinoceros (nivel básico) ya que hay algunos conceptos que pueden ser útiles para un mejor seguimiento del workshop.
…
l coarse mesh
Subdividing this mesh into strips of thin quads
Relaxing/Planarizing this mesh
Splitting and Unrolling
In this post I deal with the first 2 of these stages.
You can download the example definition here:
developable_strips_tutorial.gh
Drawing the initial mesh
To begin with we need a simple quad mesh. This can be modelled manually in Rhino, and only needs to use enough quads to give the topology and very rough form. No need to worry too much about the exact geometry or dimensions at this point, as we will refine and alter it as we go.
One very important thing that we do need to bear in mind though is that all internal vertices must have even valence (I covered this a bit in the earlier post here).
So for example, this is bad:
(because the highlighted vertex is surrounded by 5 faces)
While this is good (and can still be relaxed to the same shape):
(the top and bottom vertices have valence 8, and the vertices between the arms have valence 4)
With a little practice it should be possible to convert any mesh into one that meets this condition.
The reasons why we need this condition should become more clear in the later steps.
First subdivision
This is where we choose how many strips we want our final model to have, by applying a few rounds of subdivision using the Refine component (you could also use Weaverbird here):
Sorting the face directions
While quad meshes do not carry the same information about u/v directions as a NURBS surface, the individual faces do have a sort of direction given by their vertex ordering. However, these face directions are usually not consistently arranged, especially after subdivision.
The Kangaroo MeshDirection component attempts* to orient all the faces in a mesh so that they match with their neighbours.
For example, before sorting, if we draw a line from the midpoint of the first edge of each face to the midpt of its opposite edge, we might get something like this:
Whereas after sorting, we should get something like this:
*note that I say it attempts to orient the faces consistently. In some cases no valid solution exists, for instance if 3 or 5 faces meet around a vertex, hence the requirement mentioned at the start for even valence vertices.
Directional Subdivision
Now that we have consistent face directions across the mesh, we can apply further subdivision, but this time in one direction only. So we go from roughly square quads to thin rectangles. The idea is that as we apply higher levels of this directional subdivision, the final relaxed result goes towards something semi-discrete. A NURBS surface is fully continuous, and a mesh is fully discrete (made up of separate facets), while this strip model will be smooth in one direction and faceted in the other.
Go to part 2 for the next step of the process
…
ooking for an efficient way to perform glazing of complex shapes.
I've only followed the Energy modelling workshops so far so i may have missed some essential components or workflows to achieve my needs. But i've made an attached definition with all my current attempts to get a proper HBzone with the numerous windows faces i will always have to deal with in this project.
I first thought that i was not using the HBObjWGZ correctly, then after some readings it was maybe an upgrading issue, then effectively i had my Therm 7.5 that needed to be reinstaled, but then ... I must be missing an essential HB tricks or workflow i guess ...
So I divided my attempt in two series :
- The Serie 1 : is a simplier version of the project step i'm working on but i'd be glad to achieve it first !
- The Serie 2 : is the real final direction of the project, which consist in sorting/dispatch faces to windowon one side and to an other material on the other, according to the winter sun and a pourcentage param.
Despite it is more complicated than the Serie one, it seems seems to create the same diversity of issues.
Until now, with the 5 different combinations of Serie 1, and the 3 of Serie 2, with and without using the different Glazing/window components, here are the logs i got from both HBZone component or OpenStudio component:
From OpenStudio - "1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error: ** Severe ** BuildingSurface:Detailed="00073E23257843B6A948", invalid Construction Name="ETFE" - has Window materials.">> Has to deal with the way i'm trying to assign too early a customized EPConstruction material ? Done it wrong ? I tried to reload it in the library but doesn't change anything...
From OpenStudio - "1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error: ** Severe ** BuildingSurface:Detailed="000579CD749E46DFA5EA", invalid Construction Name="EXTERIOR WINDOW" - has Window materials.">> Is it an issue in the way i define my surfs both as "WINDOW" (5) for srfType and Outdoors on the same component ?
From Create HBZone -"1. Solution exception:'EPZone' object has no attribute 'shdCntrlZoneInstructs'"
>> Happens when i try to introduce my ETFE EpMaterial after creating my first HBZone, with a Set EP Zone Construction, so this material seems to be not working either before and after trying to create an HB Zone
From Create HBZone- "1. Solution exception: 73df51a3b2144b1e858b has been moved, scaled or rotated."If you need to move or rotate a Honeybee object you should use Honeybee move, rotate or mirror components. You can find them under 12|WIP tab.
>> >> wich seems to exist in some on other thread Here and was a coding bug supposed to be fixed.
And last but not least ...
From OpenStudio - "1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error: ** Severe ** checkSubSurfAzTiltNorm: Outward facing angle of subsurface differs more than 90.0 degrees from base surface.2. The simulation has failed because of this fatal error: ** Fatal ** GetSurfaceData: Errors discovered, program terminates" .
I'm attaching the file with each attempt in this post. The definitions are disabled and the log already copied separatly so there is no need to compute each of them to see what's wrong.
If someone from the beginner to one of the Kings of HoneyBee has any relevant answer/solution to this attempt with complex geometry Issue it will be really nice for me so i could to move forward !!
Thanks in advance guys and have a great day !
…
y from the Rhino model and having the absorption coefficients of the materials that are entered into Pachyderm, why is it not possible to generate a reverberation time diagram, without the need to start any analysis?
MAPPING METHOD: When for example the mapping of the Strenght Index (G) is generated through the "create map" option, succesively I can´t generate any other energy criterion map, but I have to redo the simulation.
Is it a limitation of the software or am I wrong something?
MAPPING METHOD: I kindly wanted to ask what is the difference between minimum and detailed convergence and why the number of reflections order it takes into account for the simulation is not specified. The mapping method take care only of the Raytracing Method or the Image Source too?
MAPPING METHOD: Why is the mapping value that can be exported to Rhino not generated for all the calculation raster points, but maximal only for 100 values?
MAPPING METHOD: This method hasn't been implemented in Grasshopper yet, has it?
RAYTRACING METHOD (Pach:RT): I did a raytracing through the components of GH, using only the Pach_RT, and I had these curious results in terms of time:
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:1 = 5min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:2 = 12min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:3 = 3min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:4 = 8min
RaysCount: 15.000, IS_Order:5 = 3min
Why a raytracing with only 2 order, is more and more extensive than the 3/4 and 5 order?
ANALYSIS RESULT: Would there be a way to export all the results of a simulation, as is done via Odeon, to a .txt list?
I apologize in advance for asking so many questions, I hope you can find the time to answer,
Yours sincerely from Müller-BBM…