ting.
Thanks
Rania
** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.
** Warning ** Version: in IDF="'8.2.7'" not the same as expected="8.2"
** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a zone sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Zone input object. SimulationControl Zone Sizing option ignored.
** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a plant sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Plant object input. SimulationControl Plant Sizing option ignored.
************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity
************* All Branches passed integrity testing
************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity
************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing
************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity
************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing
************* No node connection errors were found.
************* Beginning Simulation
************* Simulation Error Summary *************
** Warning ** The following Report Variables were requested but not generated
** ~~~ ** because IDF did not contain these elements or misspelled variable name -- check .rdd file
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=CHILLER ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=BOILER HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR LATENT HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR LATENT COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR SENSIBLE HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR SENSIBLE COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE MASS FLOW RATE, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE TEMPERATURE, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE RELATIVE HUMIDITY, Frequency=Hourly
************* There are 3 unused schedules in input.
************* There are 5 unused week schedules in input.
************* There are 13 unused day schedules in input.
************* Use Output:Diagnostics,DisplayUnusedSchedules; to see them.
*************
************* ===== Recurring Surface Error Summary =====
************* The following surface error messages occurred.
*************
************* Base Surface does not surround subsurface errors occuring...
************* Check that the GlobalGeometryRules object is expressing the proper starting corner and direction [CounterClockwise/Clockwise]
*************
** Warning ** Base surface does not surround subsurface (CHKSBS), Overlap Status=No-Overlap
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 1 times.
** ~~~ ** Surface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_31" misses SubSurface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_31_GLZ_31"
** Warning ** Base surface does not surround subsurface (CHKSBS), Overlap Status=Partial-Overlap
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 1 times.
** ~~~ ** Surface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_34" overlaps SubSurface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_34_GLZ_34"
*************
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 2 times (total).
*************
************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 2 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 7 Warning; 0 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 07min 35.94sec…
rring to the above image)
Area
effective
effective
Second
Elastic
Elastic
Plastic
Radius
Second
Elastic
Plastic
Radius
of
Vy shear
Vz shear
Moment
Modulus
Modulus
Modulus
of
Moment
Modulus
Modulus
of
Section
Area
Area
of Area
upper
lower
Gyration
of Area
Gyration
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
A
Ay
Az
Iy
Wy
Wy
Wply
i_y
Iz
Wz
Wplz
i_z
cm2
cm2
cm2
cm4
cm3
cm3
cm3
cm
cm4
cm3
cm3
cm
I have a very similar table which I could import to the Karamba table. But I have i_v or i_u values as well as radius of inertia for instance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
dimensjon
Masse
Areal
akse
Ix
Wpx
ix
akse
Iy
Wpy
iy
akse
Iv
Wpv
iv
Width
Thickness
Radius R
[kg/m]
[mm2]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
L 20x3
0.89
113
x-x
4,000
290
5.9
y-y
4,000
290
5.9
v-v
1,700
200
3.9
20
3
4
L 20x4
1.15
146
x-x
5,000
360
5.8
y-y
5,000
360
5.8
v-v
2,200
240
3.8
20
4
4
L 25x3
1.12
143
x-x
8,200
460
7.6
y-y
8,200
460
7.6
v-v
3,400
330
4.9
25
3
4
L 25x4
1.46
186
x-x
10,300
590
7.4
y-y
10,300
590
7.4
v-v
4,300
400
4.8
25
4
4
L 30x3
1.37
175
x-x
14,600
680
9.1
y-y
14,600
680
9.1
v-v
6,100
510
5.9
30
3
5
L 30x4
1.79
228
x-x
18,400
870
9.0
y-y
18,400
870
9.0
v-v
7,700
620
5.8
30
4
5
L 36x3
1.66
211
x-x
25,800
990
11.1
y-y
25,800
990
11.1
v-v
10,700
760
7.1
36
3
5
L 36x4
2.16
276
x-x
32,900
1,280
10.9
y-y
32,900
1,280
10.9
v-v
13,700
930
7.0
36
4
5
L 36x5
2.65
338
x-x
39,500
1,560
10.8
y-y
39,500
1,560
10.8
v-v
16,500
1,090
7.0
36
5
5
I have diagonals (bracings) which can buckle in these "non-regular" directions too, and they do. If I could add those values then in the Karamba model I could assign specific buckling scenarios..... I can see another challenge which will be at the ModifyElement component, I will not be able to choose these buckling lengths, in these directions.
Do you think this functionality can be added within short, or should I try to find another way to model these members?
Br, Balazs
…
nd improvements. Many of the new features and components announced in the last release have become stable and have emerged from their WIP section. Additionally, after two years of work, we are happy to announce that we finally have full support of an OpenStudio connection within Honeybee, which has ushered in a whole host of new features, notably the modelling of detailed HVAC systems. As always you can download the new release from Food4Rhino. Make sure to remove the older version of Ladybug and Honeybee and update your scripts.
LADYBUG
1 - Solar Hot Water Components Out of WIP
After much beta-testing, bug-fixing, and general development, all of the Photovoltaic and Solar Hot Water components are now fully out of WIP! The main component is based on a Chengchu Yan's publication. Components have been added to Ladybug thanks to the efforts of Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic.. See Djorje’s original release post of the solar hot water components for more information on the components that just made it out of WIP.
2 - New Terrain Shading Mask Released in WIP
In addition to Djordje’s prolific addition of renewable energy components, he has also contributed a widely-useful component to generate terrain shading masks, which account for the shading of surrounding mountains/terrain in simulations. While initially added to assist the solar radiation radiation and renewable energy components, the component will undergo development to optimize it for energy and daylight simulations over the next few months. Another new component called Horizon Angles can be used to visualize and export horizon angles. You can test them out now by accessing them in the WIP section. For more information, see Djordje’s release post on the GH forum here.
3 - New Mesh Selector Component
After realizing that the Optimal Shade Creator component has applications to a whole range of analyses, it has now been re-branded as the Mesh Selector and has been optimized to work easily with these many analyses. Specifically, the component selects out the portion of a mesh that meets a given threshold. This can be the portion of a shade benefit analysis meeting a certain level of shade desirability, the portion of a radiation study meeting a certain level of fulx, the portion of a daylight analysis meeting a certain lux threshold, and much more!
4 - Solar Adjusted Temperature Now Includes Long Wave Radiation
Thanks to a question asked by Aymeric and a number of clarifications made by Djordje Spasic, the Solar Adjusted Temperature component now includes the ability to account for long-wave radiative loss to the sky in addition to it original capability to account for short wave radiation from the sun. As such, the component now includes all capabilities of similar outdoor comfort tools such as RayMan. The addition of this capability is also paralleled by the addition of a new horizontalInfraredRadiation output on the ImportEPW component. See the updated solar adjusted example file hereto see how to use the component properly.
5 - Support for both Log and Power Law Wind Profiles
In preparation for the future release of the Butterfly CFD-modelling insect, the Ladybug Wind Profile component now includes the option of either power law or log law wind profiles, which are both used extensively in CFD studies. Thanks goes to Theodoros Galanos for providing the formulas!
6 - New Radiant Asymmetry Comfort Components
Prompted by a suggestion from Christian Kongsgaard, Ladybug now includes components to calculate radiant asymmetry discomfort! For examples of how to use the components see this example file for spatial analysis of radiant asymmetry discomfort and this example for temporal analysis.
7 - Pedestrian Wind Comfort Component Released in WIP
In preparation for the impending release of the butterfly CFD-modelling insect, Djordje Spasic with assistance from Liam Harrington has contributed a component to evaluate outdoor discomfort and pedestrian safety. The component identifies if certain areas around the building are suitable for sitting, building entrances-exits, window shopping... based on its wind microclimate. Dangerous areas due to high wind speeds are also identified.You can check it out now in the WIP section.
HONEYBEE
1 - New HVAC Systems and Full OpenStudio Support
After a significant amount of development on the part of the OpenStudio team and two years of effort on the part of LB+HB developers, we (finally!) have full support for an OpenStudio connection within Honeybee. By this, we mean that any energy simulation property that can be assigned to a HBZone will be taken into account in the simulation run by the OpenStudio component. The connection to OpenStudio has brought with it several new capabilities. Most notably, you can now assign full HVAC systems and receive energy results in units of electricity and fuel instead of simple heating and cooling loads. This Honeybee release includes 14 built-in HVAC template systems that can be assigned to the zones, each of which can be customized:
0. Ideal Air Loads 1. PTAC | Residential 2. PTHP | Residential 3. Packaged Single Zone - AC 4. Packaged Single Zone - HP 5. Packaged VAV w/ Reheat 6. Packaged VAV w/ PFP Boxes 7. VAV w/ Reheat 8. VAV w/ PFP Boxes 9. Warm Air Furnace - Gas Fired 10.Warm Air Furnace - Electric 11.Fan Coil Units + DOAS 12.Active Chilled Beams + DOAS 13.Radiant Floors + DOAS 14.VRF + DOAS
Systems 1-10 are ASHRAE Baseline systems that represent much of what has been added to building stock over the last few decades while systems 11-14 are systems that are commonly being installed today to reduce energy use. Here is an example file showing how to assign these systems in Honeybee and interpret the results and here is an example showing how to customize the HVAC system specifications to a wide variety of cases. To run the file, you will need to have OpenStudio installed and you can download and install OpenStudio from here.
In addition to these template systems within Honeybee, the OpenStudio interface includes hundreds of HVAC components to build your own custom HVAC systems. OpenStudio also has a growing number of user-contributed HVAC system templates that have been integrated into a set of scripts called "Measures" that you can apply to your OpenStudio model within the OpenStudio interface. You can find these system templates by searching for them in the building components library. Here is a good tutorial video on how to apply measures to your model within the OpenStudio interface. Honeybee includes a component that runs these measures from Grasshopper (without having to use the OpenStudio interface), which you can see a demo video of here. However, this component is currently in WIP as OpenStudio team is still tweaking the file structure of measures and it is fairly safe to estimate that, by the next stable release of Honeybee, we will have full support of OpenStudio measures within GH.
2 - Phasing Out IDF Exporter
With the connection to OpenStudio now fully established, this release marks the start of a transition away from exporting directly to EnergyPlus and the beginning of Honeybee development that capitalizes on OpenStudio’s development. As such THIS WILL BE THE LAST STABLE RELEASE THAT INCLUDES THE HONEYBEE_RUN ENERGY SIMULATION COMPONENT.
The Export to OpenStudio component currently does everything that the Run Energy Simulation component does and, as such, it is intended that all GH definitions using the Run Energy Simulation component should replace it with the OpenStudio component. You can use the same Read EP Result components to import the results from the OpenStudio component and you can also use the same Energy Sim Par/Generate EP Output components to customize the parameters of the simulation. The only effective difference between the two components is that the OpenStudio component enables the modeling of HVAC and exports the HBZones to an .osm file before converting it to an EnergyPlus .idf.
For the sake of complete clarity, we should state that OpenStudio is simply an interface for EnergyPlus and, as such, the same calculation engine is under the hood of both the Export to OpenStudio component and the Run Energy Simulation component. At present, you should get matching energy simulation results between the Run Energy Simulation component and a run of the same zones with the OpenStudio component (using an ideal air system HVAC).
All of this is to say that you should convert your GH definitions that use the Run Energy Simulation component to have the OpenStudio component and this release is the best time to do it (while the two components are supported equally). Additionally, with this version of Honeybee you will no longer need to install EnergyPlus before using Honeybee and you will only need to install OpenStudio (which includes EnergyPlus in the install).
3 - New Schedule Generation Components
Thanks to the efforts of Antonello Di Nunzio, we now have 2 new components that ease the creation of schedule-generation in Honeybee. The new components make use of the native Grasshopper “Gener Pool” component to give a set of sliders for each hour of the day. Additionally, Antonello has included an annual schedule component that contains a dictionary of all holidays of every nearly every nation (phew!). Finally, this annual schedule component can output schedules in the text format recognized by EnergyPlus, which allows them to be written directly into the IDF instead of a separate CSV file. This will significantly reduce the size of files needed to run simulations and can even reduce the number of components on your canvas that are needed to add custom schedules. For more information, see Antonello’s explanatory images here and Antonello's example file here. You can also see a full example file of how to apply the schedules to energy simulations here.
4 - EnergyPlus Lookup Folder, Re-run OSM/IDF, and Read Result Dictionary
With the new capabilities of OpenStudio, we have also added a number of components to assist with managing all of the files that you get from the simulation. In particular, Abraham Yezioro has added a Lookup EnergyPlus Folder component that functions very similarly to the Lookup Daylight Folder component. This way, you can run an Energy simulation once and explore the results separately. Furthermore, we have added components to Re-Run OpenStudio .osm files or EnergyPlus .idf files within Grasshopper. These components are particularly useful if you edit these .osm or .idf files outside of Honeybee and want to re-run them to analyze their results in Grasshopper. Lastly, a component has been added to parse the .rdd (or Result Data Dictionary) file that EnergyPlus produces, enabling you to see all of the possible outputs that you can request from a given simulation.
5 - Electric Lighting Components Out of WIP
After Sarith Subramaniam’s initial components to model electric lights with Radiance in the last release, we are happy to report that they have been fully tested and are out of WIP. Improvements include support for all types of light fixture geometries and the ability to use the components in a more “Grasshoppery” list-like fashion. See Sarith’s original release post for more information and several example files showing how to use the components can be found here. 1 , 2 , 3 .
6 - Improvements to THERM Components
A number of bug fixes and improvements have been made to the THERM components in order to make their application more flexible and smooth. Special thanks is due to Derin Yilmaz , Mel King , Farnaz , Ben (@benmo1) , and Abraham Yezioro for all of the great feedback in the process of improving these components.
7 - HBObject Transform Components
After some demand for components that can ease the generation of buildings with modular zone types, two components to transform HBObjects with all of their properties have been added to the 00 | Honeybee section. The components allow you to produce copies of zones that are translated or rotated from the original position.
8 - Comfort Maps Supports PET and Integration of CFD Results
Thanks to the addition of the ‘Physiological Equivalent Temperature’ (PET) component by Djordje Spasic in the last stable release, it is now possible to make comfort maps of PET with Honeybee. PET is particularly helpful for evaluating OUTDOOR comfort with detailed wind fields at a high spatial resolution. As such, the new PET recipe has also been optimized for integration with CFD results. The windSpeed_ input can now accept the file path to a .csv file that is organized with 8760 values in each column and a number of columns that correspond to the number of test points. Components to generate this csv from Butterfly CFD results will be coming in later releases. Stay tuned!
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.
Enjoy!Ladybug Analysis Tools Development Team
…
value=WINTERDESIGNDAY, in SIZINGPERIOD:DESIGNDAY=SINGAPORE ANN HTG 99.6% CONDNS DB ************* IDF Context for following error/warning message: ************* Note -- lines truncated at 300 characters, if necessary... ************* 53 SizingPeriod:DesignDay, ************* indicated Name=SINGAPORE Ann Htg 99% Condns DB ************* Only last 10 lines before error line shown..... ************* 57 23.5, !- Humidity Indicating Conditions at Maximum Dry-Bulb ************* 58 101133., !- Barometric Pressure {Pa} ************* 59 2, !- Wind Speed {m/s} design conditions vs. traditional 6.71 m/s (15 mph) ************* 60 320, !- Wind Direction {Degrees; N=0, S=180} ************* 61 0.00, !- Clearness {0.0 to 1.1} ************* 62 0, !- Rain {0-no,1-yes} ************* 63 0, !- Snow on ground {0-no,1-yes} ************* 64 21, !- Day of Month ************* 65 12, !- Month ************* 66 WinterDesignDay,!- Day Type
The relevant lines in the IDF file is shown below:
SizingPeriod:DesignDay, SINGAPORE Ann Htg 99.6% Condns DB, !- Name 23, !- Maximum Dry-Bulb Temperature {C} 0.0, !- Daily Temp Range {C} 23, !- Humidity Indicating Conditions at Maximum Dry-Bulb 101133., !- Barometric Pressure {Pa} 2, !- Wind Speed {m/s} design conditions vs. traditional 6.71 m/s (15 mph) 320, !- Wind Direction {Degrees; N=0, S=180} 0.00, !- Clearness {0.0 to 1.1} 0, !- Rain {0-no,1-yes} 0, !- Snow on ground {0-no,1-yes} 21, !- Day of Month 12, !- Month WinterDesignDay,!- Day Type 0, !- Daylight Savings Time Indicator WetBulb; !- Humidity Indicating Type ! SINGAPORE_SGP Annual Heating 99%, MaxDB=23.5°C SizingPeriod:DesignDay, SINGAPORE Ann Htg 99% Condns DB, !- Name 23.5, !- Maximum Dry-Bulb Temperature {C} 0.0, !- Daily Temp Range {C} 23.5, !- Humidity Indicating Conditions at Maximum Dry-Bulb 101133., !- Barometric Pressure {Pa} 2, !- Wind Speed {m/s} design conditions vs. traditional 6.71 m/s (15 mph) 320, !- Wind Direction {Degrees; N=0, S=180} 0.00, !- Clearness {0.0 to 1.1} 0, !- Rain {0-no,1-yes} 0, !- Snow on ground {0-no,1-yes} 21, !- Day of Month 12, !- Month WinterDesignDay,!- Day Type 0, !- Daylight Savings Time Indicator WetBulb; !- Humidity Indicating Type
It seems that there is an empty line after the line for "!- Humidity Indicating Type" field, and nothing is specified for "! SINGAPORE_SGP Annual Heating 99%, MaxDB=23.5°C" field.
May I ask why this happens and how to correct the error?
Thank you very much!…
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.…
t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
will work slightly different from before. Sorry about breaking this, but it proved impossible to improve the selection logic with the fairly ambiguous notation that was implemented already.
Not every change is breaking though and I hope that most simple matching rules will work as before. There will be a McNeel webinar on Wednesday the 6th of November where I discuss the new selection rules (as well as path mapping syntax and relative offsets within one or more data trees). This will be a pretty hard-core webinar aimed at expert users. The event will be recorded so you can always go and watch it later. I figured I'd briefly explain the new selection rules on Ning before I release the update though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine we have the following data tree, containing a bunch of textual characters:
{0;0} = [a,e,i,o,u,y] {0;1} = [ä,ë,ê,ï,î,ö,ô,õ,ü,û,ÿ,ý] {1;0} = [b,c,d,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,n,p,q,r,s,t,v,w,x,z] {1;1} = [ç,ĉ,č,ĝ,ř,š,ş,ž]
There are a total of four branches {0;0}, {0;1}, {1;0} and {1;1}. The first branch contains all the vowels that are part of the standard English alphabet. The second branch contains all non-standard vowels and branches three and four contain the standard and non-standard consonants respectively.
So what if we want to select from this tree only the standard vowels? Basically include everything in the first branch and disregard everything else. We can use the [Tree Split] component with a selection rule to achieve this:
{0;0}
This selection rule hard-codes the number zero in both tree path locations. It doesn't define an item index rule, so all items in {0;0} will be selected.
If we want all the vowels (both standard and non-standard), then we have several options:
{0;?} = select all branches that start with 0
{0;(0,1)} = select all branches that start with 0 and end in either 0 or 1
{0;(0 to 1)} = ......................................... and end in the range 0 to 1.
Conversely, selecting all standard vowels and consonants while disregarding all non-standard character can be achieved with rules as follows:
{?;0}
{(0,1);0}
{(0 to 1);0}
It is also possible to select items from each branch in addition to limiting the selection to specific branches. In this case another rule stated in square brackets needs to be appended:
{0;?}[0 to 2]
The above rule will select the first three vowels from the standard and the non-standard lists.
Basically, rules work in a very consistent way, but there are some syntax conventions you need to know. The first thing to realize is that every individual piece of data in a data-tree can be uniquely and unambiguously identified by a collection of integers. One integer describes its index within the branch and the others are used to identify the branch within the tree. As a result a rule for selection items always looks the same:
{A;B;C;...;Z}[i] where A, B, C, Z and i represent rules.
It's very similar to the Path Mapper syntax except it uses square brackets instead of parenthesis for the index (the Path Mapper will follow suit soon, but that won't be a breaking change). You always have to define the path selector rule in between curly brackets. You can supply any number of rules as long as you separate them with semi-colons.
The index rule is optional, but -when provided- it has to be encased in square brackets after the path selection rule(s).
The following rule notations are allowed:
* Any number of integers in a path
? Any single integer
6 Any specific integer
!6 Anything except a specific integer
(2,6,7) Any one of the specific integers in this group.
!(2,6,7) Anything except one of the integers in this group.
(2 to 20) Any integer in this range (including both 2 and 20).
!(2 to 20) Any integer outside this range.
(0,2,...) Any integer part of this infinite sequence. Sequences have to be at least two integers long, and every subsequent integer has to be bigger than the previous one (sorry, that may be a temporary limitation, don't know yet).
(0,2,...,48) Any integer part of this finite sequence. You can optionally provide a single sequence limit after the three dots.
!(3,5,...) Any integer not part of this infinite sequence. The sequence doesn't extend to the left, only towards the right. So this rule would select the numbers 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and all remaining even numbers.
!(7,10,21,...,425) Any integer not part of this finite sequence.
Furthermore, it is possible to combine two or more rules using the boolean and/or operators. If you want to select the first five items in every list of a datatree and also the items 7, 12 and 42, then the selection rule would look as follows:
{*}[(0 to 4) or (6,11,41)]
The asterisk allows you to include all branches, no matter what their paths looks like.
It is at present not possible to use the parenthesis to define rule precedence, rules are always evaluated from left to right. It is at present also not possible to use negative integers to identify items from the end of a list.
If you want to know more, join the Webinar on Wednesday!
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Seattle, WA…
Added by David Rutten at 8:57pm on November 3, 2013
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.
…