s for input and the result will be always in SI! There is an internal conversion from Model Units to Meters. [Warning: I developed and tested the 'bug only in meters and I haven't tested it [intensively] for other units. I recommend you to use meters for now.]
2. Correct! If you input a mesh the component will use the initial mesh as the test grid else it will be meshed based on the gridSize which you won't have full control...
3. Correct! That's how you can minimize the time of the study to zero not calculating what you don't need to know! :)
4. Correct! [and that's why the direction of the normal of the surfaces does matter. It should face outward.]
5. You can do that but then the accuracy of the result could be questionable in some cases. As djordje said center points are the test points and probably you don't want all the glazing to be evaluated based on one single point in case the glass is partially shaded. I understand why are you doing that though and I will add the option to average the result for each test surface similar to what I show in this video 22:27 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMy4O3vN6g), so you can subdivide the test surface and then get the average results for the surface.
Best,
Mostapha the gentle! ;)…
1. Buy some anti gravity tissue (available on request by Fotiadis ACME Industries: any color you want, payment in advance, cash only).
2. Create a pavement with a rectangular hole. Use Buchtal Bosco tiles (the most expensive stuff around > we live once). Avoid trees (it's too late) and/or anything (Less is more).
http://www.agrob-buchtal.de/en/cd/produkte/produkte_seiten_2_19881.html?pe_id=88
3 .Put Vodka into the hole (I do hope Russian top stuff).
4. Do a semi submerged grid of tissues (vertical due to 1 - or your money back).
4. Provide armchairs to the spectators (these things take time). Put ZZTop on the stereo (or Cure). Empty your mind. Reset.
5. Wait for some appropriate wind and/or the 4 horsemen (whatever comes first).
Moral: ResetNowForEver…
lues are of any use from a display perspective as some IES files tend to have upwards of a 1000 numbers. That is why the candela values are visualized in the Rhino viewport.
2. Did you check out the (relatively) new Honeybee_IES Project component? It does produce a Bill of Quantity and also allows an export to Excel. I have explained this here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/xn/detail/2985220:Comment:1474434
3. Eulumdat to IES is an easy fix. I wasn't aware that anybody had tested this using Eulumdat files. I will add this feature when I update the code next time.
4. Can you describe this simulation? The time taken by the simulation itself should not be that long because Radiance ( the calculation engine) has optimization algorithms to tackle multiple sources. My comment about multiple sources had more to do with Rhino than HB itself.
5. What do you mean by material design ? As in textures for surfaces?
Now, with regards to future work, we don't have a road-map of sorts at present as personally I am not quite sure about what might be useful to people who work exclusively with electric lighting. Most of the (vocal) users of Honeybee tend to be interested in Daylighting and that is where our development efforts have centered over the past year. You can read more about it here and here.
If there is some sort of consensus-based opinion from lighting designers on what would be useful we will look into adding new features.…
g a single design and you wish the others to be updated to that view also? There's a trade off here as we would need an extra button on the viewport (that we're trying to keep uncluttered as best we can)... I think it wouldn't be too bad. I'll put it on the enhancement list on git.
2) One of the best things about meshes in wpf is the simplicity... one of the worst things is lack of vertex shading which is a real pain. Getting into OpenGL, DirectX, etc. is not going to happen with the spare time I currently have, but what you suggest is quite a nice compromise (i.e. one colour per mesh). I'm still hoping I can figure a method to get vertex shading with wpf (stackoverflow shows others with similar struggles!), although it looks very tricky. We are looking into it!
3) It is, and yes this is a big problem when the mapping between genotype and phenotype is indirect (for example, the gh definition contains a random component or something). You can compare on the phenotype as you suggest, but this takes computational effort, such as some form of shape analysis. One hope is to compare genotype and phenotype 'solution' spaces (and thus give a measure of directness). On the TODO list!
4) Hmmm, not thought of that one. Good idea, a kind of import design into population. Thanks! That could work nicely.
5) Current idea is to maybe save a population history file, which would as you suggest act like a state manager of sorts. The data structure is quite complex in order to future proof the history approach, but we think we have a nice way of doing it and will be in the next release.
Thanks again for your feedback Chris, its much appreciated.
Best wishes,
John.
PS: What is that mesh shape you have there? Curious.
…
cooling energy" variable tangled with other output variables in one line in the idf file:
1. current code of line 2314 andd 2315:
2. current output variable section in the idf file:
3. revised code with the "\n" new line symbol added:
4. correct IDF file with the cooling loads outpu variable in a separate line:
5. cooling loads can now be correctly calculated and read:
Please kindly verify if this is the source of issue, and if this is the case, I'd appreciate if the current runEP component can be updated.
Thanks.
- Ji.
…
face:
3. However, the readEPSrfResult component cannot recognize this variable:
4. Nevertheless, for unknown strange reason, I'm unable to reproduce the above warning for this test file later, and it seems that this variable can be read by the readEPSrfResult component, for now....
5. I got the same warning in other GH file I'm testing which included the surface irradiance as output variable. So, I'm not sure why the warning is not consistent across different files ...
Appreciate if you can kindly advise.
…
nt document units is in MetersConversion to Meters will be applied = 1.000[1 of 8] Writing simulation parameters...Can't find ddy file next to the EPW.Extreme values from the weather file design will be used instead.[2 of 8] No context surfaces...[3 of 8] Writing geometry...[4 of 8] Writing Electric Load Center - Generator specifications ...[5 of 8] Writing materials and constructions...Runtime error (KeyNotFoundException): honeybee_ExtraConstrPropsTraceback: line 2152, in main, "<string>" line 2364, in script
In order to solve it, I followed the topic below:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug/forum/topic/show?id=2985220%3ATopic%3A1601436&xg_source=msg
In my case I only ran into further troubles with IDF file and some message about missing ControlProgram in Objects.
I am uploading the gh file for you to see. PLS help me, I ran out of ideas.…
(http://www.food4rhino.com/app/quelea-agent-based-design-grasshopper) take like 40 seconds when the toggle activates to go from one end of the ramp to another.
With proximity 3d i'm analyzing each instance the agents are closer than x units. In picture 3 we can see that in 212 instances the agent are closer than those x units.
Finally all the genes that controll the ramps are connected to the G of octopus component and one of the conflicting objectives connected to the O of octopus component is the number of instance quelea agents get close.
So the thing I need is to iterate the ramps controling the genes with octopus but activating the boolean toggle (quelea run) each time the ramps are modified so the agents take 40 seconds to perambulate the environment, analyze the instance they get close and let octopus iterate again searching for a optimized environment.
…
stand everything so far but I will nevertheless try to give some feedback and then extend this list once oi gained more knowledge about it.
1) It would be nice if you could set and save a view vector for all models at the same time. that would make the comparison a lot easier because every model has different interesting views
2) Color could be helpful i think. Would it be possible to read the mesh vertex color values? If that not straight forward maybe the component could have another input which takes a list of colors for each mesh you input in the geometry input.
3) Is the closeness of two outcomes only computed by the closeness of the genes? Sometimes you have very ruff parameter spaces where a little shift in the genes can make quite big changes in the outcome. Would it be possible to compute closeness or similarity of two outcomes based on the outcome itself? For example compare the resulting meshes to each other?
4) It would be also great if you could replace a certain outcome with a solution that you manually generated by altering the sliders. That would be also a way to influence the direction.
5) I see that you are still working on the history. It would be great if one could use biomorpher as well to store you favorite versions of a definition. Something like a more advanced version of the state manager where you can also see the states and crossbreed them easily.
Best, Chris
…
difference consists of.
An Evolutionary Solver/Genetic Algorithm is an implementation of Metaheuristics. Metaheuristics tend to be flexible solvers, applicable to a wide variety of problems, fairly easy to implement, but slow. Other examples of Metaheuristic algorithms would be Random Search, Scatter Search, Simulated Annealing and do on. These algorithms are often modelled on physical or biological processes.
Simulated Annealing for example simulates the physical process of annealing (who'd have thunk it), which is basically the slow cooling of a material which allows it to settle into a crystalline lattice, i.e. a low energy distribution of all the atoms. I'm currently adding an SA solver to Galapagos, and in fact just yesterday managed to get the first successful run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWtYLv-4oP0
Metaheuristics are especially useful for those cases where little is known about the problem ahead of time. If the problem search-space is mathematically well defined (differentiable, especially), then you can use more targeted algorithms such as the Newton-Raphson method, Pareto-search or Uphill search. You can still use these methods on non-differentiable search-spaces, but it involves sampling the local region to death to get an estimate of the differential. This can be a very costly enterprise, especially in high dimensional search-spaces. In a two-dimensional search-space you'll need 3 to get a lame estimate and 4 to get a halfway decent estimate and 8 to get a good estimate. In three-dimensional search space you already need 26 samples, and the number of samples grows exponentially with higher dimensions.
If you have a specific problem you're trying to solve, Metaheuristics are probably not the best solution, even though they may be easiest to program. Rhino uses something akin to Newton-Raphson for certain problems and that's fast enough to run in real-time.
Divide-and-Conquer algorithms are also quite popular. Sometimes they are called Binary-Search or Tree-Search algorithms as well. Their basic premise is to sample the search-space at a few intervals (but enough to capture the needed detail), then find two neighbours with promising values and sample again in between these two. Then repeat. Each new iteration typically doubles accuracy, which is great because then you only need ~30 ~40 iterations to get an answer as good as possible with double-precision floating point accuracy. However not all problems lend themselves well to this sort of search and in higher dimensions it starts getting slow with disconcerting alacrity.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 1:54am on August 15, 2011