fault materials...6 RAD materials are loaded1. 2. Downloading OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf to c:\ladybug\3. Loading EP construction library4. 206 material found in c:\ladybug\OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf5. 30 windowmaterial found in c:\ladybug\OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf6. 284 construction found in c:\ladybug\OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf7. Loading EP schedules...8. The ScheduleTypeLimits: Fraction is already existed in the libaray.You need to rename this ScheduleTypeLimits.9. The ScheduleTypeLimits: Temperature 7 is already existed in the libaray.You need to rename this ScheduleTypeLimits.10. 21 scheduletypelimits found in c:\ladybug\OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf11. 1370 schedule found in c:\ladybug\OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf12. 13. 14. Hooohooho...Flying!!Vviiiiiiizzz...…
0, 5, 10, 15, 20
1, 6, 11, 16, 21
2, 7, 12, 17, 22
3, 8, 13, 18, 23
4, 9, 14, 19, 24
and if i'm here is because i'm not able... :)
can you help me?
thank you
…
} (N=11) {0;1} (N=11) {0;2}(N = 11) {0;3}(N = 11) {0;4}(N = 11)
2. I run the Points that are coming out from the Divide Curve Components through the Path Mapper components with this definition:
{A;B} (i) > {A} (i)
3. I run data coming out from Path Mapper component through:
a) Parameter Viewer component and the result is:
{0} N=11 (data with 1 branches)
b) Point > Panel and the result is:
collection of 11 point (N=11) which is the exactly the same as the collection of point belonging to {0;4} (N = 11).
So, here is the question:
why the collection of points coming out from the Path Mapper {A;B} (i) > {A} (i) component is the same as the collection of points belonging to the curve {0;4}(N = 11) ?
Anyway ... It 's the first time I ask a question here... so I would like to thank you for what you do with your work! Thank you! You are really great!…
First use a series component with start=1, step=42, count=3
Use the output to create a new series component with start=existingseries, step=1, count=11
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.
…