algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Search Results - 河北11选5走势开奖结果查询-『9TBH·COM』排列5彩乐乐预测--2023年3月19日7时1分43秒.H5c2a3.drt5fhf55-gov-hk

Blog Post: Workshop Series 1: "PIELES RESPONSIVAS": Added by Francisco Calvo at 10:16am on July 19, 2010

Comment on: Topic 'Trees missing': three categories, each one corresponding to different shapeType_ input:- polygons (shapeType_ = 0): anything consisted of closed polygons: buildings, grass areas, forests, lakes, etc - polylines (shapeType_ = 1): non closed polylines as: streets, roads, highways, rivers, canals, train tracks ...- points (shapeType_ = 2): any point features, like: Trees, building entrances, benches, junctions between roads... Store locations: restaurants, bars, pharmacies, post offices... So basically when you ran the "OSM shapes" component with the shapeType_ = 2, you will get a lot of points. If you would like to get only 3d trees, you run the "OSM 3D" component and it will create 3d trees from only those points which are in fact trees. You can also check which points are trees by looking at the exact location on openstreetmap.org. For example: Or use the "OSM Search" component which will identify all trees among the points, regardless of whether 3d trees can be created or not.However, when it comes to 3d trees there is a catch: Sometimes the geometry which Gismo streams from OpenStreetMap.org does not contain a "height" key. Or it does contain it but the value for that key is missing.OpenStreetMap is free editable map database, so anyone with internet access and free registered account on openstreetmap.org can add features (like trees) to the map database. However, regular people sometimes do not have height measuring devices which are needed for specific objects as trees.So "OSM 3D" component will generate 3d trees from only those tree points which contain a valid "height" key.However, a small workaround is to input a domain(range) into the randomHeightRange_ input of "OSM 3D" component (for example the following one: "5 to 10"): This will result in creation of other 3d trees which do not have defined height, by randomizing their height. randomHeightRange_ input can also be applied to 3d buildings, and it is definitively something I need to write a separate article on. In the end it may be that nobody mapped the trees in the area you are looking for. After you map a tree to openstreetmap.org then it will instantly be available to you or any other user of Gismo. I will be adding some tutorials in the future on how this can be done. But probably not in the next couple of weeks. Let me know if any of this helps, or if I completely misunderstood your issue.…; Added by djordje to Gismo at 3:52am on February 8, 2017

Topic: Cubic Close Packing: deform into rhombic dedocahedrons when they reach equilibrium. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicClosePacking.html I was trying to model sphere lattice constrained within a boundary box. When inflated, they would not intersect with each other; they would stay in place; and would be malleable just enough to expand and fill in the gaps in between the spheres. I started off with the help of this thread here(Thanks for those contributed!). As I understood, there was a bug in Kangaroo2. Solver can't handle more than one item plugged in. So I tried to understand David's Stasiuk's Script and adopted it with a few variations, please see gh file attached. In the first 5 - I've used David Stasiuk's C# component-variable pressure (posted on June 9, 2015 at 12:25am): 'No. 4.5' being the most successful simulation so far(inflation value is kept very low so that they would not intersect); although I realised I made some math mistake in setting the close packing grid.(could be checked by plugging voronoi3D to see if the area of the rhombic faces are regular) No. 6-7 I tried with Kangaroo2 components. After consulting my tutor(Andrei Jipa)'s help, I realised the following changes could be made: - The definition posted by David on June 8, 2015 at 4:47pm with constant pressure would've worked better. - Icosahedrons with WbCatmull(Quad divisions) would result in more even load distribution. With wbloop, vertices more concentrated at poles. - Load in dir Z could be omitted. Andrei has suggested to use lengths(line) in Kangaroo 2 as 'pressure' instead. And I am trying to improve the grid; and maybe try with David's constant pressure definition. I will keep you guys posted of the progress! I am new to the parametric world, comments/advice very much appreciated! :) Zhini …; Added by Zhini Poh at 5:23pm on October 31, 2015

Topic: How to use properly LaDeform in load-controlled?: ing results and I think it is based on the assumption of small displacements. That’s why I want to try with LaDeform. But doing this I met some problems. I tried to experiment it on the small examples that are provided with Karamba: 1.LaDeform in load-controlled behavior I know Karamba has mainly been created make form-finding and not properly precise calculations, but I’d like to evaluate deformations of my structure under certain loads (load-controlled). It is said to let it in Default value for MaxDisp (-1). [Rhino view for deflection of the rope] In this example derived from a Karamba example (Large_Deformation_Rope.gh), the programs shows different ways to get approximately equal max deflection. But, getting into it, I realized Load Multiplier for gravity is different from one model to another (-3.237 for Analyze TH1 and -134 for LaDeform). So what is the interest of the example if the quite similar shape of deflections are not got under the same loadings? (quite different loadings indeed) Doesn’t it show on the contrary that LaDeform algorithm does not work properly, if you need to change the load multiplier? The Grasshopper file is shown below. 2.MaxDisp When I use the model is “max disp”, I command the deformation, but how can I get the value of the virtual force exerted (which I don’t know because it is now imposed)? What is its link with the imposed deflection? Otherwise I can’t figure how to use it with displacement-controlled loading 3.Iterative process As it seems impossible to use LaDeform process, I tried to test it by iterations, as you recommend it on the forum, saying that it is equivalent to an iterative Analyze Th1 process. I tried to reproduce this loading but the result is not very enthusiastic as you can see. The Rhino file shows the progressive loading, with the corresponding Grasshopper files, where I - disassemble the model, - get the previous deformed model - put in another part of the load, - re-assemble and then calculate it on the previous deformed shape. Do you have any idea why the answer is not the same ? (LaDeform seem to give like 5 times less for the same loadings) (and even controlling it by displacements the shapes do not fit the principle of the algorithm would let think) [RhinView for Iterative process] First step by analyze Th1, and result by LaDeform 4.Analyze Th1 after LaDeform? Some tutorials of Karamba show that an analysis with Analyze Th1 is sometimes made immediately after a calculation in large deformations. What is its reason? It seems to sometimes change considerably the result. What is the sense of such an operation? Would it mean that LaDeform is not trustworthy? ð My question is then: is there a way to make the use of LaDeform for other purposes than form-finding affordable and coherent? If I mistake using it, where? Thank you very much for your help, …; Added by Fourdi at 12:53am on May 18, 2016

Topic: Difference between MRT calculation methods: . From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e) with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...? MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw, 2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11). In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%? If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from? If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results. Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method? 3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component? Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12 Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C _CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C _CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C _CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C Thanks a lot for your helpRegards, Aymeric …; Added by Aymeric to Ladybug Tools at 8:29am on May 2, 2016

Event: AA Mexico City Visiting School 2013: th the most crucial and imposing challenges that Mexico City faces and the ways in which architecture and urbanism can shape the metropolis at different scales. In these sense the progamme sees the city as a laboratory where the virtual and experimental tradition of the Architectural Association finds a fertile and concrete ground for the application of its methodology in Mexico. “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities” explores the metropolitan condition understood as a manufactured process by and for human beings. Henceforth the traditional opposing concepts, artificial vs nature, are replaced under the premise, nature does not exist, where nature is not natural but naturalised and the artificial is not an external or impose construct but manufactured intrinsically. With this as a starting point the programme will study 2 instances of Mexico City’s “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities”: The ravines in the west of Mexico City, last bastion of the existing “Nature” and its crucial role in the viability of Mexico City and social housing, as the fundamental construct of the “artificial” habitat in the metropolis´s urban tissue. These “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities” and the ways in which they are designed, produced, reinvented regenerated, show a vast spectrum representative of the crucial urban conditions to be address and therefore they posed an enormous urban and architectonic challenge to confront in order to apply contemporary design methodologies. To tackle the complexities of the “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities”, the programme will immerse students and staff in a 10 day intensive workshop within a multidisciplinary environment where national and international experts from various fields will enrich their proposals. Students will work in architecture and/or urban scale teams and will critically assess the impact of their multiple scales interventions. A backbone of lectures, talks and seminars, including local and international speakers, are designed to broaden and reflect the relevance and the importance of the topic for Mexico City. Finally a public exhibition of student’s work will be held at Centro Cultural de España in autumn 2013. …; Added by Jose Alfredo Ramirez at 12:28pm on May 17, 2013

Comment on: Topic 'Some questions about the comunity...': ectual property that goes nowhere: In my opinion it's very dificult to determine when someones intelectual work becomes actual property that you should be able to protect. There's a big difference between intelectual property and other types of scarce property (like a computer, a chair, etc.). Usually, its a good idea that scarce resouces are bought and sold in the market instead of sharing them because the price mechanism (supply and demand) determines its best possible use in that given moment. Intelectual property on the other hand is not scarce once it has been created, so if a 5 year old with an internet connection downloads a Grasshopper definition i created, it's not preventing an architect to use it for a more suitable purpose. Just like, in a practical sense, the more air I breath doesen't mean the less less air other people have left to breath, because there is so much air it could be asumed (today, at least) that the abuncance is infinite. So trading air in the maket place is nonsensical. The only reason for copyright and patent laws to artificially make scarce a particular piece of intelectual property is so that people have an economic incentive to innovate and create new intelectual property. The advances in inovation should offset the artificial scarcity. If that last point is true, it should be a good thing that people are not giving things up for free but rather selling them because it promotes inovation, but I'm personally not sure if this is true. Probably McNeel will agree to the last point on some extent and say that maybe patent laws go too far but copyright laws that protect Rhino and Grasshopper (even though right now it's free, it still 'owned' by McNeel) should be in place. So I end up as I started, it's very dificult to determine when its a good idea (not just for an individual but in general) to sell or share this stuff. If someone is interested in an extreme anti intelectual property rant from someone that otherwise defends private property, see this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRqsdSARrgk …; Added by Vicente Soler at 10:19am on May 13, 2011

Comment on: Topic 'rhino geometry to rhinoscriptsyntax': However I feel that the rhinoscriptsyntax command curvecurveintersection gives a really complex output repeating the same intersection for each curve considered, and it seems to me also having some problems with the tolerances. It would be really nice to have a command which would give out directly just the intersection as a list of points just exactly how it happens when you run the "intersect" command in the usual interface of rhino. However, I tried to make a function, even if it is far from being accurate. import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs def intersect (crv1,crv2,tol): divisions = 1000 pts1 = rs.DivideCurve(crv1,divisions) outpts = [] for i in range(0,len(pts1)): par = rs.CurveClosestPoint(crv2,pts1[i]) pt2 = rs.EvaluateCurve(crv2,par) dist1 = rs.Distance(pts1[i],pt2) if dist1 < tol: if len(outpts)>0: print "it is" index2 = rs.PointArrayClosestPoint(outpts,pts1[i]) dist2 = rs.Distance(pts1[i],outpts[index2]) print dist2 if dist2 > tol*5: outpts.append(pts1[i]) else: outpts.append(pts1[i]) return outpts crv1 = rs.GetObject("crv1",4)crv2 = rs.GetObject("crv2",4) pts = intersect (crv1,crv2,.01) if pts: rs.AddPoints(pts) don't know if someone has better ideas/solutions. Just to give an overall idea my main goal was to sample (part of) a surface with equal length segments. To do so i put spheres equally spaced in one direction, than get their intersection with the surface (intersect brep = curves) than starting from one sphere and its intersection (curve) in the other direction get the intersection between the two curves (the curve curve intersection) and draw another sphere from there and so on. I don't know if it is a conceptual problem or a problem of memory but it looks the iteration at a certain point just stop working, and the intersections, no matter what the tolerance, start to fail.…; Added by Vincenzo Reale at 4:56pm on November 18, 2013

Comment on: Topic 'confidence in results': ld see were the set of basic tutorials. I've run through a few other folk's video tutorials also. The test case I chose, I picked because it is a super simplification of an actual space I'm trying to model (a large school sports complex - see below). Ive modelled it as a closed volume, with a few solid objects inside it, and it is a much less box-shaped space, with a ceiling that is not flat, and a significant lattice of acoustic panelling that encloses the roof trusses. the volume of this space is around 50000 cubic metres, which if I followed the guidelines o0f 50-100 rays per cubic metre, would be 2.5 - 5 million rays. I ran a simulation on the test simplified box space with 100k rays, which took about 2 hours running on a macbook pro booted into windows. Perhaps I need to find a much more serious machine to run this on. would it be a reasonable assumption to think that as more rays are added, the results would converge on a particular solution? if so, if you had to take a guess, how many rays/m3 would be required to get a solid estimate of reverb time +/- 0.1s? I don't mean to imply that Pachyderm isnt up to scratch - simply that I'm trying to find some way of determining whether a given set of simulation parameters are going to give a result that will be enough to make decisions about surface materials and treatments that will be required. I tried a bunch of different methods and simulation parameters to see if they were even remotely similar, and unsurprisingly, they werent. I'm not an acoustic engineer, I'm an architect who has studied some acoustics in addition to my regular subjects. I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm trying to convert that into enough to be useful. :). I'm totally open to any advice anyone might offer. One last thing, could you confirm that the T-30 parameter is T-30 (and so needs to be doubled to get RT60) Thanks for responding, Ben …; Added by Ben Dixon to Pachyderm Acoustic at 3:46pm on January 23, 2018

Topic: Keeping Track of GH Files and Rhino Files: ys to make use of it. What it does... This plug-in allows for one to "connect" a Rhino document with Grasshopper documents (referred to throughout the plugin as pairing) so that you can remember which Grasshopper documents are used or reference data from the Rhino document How to use it... Right now, the plug-in is just one command "PairGHFiles" which has five(5) different options. PairAllActiveGHDocs - This option pairs all of the documents that are currently active in the GH Editor to the current Rhino document PairSelectedGHDocs - This option shows a dialog that allows you to pick from all the currently active documents in the GH Editor. The selected documents will be paired to the current Rhino document OpensAllPairedGHDocs - Opens all the GH Documents that are currently paired with the Rhino Document RemovePairedGHDocs - Shows a list of the currently paired GH Documents and allows you to select which ones to remove. CurrentlyPairedGHDocs - Prints to the command line all of the GH Document paths that are currently paired to the Rhino Document. The plug-in automatically saves all the necessary data, so you don't need to remember to save any additional files. Do keep in mind that only GH documents that have been saved and have a valid path will be able to be paired to the Rhino Document. Installation Place the rhp file in a safe, static locataion, then drag and drop it on top of a running instance of Rhino. Or run the PlugInManager command, click the Install button towards the bottom of the window, and choose the rhp file. If anyone has any questions, feedback, suggestions, or issues, feel free to post here or email me. Also, for people looking to do the "opposite" of this (pairing a Rhino Document to a GH Document), check out Visose's post below. http://news2.mcneel.com/scripts/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=rhino&item=353734&utag= This plug-in is provided without any written or expressed guarantee. By downloading and installing the plug-in you release the author of any liability in regards to anything this plug-in may or may not do. Best Regards, Damien Develop | Research | Design e| damien[AT]liquidtectonics.com w| liquidtectonics.com…; Added by Damien Alomar at 12:27pm on October 26, 2010