owing a tutorial is easy and adapting the idea of it again - it's not a fuss - i guess my skills are at 1 - since I can not yet stand alone! However I am very determined to nail this program to the ground and be at a 9 by Easter - of course that means a lot of work and hours testing - but I am young and ambitions!
I am a revit user and I just switched over (from the dark rigid side) to rhino because of a simple math problem which has to do with variations and combinations.
I am investigating the form factor for my thesis.
Form factor= building envelope (the area of the facade+the area of the roof+the area of the footprint)/the total area of the floors.
I have started by defining a specific set of parameters such as height, number of floors, maximum total floor area so I can compare the results.
Therefore the floating number will be the facade area - which in the end, considering the height is a constant - ends up being just the length of a certain shape - circle, square, triangle ...
I have done the calculation through excel after extracting from revit but only on simple shapes as follow(the following examples are my own analyzing work):
My problem is: I need a way to get all possible shapes that meet the criteria i put in - which at the moment will be defined by square meters of a floor- that is why galapagos comes in - I need it to make all possible combinations that can be computed that meet the criteria - so then the user(myself or who ever else want to use it) can make an informed choice. I am not looking for a square - circle, sphere or anything I can manually create by just using basic geometry, I am looking for all the possible combination that equal the same area.
(plan view)
After i can solve it for one level - i will constrain that all the levels add up have specific total area - so if a level get's bigger in size another one gets smaller. Again run it through Galapagos and get all possible outcomes (like the sections below)
I am aiming to get an outcome from which you have options to pick out of -> a design process not a specific shape.
You are thinking too complex - not that it's a bad thing - but I am looking for something more simplistic than that. I need a shape - windows and panels are for later use in my process and at this early stage completely irrelevant - and that will be another percentage math problem rather than aesthetics. I just need shapes to morph based on input parameters.
I hope this was an interesting read for you and I really appreciate your patience with me.…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
ntación en distintos procesos del Diseño. Se abordaran los conceptos basicos y la metodologia para abordar problemas de diseño a traves del desarrollo de Herramientas Algorítmicas mediante un proceso de programacion visual.
Como nuestras herramientas de trabajo se utilizara Rhinoceros+Grasshopper+Wea verBird
Instructor: Leonardo Nuevo Arenas[Complex Geometry]
Fechas: 5 y 6 de Noviembre 2011
Lugar: Sebastian Bach 5411, Col. La Estancia, Zapopan Jalisco.http://g.co/maps/nc7g6
Cupo: Limitado a 10 plazas
Costo:
Profesionistas: $3,300.00
Estudiantes: $2,800.00
Fecha limite de pago: Viernes 28 de Octubre
Importante:
Los participantes deberán traer su propia Laptop con todo el software y actualizaciones (originales o versiones de demostración oficiales) previamente instaladas. (Se fijara una fecha unos días antes para revisar que todos los equipos estén en orden y listos para trabajar). Si planeas venir de fuera de la ciudad contactanos y te pondremos en contacto con otras personas que también vayan a hacerlo para en caso de desearlo puedan compartir su lugar de estancia.
Contacto:
Complex Geometry
Leo[33 3956 9209]
[nuarle@msn.com]
FARA.Architectural Lab
Aye[33 1050 3482]
[ayeritza.fara@gmail.com]
Para hacer tu pago via deposito o transferencia electronica:
Banamex
No. Cta. 6035264
Sucursal. 0644
CLABE interbancaria: 002671064460352648
Beneficiario: Leonardo Nuevo Arenas
Al hacer el movimiento bancario favor de enviarnos el comprobante (scanner del boucher o captura de pantalla de la transferencia) a los correos de contacto que aparecen mas arriba.
http://cgeometry.blogspot.com/…
presentar Digital Process: Generative Design Technologies Workshop; Taller especializado que se llevara a cabo en 4 de las ciudades mas importantes de la republica mexicana [Puebla] [Mexico DF] [Guadalajara] [Leon] en Enero y Febrero de 2012.http://gendesigntech.wordpress.com/
Enfocado principalmente a arquitectos, diseñadores industriales, diseñadores de interiores, Urbanistas, Artistas digitales, estudiantes y profesionistas afines al diseño; este Workshop tiene como objetivo proporcionar a los participantes los conocimientos y recursos tecnológicos que les permitan desarrollar los elementos de un proyecto desde la concepción hasta su aplicación de manera completa.Apoyándose en un conjunto potente y flexible de plataformas, los participantes aprenderán a generar, analizar y racionalizar morfologías complejas, formas orgánicas libres y algoritmos computacionales avanzados así como a producir visualizaciones fotorealístas aplicables en diversos proyectos de Diseño.A lo largo de 5 dias de intenso trabajo, exploración y retroalimentación los participantes seran guiados en el desarrollo de un flujo de trabajo mas dinamico, que les permitira explotar al maximo el potencial de las herramientas y potencializar sus habilidades, aptitudes y capacidades.Instructores:Leonardo Nuevo Arenas [Complex Geometry]José Eduardo Sánchez [DesignNest]Daniel Camiro/Luis de la Parra [Chido Studio]http://issuu.com/chidostudiodiseno/docs/digproworkConoce el programa aquí.http://gendesigntech.wordpress.com/program/Para registrarte por favor visita.http://gendesigntech.wordpress.com/registro…
frontare il tema della modellazione parametrica con Grasshopper. Questa plug-in di Rhino consente di progettare, confrontandosi con un contesto evolutivo, attraverso la comprensione e l'utilizzo di parametri e componenti che influenzano la rappresentazione e la rendono dinamica componendo algoritmi. Nel corso verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse.Le informazioni teoriche saranno fornite in maniera accelerata ma organica e contestuale agli argomenti elencati. Per massimizzare i risultati, le lezioni saranno accompagnate da piccole esercitazioni pratiche.Argomenti trattati:- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio- Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica- Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati- Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi- Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling- Attrattori, image sampler- Data tree: gestione di dati complessiStrutturaIl corso ha una durata di 16 ore programmate nell'arco di 2 giornate con i seguenti orari: i giorni 28/07 e 29/07 dalle 10,00 alle 19,00 con pausa pranzo di un'ora.DestinatariIl corso è rivolto a tutti coloro che hanno buone conoscenze di Rhinoceros e vogliono affrontare i nuovi metodi di progettazione in maniera consapevole attraverso il linguaggio visual scripting proposto dal software Grasshopper.PrerequisitiPer affrontare il corso è richiesta una conoscenza di base del software Rhino attraverso esperienze teoriche e pratiche. I partecipanti dovranno venire muniti di proprio laptop e con software Rhinoceros 5 o Rhinocero 4 perfettamente funzionanti.AttestatoAlla fine del corso verrà rilasciata l’attestato di partecipazione ad un corso qualificato McNeel valido per l’ottenimento di crediti formativi universitari.LuogoLe lezioni si terranno presso lo studio il Pedone in Via Muggia 33, 00195 ROMA…
ences, so not terribly important in the end. After all, it's not really worth going through a lot of trouble to get a 15% speed increase; 15% faster than slow is still pretty slow.
Also processor speed has pretty much peaked these past few years, there have been no more significant increases lately. Instead, manufacturers have started putting more cores on motherboards, which is something GH unfortunately cannot take advantage of.
Multi-threading (very high on the list for GH2) brings with it a promise of full core utilisation (minus the inevitable overhead for aggregating computed results), but there are some problems that may end up being significant. Here's a non-exhaustive list:
It's not possible to modify the UI from a non-UI thread. This is probably not that big a deal for Grasshopper components, especially since we can make methods such a Rhino.RhinoApp.WriteLine() thread safe.
Not all methods used by component code are necessarily thread safe. There used to be a lot of stuff in the Rhino SDK that simply wouldn't work correct or would crash if the same method was run more than once simultaneously. Rhino core team has been working hard to remedy this problem, and I'm confident we can fix any problems that still come up, though it may take some time. If components rely on other code libraries then the problem may not be solvable at all. So we need to make sure multi-threading is an optional property of components.
There's overhead involved in multi-threading, it's especially difficult to get a good performance gain when dealing with lots of very fast operations. The overhead in these cases can actually make stuff perform slower.
There's the question on what level should multi-threading be implemented. Obviously the lower the better, but that means a lot of extra work, complicated patterns of responsibilities and a lot of communications between different developers.
There's the question on how the interface should behave during solutions now. If all the computation is happening in a thread, the interface can stay 'live'. So what should it look like if a solution takes -say- 5 seconds to complete? Should you be able to see the waves of data streaming through the network, turning components and wires grey and orange like strobe lights? What happens if you modify a slider during a solution? Simple answer is to abort the current solution and start a new one with the new slider value. But as you slowly drag the slider from left to right, you end up computing 400 partial solution and never getting to a final answer, even though you could have computed 2 full solutions in the same time and given better feedback. Does the preview geometry in the Rhino viewports flicker in and out of existence as solutions cascade through the network?
…
y stages of design, mainly due to the large uncertainties that exist in these phases. Optimisation in the early phases may be helpful, but it does not provide the designers with more information on "where to go from here". Once the designer changes a parameter to suit a client requirement, legal requirement or other, the optimised result may very well be thrown out due to the parameter being changed having such a large effect.
I am hosting several workshops and focus groups in the next month (one for students at Victoria University of Wellington, one for architect practitioners and one for engineering practitioners) to teach the basics of Honeybee and Ladybug within Rhino as NZ is very new to any form of distributed modelling methods (using visual language programmes such as grasshopper and dynamo to communicate between design tools and building simulation program tools). In the focus groups, I am not focusing on the tool of Honeybee so much as I am asking the industry its opinions on the feasibility and wishes of developments such as Honeybee.
I find that many informal interviews I have been having have pointed to the question: Would you rather want to know the optimised concept or the most significant design parameters which you should be wary of at the early stages of design?
I am amazed at the capabilities of Honeybee because it has been such a pain to remodel anything for E+ and Radiance in the past. I particularly love the ability to generate hundreds of idfs with varying parameters within 10min, without having to set up some form of macro to do it. The visualisations of Honeybee are awesome! To say the very least. But as someone who is interested in doing a sensitivity analysis, say with Thermal Autonomy, I feel like there is a lacking element to analysis from an engineer and research/academic stand point.
The way I have set up my files actually create 300+ idfs with all the various different parameters. The parameter ranges only vary from a low, typical and high setting for power densities, WWR, schedules and insulation. These have all been drawn from a large 5 year project where we monitored commercial buildings here in NZ to gain a better understanding of data for purposes like this. I then run them in parallel as batch files and re-insert the data back into Honeybee.
What I am playing around with at the moment though is that, due to the fact that the TA component require so many additional components to then analyse the data in that form, and also that it does not simply give a numerical value in % for the space's performance, I need to re-evaluate the csv that it produces for further analysis.
I have only just begun to try doing some form of sensitivity analysis within Honeybee itself, but I was curious if there were already plugins within grasshopper which may already allow some form of sensitivity analysis.…
of them. If they were already suggested and deemed impossible, i apologize.First, it would be really cool to have a right-click menu item for any geometry retaining module, that does the following: bakes the geometry, then disconnects all inherited data from the module, and assigns the baked version as locally defined. This is a one-time only thing, of course - it would be cool because if you have a "step-definition", that is, you have clear bottlenecks in your dataflow, and at some point you become satisfied with what you have so far, and only need to manually tweak some stuff to move on, you can discard the "already solved part of your definition. It's just a sort of "casting in stone" of partial results, that helps especially with simple work-defs or helper-defs. You could also call it something kickass like "manual override" or "emergency/hand b(r)ake".Second, if you have a component that outputs to a lot of others, and you want to change it with something else, you usually have to painstakingly reconnect all those wires, and if it doesn't work out, you do it right back or undo until you fingers bleed. Just as there is an extract parameter upstream for locally defined values, a downstream "extend parameter" with one rightclick menu item would make switching between various components easier.
Third, maybe a hot-key that you press and then click on a wire, which creates a "data" component at that point, splitting the wire and effectively allowing you to hijack it.
Lastly, maybe this is a stupid question, but what happened to the "clusters"? I mean i know they ended abruptly because of technical difficulties, but collapsing a group to a single component like that was totally awesome.Oh, and a minor bug repor from the v7.053 - it's not important, but mildly annoying: when you have an embedded graft, flatten, reparam or expression into a plug, the component extends to the left with the nifty little icons, and that looks very nice, but the wires still go in the old place, so at first glance i always think the wires are plugged in wrong. Is it possible to move the plug along with the component icon edge, or at least make those little indicators smaller, so that the error is minimized?
Thanks for your time,Hope i was pertinent
Andrei I.ps: the lolcat component is adorable, but i do believe that overall worldwide grasshopper productivity has dropped by various increments of those 20 sec it takes for it to refresh. Sadly accustomed with the feeling of guilt associated to watching around 50 lolpics refresh, I suggest that every 5 refreshes or so, you get a "stop looking at this and get back to work" message. It is at least a good way to derogate responsibility for tempting people to watch kitty-pics all day. :D…
stand completely (i just don't get the math part...).The code can be found here: http://digitalsubstance.wordpress.com/subcode/
So i decided to make my own definition: a cube deformed by 5 attractors and i was wondering if someone can help me solve the meshing at the end of the definition because when i bake it, it gives me an open mesh and i don't understand why ? Waterfall meshes are not suitable for 3d printing... I don't think i've used the clean, weld, and unify faces in the good order ? Maybe there is a problem with the surfaces ?
Secondly i'm not very proud of the result of my cube because it's so deformed that it is a not a cube anymore... so i was wondering if a square grid of points can be deformed by an attractor but still keeping the straight boundary of the grid ?
I had an idea to make that: i make my points, create the vectors between the grid and the attractor points, calculate the distance between the grid points and the attractors: it gives me a list of distances that i remap to control the strengh of my attractors. On the other side i calculate the distance between the boundary of the grid and the grid points and it gives me a second list of numbers. So i wanna average the two list of numbers in such a way that the closest it is to the attractor it takes the distance from the first list and the further it is from the attractor (so the closest it is from the boundary) it takes the distance from the second list ?? I'm sorry for my bad english but even in french it's little bit hard for me to explain it ;). So what can i do to have a grid attracted by a point without moving the boundary points ??
And please don't tell me to cull the boundary points first, to deform the grid and to rebuild the grid after... it gives an ugly cube face at the end, even with a lot of polishing with weaverbird...
If someone has another idea to achieve that please tell me ;)
The first definition "CleanCubeMeshingHelp"is a little bit heavy so watch out if you have a small laptop (any ideas to make it work faster are welcomed !!)
The second one is the one with the two list of numbers.
Also a last questions: what is and when to use the "blur number", "interpolate data" and Weighted Average" under math utilities ??
Thank you in advance for you answers and i apologize for my lack of vocubulary.…
lly it should not make much of a difference - random number generation is not affected, mutation also is not. crossover is a bit more tricky, I use Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX-20) which was introduced already in 1194:
Deb K., Agrawal R. B.: Simulated Binary Crossover for Continuous Search Space, inIITK/ME/SMD-94027, Convenor, Technical Reports, Indian Institue of Technology, Kanpur, India,November 1994
Abst ract. The success of binary-coded gene t ic algorithms (GA s) inproblems having discrete sear ch sp ace largely depends on the codingused to represent the prob lem variables and on the crossover ope ratorthat propagates buildin g blocks from pare nt strings to childrenst rings . In solving optimization problems having continuous searchspace, binary-co ded GAs discr et ize the search space by using a codingof the problem var iables in binary st rings. However , t he coding of realvaluedvari ables in finit e-length st rings causes a number of difficulties:inability to achieve arbit rary pr ecision in the obtained solution , fixedmapping of problem var iab les, inh eren t Hamming cliff problem associatedwit h binary coding, and processing of Holland 's schemata incont inuous search space. Although a number of real-coded GAs aredevelop ed to solve optimization problems having a cont inuous searchspace, the search powers of these crossover operators are not adequate .In t his paper , t he search power of a crossover operator is defined int erms of the probability of creating an arbitrary child solut ion froma given pair of parent solutions . Motivated by t he success of binarycodedGAs in discret e search space problems , we develop a real-codedcrossover (which we call the simulated binar y crossover , or SBX) operatorwhose search power is similar to that of the single-point crossoverused in binary-coded GAs . Simulation results on a number of realvaluedt est problems of varying difficulty and dimensionality suggestt hat the real-cod ed GAs with t he SBX operator ar e ab le to perform asgood or bet t er than binary-cod ed GAs wit h t he single-po int crossover.SBX is found to be particularly useful in problems having mult ip le optimalsolutions with a narrow global basin an d in prob lems where thelower and upper bo unds of the global optimum are not known a priori.Further , a simulation on a two-var iable blocked function showsthat the real-coded GA with SBX work s as suggested by Goldberg
and in most cases t he performance of real-coded GA with SBX is similarto that of binary GAs with a single-point crossover. Based onth ese encouraging results, this paper suggests a number of extensionsto the present study.
7. ConclusionsIn this paper, a real-coded crossover operator has been develop ed bas ed ont he search characte rist ics of a single-point crossover used in binary -codedGAs. In ord er to define the search power of a crossover operator, a spreadfactor has been introduced as the ratio of the absolute differences of thechildren points to that of the parent points. Thereaft er , the probabilityof creat ing a child point for two given parent points has been derived forthe single-point crossover. Motivat ed by the success of binary-coded GAsin problems wit h discrete sear ch space, a simul ated bin ary crossover (SBX)operator has been develop ed to solve problems having cont inuous searchspace. The SBX operator has search power similar to that of the single-po intcrossover.On a number of t est fun ctions, including De Jong's five te st fun ct ions, ithas been found that real-coded GAs with the SBX operator can overcome anumb er of difficult ies inherent with binary-coded GAs in solving cont inuoussearch space problems-Hamming cliff problem, arbitrary pr ecision problem,and fixed mapped coding problem. In the comparison of real-coded GAs wit ha SBX operator and binary-coded GAs with a single-point crossover ope rat or ,it has been observed that the performance of the former is better than thelatt er on continuous functions and the performance of the former is similarto the lat ter in solving discret e and difficult functions. In comparison withanother real-coded crossover operator (i.e. , BLX-0 .5) suggested elsewhere ,SBX performs better in difficult test functions. It has also been observedthat SBX is particularly useful in problems where the bounds of the optimum
point is not known a priori and wher e there are multi ple optima, of whichone is global.Real-coded GAs wit h t he SBX op erator have also been tried in solvinga two-variab le blocked function (the concept of blocked fun ctions was introducedin [10]). Blocked fun ct ions are difficult for real-coded GAs , becauselocal optimal points block t he progress of search to continue towards t heglobal optimal point . The simulat ion results on t he two-var iable blockedfunction have shown that in most occasions , the sea rch proceeds the way aspr edicted in [10]. Most importantly, it has been observed that the real-codedGAs wit h SBX work similar to that of t he binary-coded GAs wit h single-pointcrossover in overcoming t he barrier of the local peaks and converging to t heglobal bas in. However , it is premature to conclude whether real-coded GAswit h SBX op erator can overcome t he local barriers in higher-dimensionalblocked fun ct ions.These results are encour aging and suggest avenues for further research.Because the SBX ope rat or uses a probability distribut ion for choosing a childpo int , the real-coded GAs wit h SBX are one st ep ahead of the binary-codedGAs in te rms of ach ieving a convergence proof for GAs. With a direct probabilist ic relationship between children and parent points used in t his paper,cues from t he clas sical stochast ic optimization methods can be borrowed toachieve a convergence proof of GAs , or a much closer tie between the classicaloptimization methods and GAs is on t he horizon.
In short, according to the authors my SBX operator using real gene values is as good as older ones specially designed for discrete searches, and better in continuous searches. SBX as far as i know meanwhile is a standard general crossover operator.
But:
- there might be better ones out there i just havent seen yet. please tell me.
- besides tournament selection and mutation, crossover is just one part of the breeding pipeline. also there is the elite management for MOEA which is AT LEAST as important as the breeding itself.
- depending on the problem, there are almost always better specific ways of how to code the mutation and the crossover operators. but octopus is meant to keep it general for the moment - maybe there's a way for an interface to code those things yourself..!?
2) elite size = SPEA-2 archive size, yes. the rate depends on your convergence behaviour i would say. i usually start off with at least half the size of the population, but mostly the same size (as it is hard-coded in the new version, i just realize) is big enough.
4) the non-dominated front is always put into the archive first. if the archive size is exceeded, the least important individual (the significant strategy in SPEA-2) are truncated one by one until the size is reached. if it is smaller, the fittest dominated individuals are put into the elite. the latter happens in the beginning of the run, when the front wasn't discovered well yet.
3) yes it is. this is a custom implementation i figured out myself. however i'm close to have the HypE algorithm working in the new version, which natively has got the possibility to articulate perference relations on sets of solutions.
…