upgrading to a 28" 4K monitor (3840 x 2160 pixels) and was a bit concerned about how GH would work on that resolution. But now you've got me interested in in a 5K screen. …
pen Brep"; I didn't know it worked on flat surfaces. And I think it's only fair to include in your benchmark the considerable time 'SUnion' takes in this example: 21.9 seconds for 121 rings and likely much more with 400 or 1,000+ rings.
Then I noticed the pattern doesn't match. Checked the circles and they are the same. The distance between them, however, is different: 7 instead of 6. When I change that value to 6, the Python fails badly. All the holes and gaps are gone, which destroys the pattern:
I can't do the "two phase" approach on an 11 X 11 grid, but I can do 6 X 6 and 2 X 2 to get a 12 X 12 grid (40 'SUnion' operations) in 28 seconds total. That beats your benchmark of ~37 seconds for an 11 X 11 grid, if you include the 'SUnion' in your code.
…
on of a problem for me, cuz Grasshopper modeling has literally ♥♥♥ CHANGED MY LIFE ♥♥♥ and it is capability's are AWESOME.
The problem started today when a very simple definition took 28 s to perform. I send pic's and def.…
at your original list of numbers, if I am to go through and check manually to see what I should be getting out, I think you should only get a few outputs (which is why I was confused by all the outputs at the end of the definition.
For example, just as an example I started with X1 as 279 (item index 11). When I did the math, the only indexes that I got were 15,28, and 33.
This is because:
since 279 is positive, look for next number that is at least 180 less or 360 more than X1.
the value of 78 (item index 15) is the first value to satisfy this requirement.
Then, since 78 is smaller than 279, we are looking for the next value at least 180 more or 360 less than 78.
The value 272 (item index 28) is that next value.
Then since 272 is larger than 78, we are looking for the next value at least 180 less or 360 more than 272.
The value 52 (item index 33) is the next value.
So the definition should output the following:
indexes 15, 28, 33.
Does that make sense?…
Added by Brian Harms at 4:20pm on December 10, 2011
the bar chart. So the same schedule and loads are being used each day but it's just the number of days that is different.
If this does not account for all of the differences you are seeing, let me know and I can check out your GH file.
-Chris…
heating? Or cooling?)
What if you have 20C? You need to heat to 24-26?
What if you have 28? Then you cool to 24-26?
Something is missing here ...
Or am i wrong? (In this case i don't understand the logic).
Besides that, you are simulating 3 zones instead of 1. Your conncetions of all the HB_setEPZoneSchedules to the HB_setEPIdealAir is causing this. Messy ... a little bit.
-A.…