Visiting School Rio de Janeiro will collaborate with the Centro Carioca de Design with the support of Columbia University Studio X to investigate new possibilities for the urban infrastructure surrounding World Cup Stadiums. Nation-wide, there has been significant investment to build and renovate stadiums for the 2014 World Cup in order to meet the required standard FIFA regulations (‘Padrão FIFA’). At the same time, there has been a large public demand for equal investment into transport systems, public space, and public programs such as hospitals and schools. The Visiting School will tap into the momentum of this movement, and promote a series of interventions within and around the World Cup structures, proposing new public programs and standards for their legacy. Students can choose to focus directly on the Maracanã stadium in Rio de Janeiro, the venue for the Final match of the World Cup. The intense ten-day workshop will employ computational design and digital fabrication to introduce a design methodology that creatively automates and promotes transformation, mutation and complexity for these infrastructure interventions.
Prominent Features of the workshop
Teaching teamThe teaching team will include a mix of tutors from the Architectural Association, including Theodore Sarantoglou Lalis e Dora Sweijd (lassa-architects.com) of Diploma 17, and locally-based architects, urban-designers and experts, mediated by locally-based Visiting School directors, to promote cutting-edge innovative strategies informed by local political, economic and construction issues.
Computational skillsThe workshop will teach advanced digital modeling and parametric design skills, no previous experience is needed. A group of specialist computation tutors will conduct an initial skills workshop and continue to assist throughout the workshop to develop the individual projects of the participants.
Digital FabricationA series of physical models will be built using digital fabrication techniques that will be taught during the workshop, no previous experience is needed.
Applications
1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer.
2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is not required.
The deadline for applications is 11thApril 2014.
All participants travelling from abroad are responsible for securing any visa required, and are advised to contact their home embassy early. After payment of fees, the AA School can provide a letter confirming participation in the workshop.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee.
Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised. Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools. Please ensure this equipment is covered by your own insurance as the AA takes no responsibility for items lost or stolen at the workshop.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, phd candidates and young professionals.
…
surfaces resulting from 'SrfSplit' so they could be sorted to discard the largest one (in cases where a Voronoi curve crossed a surface seam, there are three resulting surfaces, not just two) and
The centroid for each Voronoi curve/surface required for scaling the holes.
So I created a cluster called 'pLen' which returns the perimeter length of a surface (the sum of the lengths of its edges) to be used instead of surface area for sorting (#1). And used another cluster I have called 'PtCloudCntr' that returns the mathematical center of a point cloud (#2). Both of these clusters are extremely fast and worked fine together as a replacement for 'Area'.
But in the process, I discovered and fixed a couple things:
In those cases where Voronoi intersection curves cross a seam in the "Primary Surface", I joined the two pieces together before creating the hole - eliminating the seam from the results!
Somehow the optional 'Bounding Box' used by 'Voronoi³' component got lost (oops) so it was cutting off the results bounded by the random points instead of the "Primary Surface". Fixed that and found later that in some cases (the 'Revolve Srf' in this code), it works much better to double the size of the 'Bounding Box'. Since there is no penalty for this, speed or otherwise, the larger box is used for all surfaces.
The results are MUCH BETTER than before. Surfaces don't lose their edges, holes aren't corrupted by seams and the code runs in roughly 2/3rds the previous times (30 seconds instead of 45 seconds for 438 holes as in prior code). For 100 holes, it takes only six to eight seconds to change the "Primary Surface" and get a new holed surface.
This 'Revolve Srf' is substantially smaller in scale than the other surfaces and due to its apparent complexity(?), it starts to degrade in quality with "large holes", i.e., less than 100 holes:
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 2:14pm on December 22, 2015
bias towards higher-latitude climates where high humidity is less of a issue. The defaults do not include any humidity control, use a differential dry bulb air side economizer, and use the ASHRAE 62.2 ventilation specification, which uses a sum of ventilation/square meter + ventilation/person.
The unfortunate side of these default specs is that there is always some ventilation coming in (because of the ventilationPerArea), which often means that you're bringing in outdoor air in unoccupied hours that have a thermostat setback, minimal heat gains, and no need for cooling. Running the ventilation system without activating the cooling coil can mean that you are bringing in very humid outdoor air sometimes, particularly in evenings. As such, you may want to use only a ventilationPerPerson specification or use a ventilationSchedule to shut off the ventilation during these unoccupied hours (using the "Set EnergyPlus Loads" component or the "Set EnergyPlus Schedules" component respectively). This might mitigate your peak cooling at 9PM as well as your higher humidity in evenings, particularly if your space is not occupied then.
The differential dry bulb economizer might also introduce more outdoor air when it is humid outside, resulting in more "unrealistic" humidity values. As such, switching to a differential enthalpy economizer or removing the economizer altogether can avoid these cases of bringing in more humid outdoor air to cool the zone. You can do this with the "Set Ideal Air Loads Parameters" component.
If both these methods don't give you humidity values that you are happy with, you can always put in humidity control by setting a maxHumidity on the "Set EnergyPlus Zone Thresholds" component.
To be fair to the ideal air system, you would have to consider these ventilation/economizer/humidity control specifications for almost any air-based system that you are designing and I do not see these initially "unrealistic" humidity levels as a limitation of the ideal air system as much as a limitation of typical high-latitude HVAC controls. This said, I will fully admit the limitations of the ideal air system in terms of not giving electricity/fuel values (just loads) and the fact that you don't have a single multi-zone boiler/chiller supply air temperature as you would for a centralized HVAC system.
To get to your questions:
1) The danger of looking at energy balance variables for only a single hour is that you might not get them summing to something close to 0, since you are running a transient simulation. Over a day, you will be more likely to get values summing to 0 and (because of your building's thermal lag) you will also probably get a better representation of the cause of the peak cooling.
2) There was a bug in the code and you are not supposed to get the HVAC outputs with the "Read EP Result" component. You are supposed to use the "Read EP HVAC Result" component like so:
I have fixed this in the attached GH file. In case you were wondering what those units are, they are Joules. All energy results output from EP are in joules and I convert them to kWh inside the HB components since this is what we are typically using in the building industry.
-Chris…
ter the operation, i then mirror and join after operation is done. (bypasse the mirror cut mesh).
It seem that it does the work for now, but im not sure how this might impact me later on down the track.
Here the Results,
---------
I also tried to use the MirrorCutMesh together with the MirrorCutColour components which is not quite successful as the previous one, as it remap the whole mesh colour throughout the whole outcome. (i am wrong on how i interpolate the colour as it require to cull some colour that are cut)It does the mirroring Mapping colour but not from the Initial Geometry, comparing both image you will understand what i mean.
------
Here the grasshopper component i used and i also attached the files in case you want to give it a try.
As per the colour bridging condition, i think it is subjective, as it depend on the design. 1) one condition for this could be by using the colour from the original mesh colour to define the colour of the bridging element (The offset plane colour is apply to the bridge)2) Apply the same Mesh colour in along the bridge (Which might look ugly if their is a huge offset), for instance if it is red colour, it just translate the red colour across, it might be better to take the colour on the vertex of the mesh where it cut the plane to map onto the bridging component than averaging colour of the face
I hope this could be somehow helpful into developing the tool, as for myself i dont have much codding experience yet.
Regards,
Chris
-----FilesMeshColourTest.3dm
Colour%20Test%20Mirroring.gh
…
100)
Dim temPolyCrv As New PolylineCurve() ==> failed here.
temPolyCrv.SetStartPoint(p0)
temPolyCrv.SetPoint(1, p1)
2.
Dim pts As New List(Of Point3d)
Dim p0 As New Point3d(0, 0, 0)
Dim p1 As New Point3d(0, 0, 100)
Dim p2 As New Point3d(0, 100, 100)
pts.add(p0)
pts.add(p1)
pts.add(p2)
Dim temPolyCrv As New PolylineCurve(pts) ==> failed here.
And My visual Studio Error Message is,
" Dll Not Found Exception...."
But
RhinoCommon dll is in the referece list correctly
and I tried both "local copy" true, and false...
hm.....
…
o my python component returning null despite running fine in the standalone python editor (i.e.: not through grasshopper).The original python script is as follows:
import randomimport rhinoscriptsyntax as rsrs.EnableRedraw(False)
def placeBuildings(curve, distance): pts=rs.DivideCurveLength(curve,5) counter=0 for myPoint in pts: counter=counter+1 #get the parmeter f current positision param=rs.CurveClosestPoint(curve,myPoint) #get teh tangent of this parameter tangent=rs.CurveTangent(curve,param) #calculate the angle of the tangent angle=rs.Angle((0,0,0),tangent) randomNumber=random.uniform(1,5) heightOfBuilding=random.uniform(4,40) rect=rs.AddRectangle(rs.WorldXYPlane(),randomNumber,2) rs.MoveObject(rect,(0,randomNumber,0)) hull=rs.ExtrudeCurveStraight(rect,(0,0,0),(0,0,heightOfBuilding)) rs.RotateObject(hull,(0,0,0),angle[0]) rs.MoveObject(hull,myPoint) #if counter%4: #rs.AddCircle(myPoint,3) #selection of curve#curveParameter=rs.GetCurveObject("sel curve")#curve=curveParameter[0]
curves=rs.GetCurveObject("select streets",4)distance=rs.GetInteger("distance?",4)for curve in curves: placeBuildings(curve,distance) rs.ReverseCurve(curve) placeBuildings(curve,distance)
When placed in grasshopper it is the following:
import randomimport rhinoscriptsyntax as rs
#randomNumber=random.uniform(1,5)#rs.AddCircle((0,randomNumber,0), 2)
def placeBuildings(curve, distance): pts=rs.DivideCurveLength(curve, 5) counter=0 for myPoint in pts: counter=counter+1 #get the parmeter f current positision param=rs.CurveClosestPoint(curve,myPoint) #get teh tangent of this parameter tangent=rs.CurveTangent(curve,param) #calculate the angle of the tangent angle=rs.Angle((0,0,0),tangent) randomNumber=random.uniform(1,5) heightOfBuilding=random.uniform(4,40) rect=rs.AddRectangle(rs.WorldXYPlane(),randomNumber,2) rs.MoveObject(rect,(0,randomNumber,0)) hull=rs.ExtrudeCurveStraight(rect,(0,0,0),(0,0,heightOfBuilding)) rs.RotateObject(hull,(0,0,0),angle[0]) rs.MoveObject(hull,myPoint)
#selection of curve#curveParameter=rs.GetCurveObject("sel curve")#curve=curveParameter[0]
curves=xdistance=y
for curve in curves: placeBuildings(curve,distance) rs.ReverseCurve(curve) placeBuildings(curve,distance)
I am unsure why there is no error being returned yet I cannot achieve any result other than null. Maybe someone could look at the script and tell me what is going wrong? I'm hoping to solve this before next Thursday so I might be asking for too much.
Much Appreciated.-A…
Added by Adem O'Byrne at 11:45am on October 9, 2014
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.
…
gap as for a 20 meter gap, it's not a good argument.
I fully concede that not every single thing may be backed up by logic. There are simply too many design decisions to make and not enough time to make them rigorously. And I do believe there is place for human intuition and art in architecture, but I also think that artistic (or intuitive, or emotional) considerations should clearly be labelled as such.
When Le Corbusier designed the urban layout of the city of Chandigarh he used his intuition to distribute the buildings and clusters. His intuition however was grounded in European climes and it failed him in India. On hot days it becomes almost impossible to walk the distance between them. Would Chandigarh have been a better place if the maximum distance was defined by the largest walkable distance on the hottest day of the year instead of the unjustifiable intuition of the designer? I suspect it would.
Furthermore, I believe that architects - student and professionals alike - regularly make formal decisions according to their aesthetic judgement. To suggest that students aren't qualified to make a design decision during their studies because they think it's formally successful seems exceedingly stingy;
There are plenty of rational decisions which are made by tacit processes. People can become very good at mimicking rational behaviour using intuition. And -as I said- if you are an architect with a distinguished career; if you've already proven yourself to be capable of good design then there comes a point where your intuitions can be trusted (to an extend).
But students whose every design has always been virtual, who have not been able to evaluate their decisions by a follow-up study, I don't see how anybody can trust their instincts. Instincts aren't just sitting in someone's brain, they are cultivated by relentless exercise and trial-and-error. Until you actually build something there is no error, only trial, and virtual trial at that.
I find architects' attempts to justify what are obviously decisions based on formal taste using other means often taking the same form of obfuscation that makes architects appear to be intellectual charlatans to specialists in other fields.
I fully agree here. If there are non-communicable aspects to a design, just say that. There's no shame in it as long as you're honest about it and have considered -however briefly- the consequences in case you're wrong.
I'm by no means advocating that all architects must master every detail in their work. Rather, that architects have at least a generalist's working knowledge of materials and construction systems. Floors don't levitate, and windows require depth; rules of thumb count as vital knowledge.
I think we're on the same page here. If you want to make a physical building, then there's more to it than pure design. Engineering comes into play. I don't mean to imply that engineering doesn't require creativity or even artistic intellect, but it is a different kind of problem-solving.
I fully agree with your fourth point. I just wasn't sure what performance-driven meant.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:19pm on August 14, 2013
mponent that calculates view factors from a point or plane to a set of surfaces. The component uses a ray-tracing method that increases with accuracy as you increase the viewResolution (I recommend using a value of 2 to ensure that your view factor error is below 1%). Because of the ray-tracing method, the component should be able to handle any surface geometry that you put into it. Importantly, if you input a point, the view factors will be calculated without a bias in direction but inputting a plane will calculate the view seen by a surface in the plane, which includes the directional bias induced by the direction the surface faces. This image gives you a sense of how the component works showing you the surface temperatures from EnergyPlus mapped onto the sphere of view:
Ladybug_Radiant Asymmetry Discomfort - A component that calculates the percentage of people dissatisfied (PPD) from radiant asymmetry. It uses the formulas that Christian has posted on this discussion, which are also the formulas published in ASHRAE 55:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/194468127/Ashrae-Std-55-2010
And in the CBE comfort tool:
http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/
https://github.com/CenterForTheBuiltEnvironment/comfort_tool/blob/master/static/js/local-discomfort.js#L11-L14
With this component, you can convert the temperature difference across a plane:
... to a percent of people dissatisfied (PPD) from radiant asymmetry:
... and then to a temporal plot of radiant discomfort risk:
If you sync with the github, you can find these components under the WIP section.
Here you can find an example file that shows you how to estimate radiant asymmetry discomfort using these components and the results of an EnergyPlus simulation:
http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Radiant_Asymmetry_Discomfort&slide=0&scale=1.0000000000000004&offset=64.23627386566636,-8.784339845403167
Let me know if you have any feedback, Christian. If you get the chance to ask Olesen the question about the wall asymmetry, please let us know.
Thanks again for all of the info that you have posted here.
-Chris…