e.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Outdoor_Microclimate_Map
Thank you very much in advance!
1. why the underground zone representing the ground is defined as a plenum zone? By default, an office zone program is assigned. Will this affect the outside surface temperature of the ground plenum zone and affect, in turn, the outdoor microclimate map calculation?
2. I assume the construction GroundMaterial composed of five layers of 200mm concrete materials as assigned to the ground plenum zone is to assimilate a ground surface composed of thick concrete. But why this construction is assigned to this zone using both the Set EP Zone Construction and Set EP Zone Underground Construction components? Will the surfaces of this zone automatically recognized as underground surfaces based on their positions in relation to the default xy plane?
3. why a brep is connected to the input node distFromFloorOrSrf on the Indoor View Factor Calculator component which is expecting a number according to its annotation?
4. why the outdoor comfort analysis recipe is used for the indoor comfort analysis component?
5. why the OutdoorComfResult and DegFromNeutralResult are 2 csv files with PPD and PMV values if PMV/PPD thermal comfort model is only applicable to indoor air-conditioned space?
…
the following image of a hut.
I do not have experience using kangaroo to simulate forces, but I have made a test using multiple random components on a flat surface to fake the effect I'm going for. See image below.
The main issue I'm having is that the original file used for my test surface used box morph and the variable pipe command. Box morph is a bit touchy on a curved surface and it is not as elegant as I would like it to be (ie. I want all the hair diameters to be perfectly circular and uniform in size). Variable pipe also does not align the base of the hair with the existing surface, which means I have to offset the surface and then trim the excess of my pipe.....leading to heavy code and the file crashing.
So I'm trying to rebuild the "hairs" using a new method:
1) Subdivide the surface
2) Find the midpoint of each surface and then create a straight line that is perpendicular
3) Move a point along the on the straight line (between the start and end points) in the z direction, and then create a nurbs curve using this point and the start and end points
4) create a circle at the base of each crv, and then two more circles: one at the point in the middle point (I think I set it to .9) and the end of the curve
5) The problem: Now I am trying to sweep along these three circles and the nurbs curve to create a bent hair/pipe that is flush with the conic surface, but it does not work.
If someone can help that would be amazing. I've included my original surface test file and my new file where I am rebuilding using the sweep command. Below is a drawing of what I'm trying to achieve.
…
n lofting, though, it makes perfect sense to scale sections independently from the distance between them.
For practical use, I found the graph mapper clumsy; too course and approximate. So I adapted the code I wrote here (Maths + Divide Curve) so that a list of numbers drives the spacing and, optionally(!), the scaling.
When 'Scale by Distance' is false, the numbers in the list determine scaling; '1' is actual size, '0.5' is half size, '2' is twice the size, etc.
When 'Scale by Distance' is true, the distance between the points is used for scaling. This is an indirect effect of the list of numbers (which determines point spacing) and the size of the original shape relative to the curve length.
'Tangent 0' is the curve tangent at each point. It works well for lofting.
'Tangent 1' is the vector between each point and its successor. It works well for orienting solids.
There are still some mysteries... ("Where there is mystery, there is no mastery.")
Lofting doesn't always work well, 'Cap Planar Holes' doesn't work anymore...
I had hoped that this sequence, ".5,1,2,1,.5", would result in:
two half size shapes, one at each end of the curve.
two full size ("1") and one double size ("2") shapes, spaced appropriately.
But I have a mental block about how to achieve that...? :( Instead, I settled for the last of the five shapes being one point short from the end of the curve, and the spacing is off.
Even so, I find this approach easier to use on a practical basis than the graph mapper.
…
tives for low-dimensional, or highly continuous problems. Having a somewhat faster way to trigger a galapagos run would also be beneficial."
I found a post on the 'hoopsnake/forum' describing the very same problem I am trying to solve, and looked into using HoopSnake (without satisfaction so far):
Double loop and hydrostatics?
I don't want to wait until G2 so will re-state some of what I posted earlier, then offer a template for an ideal "fast solver" component ('B-Solve') that could be widely useful. I am ready to accept that it might be written in Python, C, or VB - as long as it's open source or built in to standard GH. If there is a GH plugin that will do this, I'd like to know that too, though prefer a lightweight solution rather than a big toolbox.
QUESTION: Is there a FAST (binary search speed) GH way to "solve" toward a goal by "moving" a single slider?
CONTEXT: I have a boat hull of a given displacement at rest. I rotate the hull to an arbitrary angle ("heel" caused by wind in the sails) and want to adjust a 'Z-offset' slider so the displacement is the same as it was at rest.
I can adjust the slider manually, zooming in for better control, and with a dozen tries or so, in a very short time, narrow in with a binary search method and get very close to matching the value.
When I hook up Galapagos, it runs on and on forever, trying values that are "obviously" further away instead of closer to the goal. When I can solve it manually faster than Galapagos, a different solution is needed.
OBJECTIVE:
I want a FAST solution that doesn't need any manual input. Ideally, it would respond like any other component and re-calc whenever its inputs changed. At worst, a 'start/reset' trigger, "soft input" so it can be used inside a cluster.
It doesn't need to control a slider, they just happen to be handy for defining a range and precision of values.
Using Galapagos: HydroSolve_2015_Sep8a.gh (attached)
An extremely stripped down version of the problem using Grasshopper.
NOTE: One obvious problem here is that by using absolute value ('abs()') for the 'difference' here, Galapagos doesn't know whether it's too high or too low!
Instructions:
Start with 'Roll=0', 'Volume=1543.943'
Adjust 'Roll' to ~35 degrees
"Solve" 'Z-offset' value to return to 'target' (original) volume of 1543.943
Using 'B-Solve': HydroSolve_2015_Sep8b.gh (attached)
'B-Solve' is the proposed fast solver component. Its 'solution' output is always in the range of zero to one, which is remapped by the green group as -5 to 5 and used as the 'Z-offset' for 'Pitch-Roll-Z'.
Starting value ('Reset') for 'solution' is 0.5, and 'B-Solve' tries different 'solution' values to make 'result' (the 'Volume') and 'goal' match. An efficient uphill(?) or binary searcher could be very fast.
Does this sound feasible? Can anyone implement 'B-Solve'?
Two at once?
The post noted earlier, Double loop and hydrostatics?, brings up a complication that's worth considering from the start... Depending on hull shape, the center of buoyancy may move fore and aft, away from the center of gravity, as the hull rolls. This induces a change in pitch so a second 'B-Solve' component could be used in the same model to adjust pitch, which of course changes 'Volume' again... Not quite sure how the two would get along?
Thanks.
Note: the hull in these examples is a really poor shape!…
Added by Joseph Oster at 1:30pm on September 9, 2015
ne – power of the many è un corso advanced level che studia la produzione di effetti complessi a partire dalla modellazione di comportamenti semplici su un insieme strutturato con un numero alto di elementi. Attraverso un approccio generico e scaleless sarà possibile affrontare la tematica generale su più fronti e in una molteplicità di declinazioni possibili. Il corso è rivolto a chi,indipendentemente dal proprio background (urbanistica, architettura, ingegneria, design, arte o altro) già possiede una esperienza di base con Rhinoceros e Grasshopper, e desidera sviluppare aspetti di gestione avanzata del flusso di articolato di informazioni attraverso una strategia guidata basata su esempi pratici e sull’implementazione di un progetto personale sul tema generale del “field behaviour”. Sarà trattato anche l’utilizzo di alcuni plug-ins quali gHowl e WeaverBird. Il numero dei partecipanti è fissato a un massimo di 20 per offrire un tutoraggio proficuo ed una effettiva esperienza di learning ad ogni iscritto.
[.] Temi:
teoria
. complessità, emergence, effetti di campo (field behaviour), sensibilità, efficienza multiperformance
tecnica
. dati:gestione e manipolazione avanzata del data tree, streaming e visualizzazione; transizione, blending e modulazione delle geometrie; generazione e controllo multiperformance di popolazioni di componenti; attrattori, drivers e tecniche di modulazione avanzate; uso delle mesh con WeaverBird; ottimizzazione con Galapagos
[.] Dettagli :
Tutors: Alessio Erioli + Andrea Graziano – Co-de-iT
Si richiede esperienza di base nella modellazione in Rhino (equivalente a Rhino training Level 1, il Level 2 è gradito – la documentazione per il training è disponibile gratuitamente all’indirizzo: http://download.rhino3d.com/download.asp?id=Rhino4Training&language=it) e nell’uso di Grasshopper (la suddivisione di una superficie NURBS in componenti tramite isotrim è data come base assodata)
. luogo:
IreCoop – via Vasco De Gama 27 _ Firenze
. durata:
25-27 febbraio 2010 – 3 giornate consecutive _ orario 9:00 – 18:00
. costo:
professionisti – 450.00 € studenti – 280.00 €
. note:
scadenza iscrizioni: 20 febbraio 2010 il corso sarà attivato con un numero minimo di 15 iscritti al termine sarà rilasciato un attestato di frequenza gli iscritti dovrano venire muniti dei propri laptop con software installato. una versione free per 30 giorni è disponibile sul sito www.rhino3d.com
. contatti:
iscrizioni + info alloggi: www.irecooptoscana.it (Cosa offriamo > formazione > altri corsi)
info sul corso: info@co-de-it.com…
sophy though, I have a rudimentary grasp of the Ancient Greeks and modern schools of thought such as Existentialism and Pragmatism, but there is certainly no depth in my understanding. However here the same rule applies. You can quote philosophy all you want, but unless you understand that which you're channelling you can be -at best- accidentally correct.
According to you, these are all vital characteristics:
Aesthetic judgement
Intuition about spatial effectiveness
Knowledge of construction materials & assembly systems
Consideration of performance-driven design properties
Mad synthesizing skillz
[1] and [2] are pretty much worthless, especially when we're dealing with students. Aesthetic judgement is not something that can be wrong or right. You can hone your aesthetic skills but you cannot cultivate better tastes. Intuition is also problematic. It's basically a stand-in for argumentation. Instead of saying "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of wind/sound/human perception/human psychology/light/shadow/etc. etc" is a far stronger statement than "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of my feelings". Who are you to be trusted? If you have a long and distinguished career backing you up, maybe your opinions carry some weight, but until that point you'd better be prepared to justify your decisions with cold hard logic and data.
[3] is certainly important for certain jobs in construction, but it can be argued that implementation details are not necessarily central to a design. One can design a good computer interface without having to be able to program, and certainly without being familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of a particular programming language. Conversely, one can design an excellent space without knowing exactly how strong certain atomic bonds are. If what you design is physically impossible, then obviously something has to change, but it doesn't mean that the design as an abstract idea was bad. Of course on the other hand one can argue that designing impossible things is not doing anyone any favours. I'm not exactly certain where I stand on this issue, probably comfortably in the middle; YES, students need to learn about what can be build in the physical world, but NO that is not part of design training.
I'm not quite sure what [4] means.
[5] is true for a lot of professions, not just Architects. I would concede that architects probably have more to take into account than most designers and that it is indeed an important skill to have.
I would say that -especially for students, who have little experience- an incredibly important skill to be able to ask yourself "why am I doing this?" about pretty much every decision you make. Basically you need to get very comfortable applying the Socratic method to everything you do.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 11:03am on August 14, 2013
n due at the end of march. i am hoping to see if i can do this as a sort of "HIVE MIND" experiment with one or two or more posters to the forum. i have uploaded two files to http://www.formpig.com/nine_bar-FAR and I have the following goals:
1. To "kinematically iterate" various formal building envelopes based upon a 50' x 100' lot that "conform" to the nine bar linkage geometry.
2. This lot would have "setbacks" consisting of two 5' side setbacks, a 10' rear yard setback and a 25' front yard setback. max height on the structure is 32' and the allowable overhangs into the setbacks are 2'. I would like to find a way to use the "nine bar geometry" to construct a series of iterations for "floors", "walls" and "ceilings", which would then be tied to a volumetric (cubic volume), or a total square footage (perhaps based upon two horizontal section cuts) which was based upon a given number that I will provide per local building code.
3. Laid on top of this we would also have "mcmansion ordinance" requirements based upon the pdf enclosed. i expect to have this "tent restriction" data in digital form to upload to ftp shortly.
It would be up to you individually or collectively to determine how best to position this "in the real world" based upon the lot, setbacks, zoning requirements etc. For instance, perhaps the nine bar configuration has its vertices coplanar with the 50' x 100' x 32' envelope restrictions and then the chosen volume is "trimmed' by the setback requirements. Or perhaps the nine-bar configuration is generated completely within the setbacks, or perhaps it is generated 2' outside of the setbacks so as to take advantage of the 2' overhang allowance on the setbacks, etc.
*
Given an opportunity to develop the work in a second phase we would have an opportunity to tie this into various efficiencies such as Bill of Materials (wall floor and ceiling square foot calculations), envelope to volume calculations, solar panel efficiencies (solar orientation and envelope geometry) etc, etc (love to get suggestions for this).
*
I've become /really/ convinced that this would be a /really/ interesting entry based upon my just finishing up Kas Oosterhuis' Towards a New Kind of Building: A Designer's Guide for Non-Standard Architecture". In an ideal world I was hoping that it would be possible to hash this out discussion-wise and then literally passing it around on the list after someone eventually made the first move by tossing out a rough ghx script. My expectation would be to finalize it rapidly in the next two weeks. Something of a contemporary version of a design charette.
However, I realize this may not be workable so if you have experience in this arena and particularly if you think this is a brief that is straighforward enough to be almost literally implemented in Grasshopper, please contact me for any wage and/or contract fee requirements.
I'm getting a bit of a late jump on this but my hope is that with the right participant(s) that I can thrash it together quick enough for the first round.
info@formpig.com…
case for sure (started by Giorgio a couple of days before). Ive got involved because I exploit ways to "relax" shapes on nurbs (say patterns created by Lunchbox or "manually) without using any kind of mesh (more explanations soon).
Here's 5 test cases (SDK appears that doesn't have some "thicken surface" thing ... thus the algo that finds the "whole" shapes is rather naive) VS 2 Kangaroo "methods" and the why bother (he he) option as well.
If the goal is to "fit" these shapes within the nurbs ... does it work so far? No I'm afraid (appears that "springs" used are not the proper ones - or [Kangaroo1 option] the lines that pull should been originated from valance 2 points only)
Tricky points:
1. Internalize appears having a variety of serious issues (see Input inside definition) - Load Rhino file first (but even so ...).
2. Pull to surface is deactivated - this is not the issue here (and it's very slow).
3. Since Starling/WB alter the "curves - points" related order
the issue here (Pull points to curves) is to correspond apples to apples:
and that's what Anemone does:
From chaos :
to order:
this means that prior activating Kangaroo you should double click to the Anemone start component in order to "sort" properly the curves.
But .. fact is that results are pathetic:
more soon
best, Peter…
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