the daylighting and energy sim with Nat Vent create many complex questions.
Daylighting :
1. Adding shading to energy AND daylight simulation: Can I add HBconext to Honeybee_run daylight simulation HBobject input ?
Looking at the results it seems like daylight simulation doesn't recognize HBcontext, or maybe the difference is minute. Am I doing this correctly? Is there a possible error due to redundancy ? (meaning I am introducing the HBcontext twice, one time to the Honeybee_run daylight simulation AND energy simulation)
2. One of the component, Honeybee_Read annual result 1 keeps failing and says that ''1. Solution exception:index out of range: 0." I read here input needs to be internalize data but maybe there is a better solution?
Shading :
I want to study life cycle perspective of
A) Optimal ratio of fixed vs dynamic louvers for economic implementation,
B) Assess whether it makes more sense for the dynamic louvers to functions as light shelvs or the fixed ones for economic reasons
C) Simulate dynamic/fixed hybrid louver system schedule, and show it in a manner similiar to lighting schedule.
For this I would need to simulate the effect of dynamic and-or fixed shades in reducing annual lighting cost while reducing cumulative heat gain.
3_How to introduce Dynamic shading schedule for custom shades? Is this done with EPtranschedule input of the HB EP context component? I would like to keep the louvers branched so that it is possible to assign different modes i.e. fixed or dynamic
Light Shelf:
4_Is the lighting schedule effected by light shelves introduced in the annual daylighting simulation?
5_Does energy simulation take account of additional heat gain from light shelvs ?
6_When I use Honeybee_createHBSrfs with Honeybee_radiance Mirror material, it crashes rhino. The geometry input is not branched. Any report similar crashes?
Nat Vent:
I want to design to combine passivhaus principles with Natural ventilation.
My goal to simulate the energy performance of passivhaus house like building system with Bouyancy driven Nat Vent design which maximizing the percentage of the year Nat Vent takes care of ventilation and cooling, and in cloud days heat exchanger with fans kicks in.
using a trombe roof that heats air and using a vertical shaft that recirculate air, want to minimize the use of fans, Ducts, Heating etc. and I want to use the HB Set_Air flow component to evaluate such system if I can.
while I have heard that bouncy driven system may only be reserved for tall buildings, I still would to simulate the effectiveness for mid rizes and podium- types. I am skeptical whether there will be enough pressure difference for effective ventilation of 1.5ms so I would like to test.
How to set up models to evaluate bouyancy driven ventilation :
7 About HB Set_Air Flow, with Natural ventilation, If I use the HB Set_air the honeyzone output is null. I am not sure why, no error messages.
8_ When using the HB Set Air component to include Nat Vent with bouyancy,
does the result of reduced temperature to take effect into the cooling/equipment/ventilation schedule of the Honeybee_set Energy plus zone schedules?
Additionally I want to incorporate Nat vent analysis with the light shelf, since both would effect indoor temperature.
A wish list: as if it were all this has been not.
9_I wish there is something like a deconstruct honeybee zone component that basically breaks down all the options (mechanically ventilated or not) that is associated with the honeybee zones so that it is easy to document all the properties in text.…
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!
…
ers can be applied from the right click Context Menu of either a component's input or output parameters. With the exception of <Principal> and <Degrees> they work exactly like their corresponding Grasshopper Component. When a I/O Modifier is applied to a parameter a visual Tag (icon) is displayed. If you hover over a Tag a tool tip will be displayed showing what it is and what it does.
The full list of these Tags:
1) Principal
An input with the Principal Icon is designated the principal input of a component for the purposes of path assignment.
For example:
2) Reverse
The Reverse I/O Modifier will reverse the order of a list (or lists in a multiple path structure)
3) Flatten
The Flatten I/O Modifier will reduce a multi-path tree down to a single list on the {0} path
4) Graft
The Graft I/O Modifier will create a new branch for each individual item in a list (or lists)
5) Simplify
The Simplify I/O Modifier will remove the overlap shared amongst all branches. [Note that a single branch does not share any overlap with anything else.]
6) Degrees
The Degrees Input Modifier indicates that the numbers received are actually measured in Degrees rather than Radians. Think of it more like a preference setting for each angle input on a Grasshopper Component that state you prefer to work in Degrees. There is no Output option as this is only available on Angle Inputs.
7) Expression
The Expression I/O Modifier allows you change the input value by evaluating an expression such as -x/2 which will have the input and make it negative. If you hover over the Tag a tool tip will be displayed with the expression. Since the release of GH version 0.9.0068 all I/O Expression Modifiers use "x" instead of the nickname of the parameter.
8) Reparameterize
The Reparameterize I/O Modifier will only work on lines, curves and surfaces forcing the domains of all geometry to the [0.0 to 1.0] range.
9) Invert
The Invert Input Modifier works in a similar way to a Not Gate in Boolean Logic negating the input. A good example of when to use this is on [Cull Pattern] where you wish to invert the logic to get the opposite results. There is no Output option as this is only available on Boolean Inputs.
…
tions or components.
Participants will learn concepts of object oriented programming and essential syntax of C# to endeavour into personally extending cad toolsets. The workshop will focus on introducing the .NET language C# and the Software Development Kit (SDK) RhinoCommon.
Topics
- use of Script Component within Grasshopper
- explanation to the .NET Framework
- introduction to RhinoCommon SDK
- basics of imperative / object-oriented programming
- data types, operators, properties
- variables, arrays, lists, enumerations
- methods
- objects, classes
- control structures: conditional statements (if, else, switch)
- control structures: loops (for, foreach, while, do)
- walk-through iterative und recursive code-samples
- use of RhinoCommon Geometry class library: creation, sorting, editing of Geometry (Points, Vectors, Curves, Surfaces)
- adding (baking) geometry to the active Rhino 3DM Document, including attributes (Name, Layer, Colors etc.)
- introduction to the Integrated Development Environment MS Visual Studio Express Edition
- compiling code to dll/gha files (plug-ins) / making your own Grasshopper custom components
Grasshopper wird auf der .NET Softwareplattform entwickelt, und kann ebenso wie das CAD Programm Rhinoceros mit "RhinoCommon", einem Software Development Kit, erweitert werden.
Dieser Kurs richtet sich an Designer, Architekten, Ingenieure und Techniker, welche mit dem grafischen Algorithmus-Modellierer "Grasshopper3d" sowie dem CAD-Programm "Rhinoceros" bereits vertraut sind und einen Einstieg in die Programmierung von Geometrie erlernen möchten.
Der Kurs Grasshopper II folgende Grundlagen:
Kennenlernen der Script Componente
Erläuterung zum .NET Framework
Einführung in RhinoCommon SDK
Grundlagen d. imperativen / objektorientierten Programmierung
Datentypen, Operatoren, Eigenschaften
Variablen, Reihen, Listen, Aufzählungen
Methoden
Objekte und Klassen
Kontrollstrukturen: Bedingte Ausführung, Schleifen
praxisnahe iterative und rekursive Code-Beispiele für generatives Design unter Verwendung der RhinoCommon Geometrie Klassenbibiliothek - Punkt- und Vektorgeometrie erstellen, sortieren, bearbeiten, Flächen und Netze erstellen - Geometrie in das Rhino 3DM Dokument baken, einschließlich Attribute (Name, Layer, Color)
Einführung in die Entwicklungsumgebung MS Visual Studio Express Edition
Kompilieren von Programmerweiterungen (plug-ins) als Komponenten (custom components)
Details, Anmeldung:
www.vhs-stuttgart.de
Trainer Peter Mehrtens
Kursdauer: 3 Tage x 8 h
Freitag, 21.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Samstag, 22.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Sonntag, 23.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Ort: VHS Stuttgart, Fritz-Elsas-Str. 46/48
Teilnahmegebühr 510,00 €…
odellazione digitale, approfondendo le metodologie della modellazione algoritmica e parametrica nel campo dell’architettura e del design del prodotto. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti dei settori della progettazione architettonica, design, moda e gioielleria. L'evento sarà trasmesso live e sperimenterà innovative forme di interazione tra docente e partecipanti. Le lezioni saranno registrate e sempre disponibili per gli iscritti. Sarà rilasciato un attestato di partecipazione.
_
TIPO DI EVENTO: LIVE WEBINAR (le lezioni saranno registrate e sempre disponibili per gli iscritti) QUANDO: 05 Dicembre (14.00 - 19.00), 06 Dicembre (14.00 - 19.00) DOVE: Piattaforma Clickmeeting (gli utenti iscritti riceveranno un link univoco) DURATA: Evento live di 2 giorni - 8 ore effettive di lezione LIVELLO: base (il corso è pensato per studenti senza alcuna esperienza specifica in Rhino/Grasshopper) SOFTWARE: Rhinoceros, Grasshopper, Ladybug (i link al download dei software in formato trial verranno forniti agli iscritti nei giorni precedenti l'evento). PREREQUISITI: esperienza base di modellazione tridimensionale (sviluppata su qualsiasi piattaforma) LINGUA: Italiano INTERAZIONE: Live chat e sessioni di domande/risposte ATTESTATI: sarà rilasciato attestato di partecipazione (no crediti formativi) MATERIALE: materiale didattico verrà fornito agli iscritti nei giorni precedenti l'evento. TUTOR: Arturo Tedeschi, Maurizio Degni
_
INFO ED ISCRIZIONE
…
to a rationalized integer format for use in the grasshopper definition . I don't want to convert the information permanently, but have been looking for an elegant method for converting the datetime string as needed so that it can interface within a grasshopper definition.
What I am trying to do is create a process for working with the timestamp included alongside sensor data I pull from Cosm. The data feed is formatted like this; <current_value at="2012-07-25T05:24:44.601988Z">77.68</current_value> and the Time paramater seems to easily understand the datetime string to read 2012-07-25T05:24:44.601988 as Wednesday, 25 July 2012 (05:24:44) so I plan on keeping the string as is when stored in a local mySQL database I have setup, but want to make sure I am not setting myself up for major headaches down the road.
I asked about converting the date time string to an integer to allow me to find time spans and generate a series of time stamps in an efficient way for creating a batch/ iterative process for requesting additional sets of data based on a query comparison of what gaps are left to fill in along a timeline of data points.
At the moment, I think a conversion to an integer is my best bet. (ref; Excel Date Time Code Id love to be able to feed in a date into a math component, add 08:00:00 and for it to result with a time 8 hours later than the first. I also have a string manipulation method working also, but have yet to really test it beyond what I have shown in the screenshot below.
I currently have these batches stream from Cosm.com into Grasshopper via a xml parser component (either the one found in Andy Payne's Firefly set, or the one included in gHowl.) From there I sort/ extract the data points and their respective time stamps and feed these data points into a mySQL database I've setup with Nathan Miller's Slingshot components. With the points in a local SQL database, I can then begin to integrate the use of database queries into definitions and retrieve data points based on sensor value Booleans rather than being restricted to time spans, (which is the only way to request historical data from Cosm's site)
I've been debating on if I should convert all the time information to an integer before writing it to the SQL database so GH can work with the data, or if I should keep the time code as a string and create a couple of conversation component clusters to translate the information each time it needs to be processed or manipulated in GH. I'd prefer to keep things in the date time string because the database can handle it without a problem, GH sort of handles it in one translation direction and allows me to avoid conversion that Id have to explain to others if they were to access the database in their own grasshopper definition or from another application.…
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.
…
curve or locus] of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment, AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.
When you construct l'arc capable —by using compass— you obviously need to find the centre of this arc. This can be easily done in GH in many ways by using some trigonometry (e.g. see previous —great— solutions). Whole circles instead of arcs provide supplementary isoptics —β-isoptic and (180º-β)-isoptic—. Coherent normals let you work in any plane.
Or you could just construct β-isoptics of AB by using tangent at A (or B). I mean [Arc SED] component.
If you want the true β-isoptic —the set of all the points— you should use {+β, -β} degrees (2 sides; 2 solutions; 2 arcs), but slider in [-180, +180] degrees provides full range of signed solutions. Orthoptic is provided by ±90º. Notice that ±180º isoptic is just AB segment itself, and 0º isoptic should be the segment outside AB —(-∞, A] U [B, +∞)—. [Radians] component is avoidable.
More compact versions can be achieved by using [F3] component. You can choose among different expressions the one you like the most as long as performs counter clockwise rotation of vector AB, by 180-β degrees, around A; or equivalent. [Panel] is totally avoidable.
Solutions in XY plane —projection; z = 0—, no matter A or B, are easy too. Just be sure about the curve you want to find the intersection with —Curve; your wall— being contained in XY plane.
A few self-explanatory examples showing features.
1 & 5 1st ver. (Supplementary isoptics) (ArcCapableTrigNormals_def_Bel.png)
2 & 6 2nd ver. (SED) (ArcCapableSED_def_Bel.png)
3 & 7 3rd ver. (SED + F3) (ArcCapableSEDF3_def_Bel.png)
4 & 8 4th ver. (SED + F3, Projection) (ArcCapableSEDProjInt_def_Bel.png)
If you want to be compact, 7 could be your best choice. If you prefer orientation robustness, 5. Etcetera.
I hope these versions will help you to compact/visualize; let me know any feedback.
Calculate where 2 points [A & B] meet at a specific angle is just find the geometrical locus called arco capaz in Spanish, arc capable in French (l'isoptique d'un segment de droite) or isoptic [curve or locus]
of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment,
AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.…