that both the ASHRAE and European Adaptive models were derived from surveys of awake occupants. While the topic has not been investigated as well as it should be, the few adaptive-style surveys of sleeping occupants that have been conducted show that people tend to desire significantly cooler temperatures when they are sleeping as opposed to when they are awake.
Notably, Chapter 8 of Humphrey's recently-published book on Adaptive Comfort (https://books.google.com/books?id=lOZzCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Adaptive+Thermal+Comfort+Foundations+and+analysis&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6npqSi__KAhUJMj4KHf7SCXMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=Adaptive%20Thermal%20Comfort%20Foundations%20and%20analysis&f=false) provides some interesting insights into this. In a 1973 survey, Humphreys found that the quality of sleep started to deteriorate at temperatures above 24-26C regardless of the time of year and that there was no clearly-determinable lower limit to comfortable sleeping temperatures (in other words, people were fine at 12C if they were given enough blankets). He surveyed only British occupants who were sleeping in traditional beds with mattresses and a wide range of blankets. This is important because the nature of the findings is such that the comfort temperatures would be very different if the survey participants had been sleeping in a hammock or in closer contact with the ground (both popular practices for a number of cultures living in warmer climates). Traditional mattresses cut the ability to radiate body heat in half as compared to a standing human body and I would venture a guess that this is a big reason why much cooler temperatures are desired while sleeping on mattresses as opposed to standing awake/uptight.
So for your case, if you want to account for a time of the day that occupants are sleeping on mattresses, I would change the comfort temperature for this these hours down to 24C. Otherwise, if you are trying to show the comfortable hours of awake people in your space, your current 100% comfortable nighttime hours are a better estimate. I have also noticed that nighttime temperatures become comfortable in extreme weeks of hot/dry climates. This is what is happening in this extreme week simulation of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJz1Eojph8E&index=3&list=PLruLh1AdY-Sj3ehUTSfKa1IHPSiuJU52A
I will put in the ability to set custom values for comfort temperatures into the Adaptive Comfort Recipe soon so that you can test out a 'sleeping comfort temperature' if you would like. I have created a github issue for it here:
https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/issues/486
I was not so convinced by Nicol's argument about humidity on those pages as I was when I saw the correlations of both operative temperature and effective temperature to surveyed comfort votes in real buildings. Humphreys shows these correlations on page 106 of the book I linked to above. Notably, the correlation of Effective Temperature to comfort votes (0.257) is slightly worse than the correlation of just Operative Temperature (0.265). In other words, trying to account for humidity actually weakened the predictive power of the metric. This difference in correlation is not so great as for me to discount an Adaptive comfort model based on Effective temperature (as deDear once proposed). However, the correlations of PMV (0.213) and SET (0.185) to comfort votes are so poor that I now use the PMV model only with great caution.
This reason for the decreased importance of humidity may be multi-faceted, whether it's Nicol's explanation or another. Still, the data suggests that we are probably better off ignoring humidity when forecasting comfort and should only consider it when evaluating conditions of extreme heat stress where people's primary loss of heat is through sweating.
-Chris…
deform into rhombic dedocahedrons when they reach equilibrium.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicClosePacking.html
I was trying to model sphere lattice constrained within a boundary box. When inflated, they would not intersect with each other; they would stay in place; and would be malleable just enough to expand and fill in the gaps in between the spheres.
I started off with the help of this thread here(Thanks for those contributed!). As I understood, there was a bug in Kangaroo2. Solver can't handle more than one item plugged in. So I tried to understand David's Stasiuk's Script and adopted it with a few variations, please see gh file attached.
In the first 5 - I've used David Stasiuk's C# component-variable pressure (posted on June 9, 2015 at 12:25am): 'No. 4.5' being the most successful simulation so far(inflation value is kept very low so that they would not intersect);
although I realised I made some math mistake in setting the close packing grid.(could be checked by plugging voronoi3D to see if the area of the rhombic faces are regular)
No. 6-7 I tried with Kangaroo2 components.
After consulting my tutor(Andrei Jipa)'s help, I realised the following changes could be made:
- The definition posted by David on June 8, 2015 at 4:47pm with constant pressure would've worked better.
- Icosahedrons with WbCatmull(Quad divisions) would result in more even load distribution. With wbloop, vertices more concentrated at poles.
- Load in dir Z could be omitted. Andrei has suggested to use lengths(line) in Kangaroo 2 as 'pressure' instead. And I am trying to improve the grid; and maybe try with David's constant pressure definition. I will keep you guys posted of the progress!
I am new to the parametric world, comments/advice very much appreciated! :) Zhini
…
r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like 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."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."[...] 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.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'.
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.
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 this time around 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.
Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity.
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
david@mcneel.com…
ght on why this is, and some ideas I have for how to improve things going forward.
MeshMachine grew out of some scripts I started developing over 3 years ago (described here), originally just with the aim of achieving approximately equal edge lengths on a smooth closed triangulated mesh.
As time went on, I kept adding things, such as ways of keeping boundaries and sharp edges fixed, different ways of controlling edge lengths that vary across the surface, and different ways of pulling to surfaces.
I was also still experimenting with different rules for the core remeshing operations, such as valence driven vs angle driven edge flips.
All of these things meant many variables in the script. I wanted to share the work so others could play with it, but not really knowing exactly what people might use it for made it difficult to simplify the interface, so I just exposed most of these variables I was using (actually there were originally even more, but I felt a component with 20+ inputs was excessive, and combined some of them and fixed others to default values).
I've never been happy with that component, but some people want a component that you can just feed a surface and get a mesh with 'nice' triangles, without too much fuss or needing to know anything about how it works, while other people want to be able to vary the density based on proximity to the border, and curvature, and attractor points and see the intermediate results, and model minimal surfaces without pulling to any underlying surface, and...
Since then I did the rewrite from Kangaroo to Kangaroo2, and through that process, and associated conversations with Steve Baer, David Rutten and Will Pearson, my ideas about how to structure libraries and make cleaner more flexible Grasshopper components changed. Much of this centres around using interfaces (in the specific programming sense, not to be confused with UI), because they allow separating code into multiple components, while still allowing to edit parts of it within Grasshopper, and other parts in a proper IDE (because I find the GH code editor is not conducive to writing large amounts of well structured object oriented code).
Towards the end of last year, Dave Stasiuk and Anders Deleuran invited me and Will Pearson over to CITA for a few days of mesh and physics coding and beer drinking. During this time I made the first steps to restructuring MeshMachine to be more modular and interface based like Kangaroo2, instead of one giant script. One of the main motivations for doing this was to make it easier to combine the K2 physics library with the remeshing. However, at the time I hadn't yet released K2, so it didn't make sense to post examples that used those libraries. After the launch of K2, this restructured MeshMachine development has been a bit on the back-burner, but this discussion and Dave Stasiuk's work with Cocoon is inspiring me to pick it up again.
Seeing how you are combining the Cocoon and MeshMachine, and how Dave is also using interfaces in his recent work suggests to me it might be possible to integrate them more smoothly...
…
ly 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication)
The third edition of digitalMed Workshop is structured as a design laboratory. Participants will learn the challenging process of producing ideas, projects and research analysis that are to be developed through specific software and concepts that emerge through the use of mapping, parametric design and digital fabrication.
The workshop will take place in the city of Salerno (Italy) and it will last 11 days structured into 3 intensive weekends: July 13-14-15 (mapping); July 19-20-21-22 (parametric design); July 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication).
Goals and Objectives:
We aim to make clear the theoretical and technical knowledge in the approach to parametric and generative design and digital fabrication. (From collection and data management, to the manner in which these inform the geometries, to the fabrication of prototypes.)
Participants will also have the opportunity to practice the new knowledge gained in the design laboratory through project work.
Project Theme:
"Urban Field" Identify, study and analyze the system of public spaces in the urban area of the city of Salerno.
Connection, mutation, generation and evolution are the themes to be followed in project work.
Brief Description of Topics:
- Mapping. Our reality, in all its forms, has studied through concepts of the theory of Complex Systems. The techniques that will be used to study events and places of reality, will work for the management, manipulation and visualization of data and information. These will form the basis for project management and driven geometry, conducted during the second phase of the workshop.
- Parametric Design. Introduction to Rhino* and Grasshopper. Specifically, we will explain the concepts with which to work with the software of parametric design and how they function. Through these tools, we will arrive at the definition of systems of mathematical and / or geometrical relationships that are able to generate and govern patterns, shapes and objects that will inform the final design.
- Digital Fabrication. In this phase, participants of the workshop are organized into working groups. Participants have access to materials and conceptual apparatus that will take them directly to the fabrication of the geometries of the project, with the use of software CAD / CAM interface and the use of machines for the digital fabrication.
The DigitalMed workshop is organized by Nomad AREA (Academy of Research & Training in topics of Contemporary Architecture), in collaboration with the City of Salerno, the Order of Architects Province of Salerno and the National Institute of Architecture In / Arch - Campania.
Interested parties may download the Notice of Competition at the address www.digitalmedworkshop.com and fill the pre-registration no later than July 10th 2012.
PRESS OFFICE
Dr. Francesca Luciano
328 61 20 830
fra_luciano@libero.it
For information or subscriptions:
e-mail: info@digitalmedworkshop.com - tel: 089 463126 - 3391542980 …
ature. By investigating the process of decay across various scales, we will formulate rules of generating decomposition as our design research area. These rules will evolve into design strategies for the creation and fabrication of a large-scale prototype. The design and fabrication process will be informed by the use of robotic fabrication techniques.
The three-week long programme is formulated as a two-phase process. During the two-week initial phase, participants benefit from the unique atmosphere and facilities of AA’s London home. The second phase, lasting for a week, shifts to AA’s woodland site in Hooke Park and revolves around the fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention.
Prominent Features of the programme:
• Teaching team: Participants engage in an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
• Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, and 3d printing facilities. The facilities at AA Hooke Park allow for the fabrication of one-to-one scale prototypes with a 3-axis CNC router, various woodworking power tools, and robotic fabrication.
• Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Processing, Grasshopper, and various analysis tools.
• Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
• Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
• Fabrication: According to the specific agenda of each year, a one-to-one scale prototype is fabricated and assembled by design teams.
• Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants receive the AA Visiting School Certificate with the completion of the Programme.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1964 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. A deposit of £381 is required when registering with the online form. The deadline for applications is 20 July 2015. No portfolio or CV is required. Online application link:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=325
Return train tickets between London-Hooke Park, accommodation & food in Hooke Park, and materials from Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) are included in the fees.
Programme Directors:
Elif Erdine (AA Summer DLAB Director): elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk
Alexandros Kallegias (AA Summer DLAB Director): alexandros.Kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk
…
lysis, and large-scale prototyping techniques. The research generated at Summer DLAB has been published in international media and peer-reviewed conference papers.
AA Summer 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. 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 robotic fabrication techniques.
Prominent Features of the programme:
Teaching team: Summer DLAB tutors are selected from recent graduates / current tutors at the AA and the small student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, and 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms.
Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Grasshopper and various computational analysis tools.
Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB.
Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making.
Robotic Fabrication: Scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools each year, followed by the fabrication of 1:1 scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots.
Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme.
Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB.
Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1950 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details.
The deadline for applications is 16 July 2018. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=537
For inquiries, please contact:
elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)…
horas.
Los datos al contextualizar la fachada serán:
Vehículos (ISD: input social data)
Personas (ISD: input social data)
Edificaciones contiguas: (UI: urban input)
Sol (Radiación e iluminación): (EFI: energetic flow input)
Creación de energía solar y térmica: (ECI: energetic contribution input)
Objetivos específicos:
Cada asistente generará una fachada contextual a esos 5 inputs.
Entenderá la plataforma de Grasshopper
Comprenderá los conceptos de diseño generativo
Usará los conceptos de programación orientada a objetos (POO)
Generará renders y modelos físicos de la fachada (Fabricación digital)
Costos: $3,250 alumnos $4,180 alumnos de posgrado y profesores $4,830 profesionales
Aulas VI salón 6205, ITESM CEM
Informes: (55)-34449396 mexdf@krfr.org bioarchitecturestudio@gmail.com
Para más información visitanos en:
Fachadas ContextualesWorkshop >Fachadas Contextuales< KRFR|SEEDKRFR|SEED Red Internacional de Investigación OR/gan
http://www.bioarchitecturestudio.wordpress.com
…
: August 15 & 16Time: 8:00am - 5:00pmPrice: US$495
Course Description:
This workshop will give students a functional understanding of Grasshopper and generative data driven design. This will allow them to build on this understanding into more advanced projects of their own including design optimization and cutting models on a laser machine. Basic knowledge of Rhino is required.
Details...
Location:McNeel Miami1538 NW 89th CourtDoral, FL 33172United States
Register here!
…
he last nights, let me try to describe it:-disclaimer: I'm an industrial designer, my coding experience can be compared to your, when you were 4 year old :)-disclaimer 2: I did a picture at the end of the post that maybe explains more than my words
the component has 2 inputs (Start Value, End Value) and one output (Picked Value)
this phantomatic component (which I would refere to as "dynamic value picker") supports any amount of domains on every input -> it works as if they come grafted, from a "longest list" component
The component "at rest" shows only one slider -with question marks on both edges-
For every couple on inputs you connect (1 Start Value connection + 1 End Value connection) it would visually generate a new slider (exactly like a "number slider" component)main difference from the "number slider" component, this one would show the Start Value and End Value numbers at the edges of each thus generated slider
Right click -> edit on it would recall a window similar to the "number slider", with the main difference that only the first part of those options would be present (see attached image for clarity)Whatever slide accuracy you set, it will affect the whole "dinamic value picker" phantom component (if you set "integer numbers" and for any reason one or more inputs are "floating points numbers", the component automatically rounds the inputs to the best "Integer", and allows you only to pick integer numbers in-between)
If you suddenly change a "Start Value" or an "End Value" input, the affected slider/sliders in the component will try to stay as close as possible to the same % value they were before (example if the domain was from 5 to 11, integers only, and you first picked the value 8, the slider was exactly in position 50%: when you change the End Value domain to 21 the slider will set itself to 13 - yes, I picked an easy one lol )
When you first plug a couple of Start Value + End Value, the slider sets itself to Picked Value = Start Value
It could also be possible to supply negative values as Value End and positive values as Value Start: the slider let you pick a number on that domain regardless of the numerical order you use
Last thing, but it's just fancy imagination, if you zoom-in the output (Picked Value) connection dot, a little - and + appears (like in other common components), letting you add a new cursor to every existing slider (it could be possible to customize the color of the new cursor to avoid confusion)
This is the exact description of what I would ask to the lamp genie :)
I attach a pic I just did, in the hope to better explain myself: picture link
and of course thank you again for reading this long poem!
…