algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Search Results - 福彩3天齐网首页正版保真『0TBH·COM』福彩三d试机号码开机号码2023年3月19日7时42分22秒.H5c2a3.kcssaaksa.com

Event: Rhino.GetMe Workshop abril 2011 México: de modelación en 3D y aprovechen las ventajas que plantean, como mejorar su proceso de diseño y explorar múltiples alternativas para un proyecto en lapsos de tiempo muy reducidos en comparación de los métodos tradicionales. En consecuencia, los alumnos tendrán la posibilidad de disminuir sus tiempos de trabajo, con resultados iguales o incluso mejores a los que obtenían con anterioridad; mejorar la calidad de sus presentaciones y, lo que es más importante, ampliar la fundamentación de sus proyectos en el aspecto funcional y formal, dependiendo de las características del proyecto. Para lograr estos objetivos, se contemplan dos temarios y un ejercicio práctico. Al finalizar el curso, los asistentes serán capaces de manejar Rhinoceros y Grasshopper en un nivel medio, con el objetivo que el alumno pueda continuar aprendiendo con alguno de nuestros siguientes workshops o de manera autodidacta. Además del contenido teórico se incluye un ejercicio práctico, la magnitud del ejercicio y el material que se le destine se definirán con base en el número de asistentes. El workshop tiene una duración de cinco sesiones: Sesión 1 – Temario de Rhinoceros Sesión 2 y 3 – Temario de Grasshopper Sesión 4 y 5 – Ejercicio práctico El horario es de 9 am a 4 pm, con una hora de receso para tomar un refrigerio. No es necesario traer el equipo necesario para trabajar, se cuenta con un equipo para cada persona asi como el material de trabajo para el ejercicio práctico, por lo cual se les recomienda que no traigan portátiles u otro material, únicamente dispositivos de almacenamiento si desean guardar sus trabajos. El costo del evento es de $3,500 estudiantes y $4,000 profesionales. (Para poder tener el descuento de estudiante es necesaria una constancia de la universidad de la que proviene, acreditando que el interesado está cursando algún semestre de la carrera. Personas graduadas que estén cursando una maestría o algún grado superior no reciben el descuento). Para apartar su lugar pueden realizar un depósito de $1,500 y terminar de efectuar el pago antes del 15 de abril si es mediante un depósito bancario o el primer día del evento en efectivo. El evento se realizará en las oficinas de Vegasot, ubicadas en Circuito Cirujanos No. 23-A Cd. Satélite, Naucalpan, Edo. de México 53100 http://www.vegasoft.com.mx Para cualquier duda por favor escriban un correo a luzytextura@gmail.com, por teléfono al 044 55 4381 3302, o en facebook.com/archbernardorivera…; Added by Bernardo Filiberto Rivera López at 4:25pm on February 19, 2011

Event: OPENDAY|parametricDAY: giornata inaugurale sarà dedicata alla free-lecture introduttiva finalizzata alla realizzazione di un modello d'architettura complesso attraverso l'utilizzo di comandi e tecniche avanzate di rappresentazione con Grasshopper (plug-in parametrica di Rhinoceros) e 3dsMax. Sarà illustrato inoltre il potenziale di V-ray per 3dsMax realizzando un rendering concettuale. Durante il mini-corso dell' openDAY verranno mostrate le caratteristiche e le potenzialità degli strumenti per far luce sui nuovi valori assunti dalla modellazione 3D. La modellazione 3D sta interessando un pubblico sempre più vasto inserendosi in una nuova fase di ampia disponibilità per conoscenze, software, hardware di prototipazione e modelli. Pur mantenendo tutti i suoi valori già noti la questione si è talmente ampliata fino ad interessare norme giuridiche (diritti sui modelli ,concorrenza con offerte di servizi apparentemente simili, informazioni deformate e onfusione nei media) Makers University[http://www.makersuniversity.com], in collaborazione con parametricart, vi propone un punto di vista ampio e sintetico su queste tematiche. Al termine della free-lecture, sarà illustrata l'offerta formativa [CLICCA QUI] di parametricart riferita ai corsi che si terranno nei mesi di Gennaio e Febbraio 2013 inseriti all'interno della più ampia programmazione della Makers University. SONO PREVISTE TARIFFE PROMOZIONALI PER COLORO CHE SI ISCRIVERANNO AI CORSI durante l'OpenDAY. La lezione e la presentazione si terranno nel nuovo spazio co-working il PEDONE. PROGRAMMAZIONE - I temi della Makers University [Leo Sorge]; - Modellazione della parametricTower (concept di architettura complessa) utilizzando Grasshopper, applicativo per la modellazione parametrica [VIDEO] [Michele Calvano]; - Modellazione di una copertura reticolare 3D a completamento della parametricTower con 3dsMax utilizzando tecniche di modellazione mesh complesse [Wissam Wahbeh]; - Rendering con V-ray per 3dsMax illustrando la nuova interfaccia nodale [Wissam Wahbeh]. - Question Time per chiarimenti sugli argomenti illustrati. COME L'openDAY sarà aperto a tutti gli interessati,completamente gratuito e sarà replicato in tre sessioni di uguali contenuti organizzate nei seguenti orari: Sessione [1] 11,30 - 13,30 Sessione [2] 15,30 - 17,30 Sessione [3] 17,30 - 19,30 Per necessità di organizzazione è importante la prenotazione all'evento utilizzando il form in fondo alla pagina specificando nella stringa apposita, il nome dell'evento e la sessione (es. open day sessione 1) oltre agli altri dati richiesti.…; Added by Francesca Guadagnoli at 2:04pm on January 6, 2013

Event: SmartLAB Granada 2013: arq, que se celebrará entre el 28 de Enero y el 1 de Febrero de 2013 en el Colegio de Arquitectos de Granada. El taller está destinado a arquitectos, artistas y diseñadores, tanto como profesionales, como estudiantes de grado y posgrado, que, sin necesidad de haber tenido ningún contacto previo con entornos de programación o herramientas informáticas de dibujo paramétrico o generativo, están interesados en probar y experimentar con las opciones que nos pueden ofrecer a los diseñadores. El taller está dividido en tres bloques: Curso intensivo: del 28 de Enero al 30 de Febrero, en horario de mañana, de 10 a 14. Taller de proyectos: del 28 de Enero al 30 de Febrero, por la tarde, de 16 a 20; y el 31 de Febrero, durante todo el día. Presentaciones: viernes 1 de Febrero, mañana y tarde. Utilizaremos Grasshopper, el editor algorítmico asociado al software de modelado tridimensional y dibujo Rhinoceros, por su facilidad de aprendizaje, al tratarse de un entorno gráfico, facilidad de adquisición, al ser gratuito y haber disponible una versión de prueba de Rhinoceros también gratuita, y amplia difusión en los últimos años. Y lo emplearemos tanto como modelador, como conector entre otros softwares y varias disciplinas. Por este motivo, también utilizaremos algunos de sus plug-ins, como Geco, para análisis ambiental, Elk, para enlazarlo con OpenStreetMap o Kangaroo, para simulación de sistemas físicos. Lo único que necesitas es un ordenador portátil (si no pudieras conseguir), hacer el ingreso con el importe correspondiente y mandarnos tus datos y el recibo bancario del ingreso a smartlabgranada@gmail.com. Puedes ver los detalles en el apartado de Inscripción. El resto del material, tanto software como hardware, lo ponemos nosotros. Nuestro acercamiento a estas herramientas es entusiasta acerca del potencial creativo que pueden ofrecer a diseñadores y artistas, pero también crítico y especulativo. Nos alejamos tanto de una posición puramente formalista, como del estricto funcionalismo, a los que desde los últimos años frecuentemente se ha asociado a esta disciplina.…; Added by Miguel Vidal at 8:42am on January 19, 2013

Comment on: Topic 'Hardware requirements and suggestions': east make all our algorithms thread-safe, so they can all be called from multiple threads, this is the first step towards multi-threading. But multi-threading is not just something you switch on or off, it's an approach. Let's take the meshing of Breps for example. Let's assume that at some point one or more breps are added to the document. The wireframes of these breps can be drawn immediately, but the shading meshes need to be calculated first. How do we go about doing this? Allow me to enumerate some obvious solutions: We put everything on hold and compute all meshes, one at a time. Then, when we're done we'll yield control back to the Rhino window so that key presses and mouse events can once again be processed. This is the simplest of all solutions and also the worst from the users point of view. We allow the views to be redrawn, mouse events and key presses to be handled, but we perform the meshing in a background thread. I.e. whatever processor cycles are left over from regular use are now put to work on computing meshes. Once we're done computing these meshes we can start drawing the shaded breps. This is a lot better as it doesn't block the UI, but it also means that for a while (potentially a very long time) our breps will not be shaded in the viewport. This approach is already a lot harder from a programming perspective because you now have multiple threads all with access to the same Breps in memory and you need to make sure that they don't start to perform conflicting operations. Rhino already does this (and has been doing for a long time) on a lot of commands, otherwise you wouldn't be able to abort meshing/intersections/booleans etc. with an Escape press. So we can compute the meshes on the UI-thread or on a background thread. How about using our multiple cores to speed up the process? Again, there are several ways in which this can be achieved: Say we have a quad-core machine, i.e. four processors at our disposal. We could choose to assign the meshing of the first brep to the first processor, the second brep to the second processor, the third brep to the third processor and so on. Once a processor is done with the meshing of a specific brep, we'll give it the next brep to mesh until we're done meshing all the breps. This is a good solution when multiple breps need to be meshed at once, but it doesn't help at all if we only need to compute the mesh for a single brep, which is of course a very common case in Rhino. To go a level deeper, we need to start adding multi-threading to the mesher itself. Let's say that the mesher is set up in such a way that it will assign each face of the brep to a new core, then -once all faces have been meshed- it will stitch together the partial meshes into a single large mesh. Now we've sped up the meshing of breps with multiple faces, but not individual surfaces. We can of course go deeper still. Perhaps there is some operation that is repeated over and over during the meshing of a single face. We could also choose to multi-thread this operation, thus speeding up the meshing of all surfaces and breps. All of the above approaches are possible, some are very difficult, some are actually not possible if we're not allowed to break the SDK. A further problem is that there's overhead involved with multi-threading. Very few operations will actually become 4 times faster if you distribute the work across 4 cores. Often one core will simply take longer than the other 3, often the partial results need to be aggregated which takes additional cycles and/or memory. What this means is that if you were to apply all of the above methods (multi-thread the meshing of individual faces, multi-thread the meshing of breps with multiple faces and multi-thread the meshing of multiple breps) you're probably worse off than you were before. -- David Rutten david@mcneel.com Poprad, Slovakia * an example would be the z-sorting of objects in viewport prior to repainting, which is a step performed on every redraw as far as I know.…; Added by David Rutten at 11:22am on July 9, 2012

Comment on: Topic 'Ideal Loads Outdoor Air Economizer': the results myself and I am open to changing the name/description of the input based on what you have found here. modulateFlowOrTemp is not the best name for what seems to be going on and we should change it to reflect more what is happening in the IDF. Here is how I am understanding the results of the different cases: 1) When the variable flow option is selected (and the outdoor air set to "None"), the heating and cooling of the space seems to happen only through re-circulation of the indoor air. My comparison to a VAV system was not appropriate and perhaps it would be better to compare it to a window air conditioner or a warm air furnace, which, as far as I understand, only re-circulate indoor air and do not bring in outside air. 2) My reasoning for the name modulateFlowOrTemp came mostly from my realization that the supply air temperature remained within the defined limits when the variable flow option is selected (and the outdoor air set to "None"). When the outdoor air was set to Maximum or Sum, the supply air temperature went way out of the temperature limits that I initially set. I realize now that the flows are varying in both cases and the name of the input really must change. 3) I think that the reason why we don't see any effect from the air side economizer is because the heating/cooling energy results that you get from an ideal air system are just the sum of the sensible and the latent heat added/removed from the zone by the system. This value of heat added or removed from the zone does not change whether the added/removed heat comes from outside air or from a cooling/heating coil. Since there is no cooling coil or boiler or chiller in an ideal air system, there is no way to request an output of the energy added/removed by such a coil or chiller as opposed to that removed/added by outside air. In other words, the air side economizer option on the ideal air system is practically useless because it does not help us differentiate the cooling that comes from the outside air vs. that which comes from a coil. All that it does is change the outdoor air fraction while keeping the reported cooling/heating values the same. Please let me know if you think that this explanation makes sense, Burin and, in light of all this, I am very interested in your suggestions. From my own perspective, I am now convinced that the default should definitely have the outside air requirements set to "None" since, otherwise, we cannot distinguish cooling/heating that happens from addition of outside air and that which must be supplied by a coil. At least when we get rid of the outside air requirement, we can be sure that the ideal air system values are only showing heating/cooling from a coil or HVAC system. I have decided to remove the airsideEconomizer input since it seems to give misleading expectations. I am going to recommend here on out that, if you want to estimate the effect of increasing outside air on cooling, you should use the "Set EP Airflow" component, use fan-driven natural ventilation, and you should connect a custom CSV schedule of airflow. You will have to create such a schedule with native GH components using the outside air temperature, your zone setpoints, and the times that you are cooling in your initial run of E+. Either you do this or you set up a full-blown system with OpenStudio. I have also decided to get rid of the heatRecovery input since it seems like this will also produce misleading expectations by the same logic. Lastly, I am going to change the name of the modulateFlowOrTemp_ input to outdoorAirReq_. The default will be to have no indoor air requirement as stated above but you can input either "maximum" or "sum" to have the IDF run accordingly. Let me know if this sounds good or if you have suggestions. Updated GH file attached. The github has the new Ideal Air Loads component. Make sure that you have sync correctly and restart GH after updating your components. -Chris…; Added by Chris Mackey to Ladybug Tools at 2:11am on March 1, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'what's meaning of value in the panel': e current data should be turned to be original data, is that right?there are 3 cases. what do this components effect the performance after if i turn the component to be flatten and graft and to connect to other component? {, is that0} {0;0} {0;0;0} {0;0;0;0} {0;0;0;0;0} {0;0;0;0;0;0}…; Added by Joyce Ho at 7:53am on July 4, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Building a computer around Kangaroo Physics/Grasshopper': with this machine. As Jason says, Rhino and Grasshopper are mainly single-threaded, so I prioritized single core speed and got an i7 4790k, which comfortably overclocks to 4.7GHz (with a decent air cooler, but no fancy liquid cooling). The Kangaroo2 solver is actually multi-threaded now, but the difference this makes is not great as you might imagine. Using 4 cores is certainly nowhere near 4 times faster, because although parts of the calculation are easily parallelized, everything still needs to be recombined at each iteration, and this is usually the bottleneck. I think there is still room for some improvement in how it is multi-threaded, but I wouldn't hold your breath for any massive changes on this front soon. I'd be interested to know how the performance scales with the Xeon chips (more cores, significantly more expensive, but relatively low clock speeds). At the time I made the guess that they weren't worth it, but it would be good to really test this out. RAM is relatively cheap these days, so I went with 32GB of it at 2133MHz. It does seem that the speed of the RAM matters, as enabling XMP in the BIOS (to make it run above the default 1333) seemed to make a noticeable difference. Graphics-wise my personal feeling is that the gaming oriented GTX cards offer better value than the much more expensive 'professional' Quadro range - and have read that the hardware between the 2 has historically been very similar or even identical despite the Quadros being several times the price, with the difference being mainly in the drivers. There are some threads on discourse.mcneel.com about this, and it seems that recent GTX cards like the 970 do very well in Holomark (the Rhino performance benchmarking tool). I got a GTX 770 (this was just before the 900 series came out), which is probably way overkill just for Rhino/Grasshopper, as they don't use the GPU for more than display (Though some of the render plugins do, and I think for those more CUDA cores is what matters, so there GTX is probably still better value.) Probably swapping this for a much cheaper card wouldn't make much difference to Rhino/GH performance anyway (though if you want to use the PC for other stuff like gaming or virtual reality it does). I don't have much experience with AMD cards, so can't comment on how they compare to Nvidia. Eventually I do hope to make Kangaroo run the physics on the GPU, and potentially this does have a big speed impact. Nvidia recently released some impressive demos of their FLEX engine, which really fly with a decent graphics card. That is very much game-physics, and not suitable for most of the things Kangaroo is used for, but theoretically Kangaroo could also be adapted to use CUDA (or OpenCL), though it involves a lot of big changes, and I don't have a timeline for this yet. In the much shorter term there are some things in the pipeline that should speed up Kangaroo for certain things like collisions between large numbers of objects, just by using some different algorithms. Altogether my machine was still well under €2K, and I've been really happy with it. That said, the difference in performance between this and my 4 year old €700 i5 laptop is actually not that huge in day-to-day Grasshopper usage. It does seem that there is a strong case of diminishing returns with buying a PC - I'd hazard a guess that even spending 3 times this amount (as another thread on this forum was discussing recently) you'd be hard pushed to get anything that made a really significant difference to the experience of using it, and if you really want to spend more money, you would be better off just upgrading more frequently (and getting a nice monitor(s)). Anyway, a long ramble, I hope some of it is useful. As I said, I'm no hardware expert, and would be interested to hear different opinions. I also think it will be nice to make a simple benchmarking tool for Kangaroo and have people run it on their various machines and report back results (as with Holomark), to help others make informed decisions on these things. I'll try and put something together for this soon. …; Added by Daniel Piker to Kangaroo at 4:53am on July 13, 2015

Topic: Orientation Study: onents (radiation, sunlight-hours and view analysis) which let you study the effect of the orientation of your building and the analysis result. When you come to a question similar to "what is the orientation that the building receives the most/least amount of radiation?" is probably the right time to use this component. HOW? I'll try to explain the steps using a simple example. Here is my design geometries. The building in the center is the building to be designed and the rest of the buildings are context. I want to see the effect of orientation on the amount of the radiation on the test building surfaces from the start of Oct. to the end of Feb. for Chicago. First I need to set up the normal radiation analysis and run it for the building as it is right now. [I'm not going to explain how you can set up this since you can find it in the sample file (Download the sample file from here)] Now I need to set up the parameters for orientation study using orientationStudyPar component. You can find it under the Extra tab: At minimum I need to input the divisionAngle, and the totalAngle and set runTheStudy to True. In this case I put 45 for divisionAngle and 180 for the totalAngle which means I want the study to be run for angles 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180. [Note1: The divisionAngle should be divisible by totalAngle.] [Note 2: If you don't provide any point for the basePoint, the component will use the center of the geometry as the center of the rotation.] [Note 3: You can also rotate the context with the geometry! Normally you don't have the chance to change the context to make your design work but if you got lucky the rotateContext input is for you! Set it to True. The default is set to False.] You're all set for the orientation study, just connect the orientationStudyPar output to OrientationStudyP input in the component and wait for the result! The component will run the study for all the orientations and preview the latest geometry. To see the result just grab a quick graph and connect it to totalRadiation. As you can see in the graph 135 is the orientation that I receive the maximum radiation. Dang! If you want to see all the result geometries set bakeIt to True, and the result will be baked under LadyBug> RadaitionStudy>[projectname]> . The layer name starts with a number which is the totalRadiation. Mostapha…; Added by Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari to Ladybug Tools at 3:31pm on February 17, 2013

Topic: Shaded/Rendered View Memory Leak during script?: ly this is a Rhino.Python problem and not a Grasshopper issue, but it could apply to both! I was trying to take a simple example of moving a ball around and see how it could be animated through Rhino.Python. The code works great in wire frame with now memory issues at all. However, when I switch the view to Shaded or Rendered, things go south pretty quickly. The RAM usage of Rhino which was steady around 350mb (ish) now grows every frame after a minute or so, it is in the GB's and never drops even after the script has stopped.What gives? Clearly this must be possible because Bongo does something similar when it does animations. Check out my code below and I would love to hear your thoughts. import time import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs import Rhino height = 100 width = 100 x = 0 y = 0 xspeed = .1 yspeed = .3 start_time = time.time() end_time = 60 run_time = 0 sphere = rs.AddSphere((x,y,0), 5) while run_time < end_time: x = x + xspeed y = y + yspeed if x > width/2 or x < -width/2: xspeed = xspeed * -1 if y > height/2 or y < -height/2: yspeed = yspeed * -1 rs.MoveObject(sphere, (xspeed, yspeed, 0)) Rhino.RhinoApp.Wait() run_time = time.time() - start_time…; Added by Ryan Gathmann at 8:33am on May 3, 2013

Topic: Moment Peaks in Shells/Plates at Point-Supports: : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Hi Clemens I've analysed a plate structure using Karamba and wanted to do a convergence analysis on results computed as a function of the number of elements. Now, when strictly looking at the result magnitudes of internal energy (IE) and maximum displacement (w_max), it's acceptable, that their relative deviations are very small. But I cannot explain the tendencies of their graphs. From what I know, FEM should always compute underestimated results when compared to analytical solutions. So I don't understand why both the IE and w_max seem to be decreasing for an increasing number of elements. But my main concern is the behaviour of the peak moment, it seems to be simply hill climbing untill suddenly a singularity kicks in. I initially wanted to use the peak moment as a fitness value for optimisation, but with this behaviour, I don't think that would make sense. I've attached my GH file as well. It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me on these subjects. Cheers Daniel Andersen 2) Hi Daniel, I could not run your definition because I have not all the plug-ins installed that you use. You are basically right that the displacement should increase with a finer mesh. However the result of the shell analysis also depends on the shape of the triangles (well formed vs. very distorted). In order to test this, I think it would be interesting to use a very simple example (e.g. rectangular plate with one column) where you can easily control mesh generation. Would you like to start a discussion on this in the karamba group at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba? It is not a good idea to use the bending moment at a singularity for optimization because the result will be heavily mesh dependent. Also real columns do have a certain diameter and modeling them as point supports introduces an error. Best, Clemens 3) oh, and by the way! Here's some relevant literature on handling peak moments: https://books.google.dk/books?id=-5TvNxnVMmgC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=blaauwendraad+plates+and+fem&source=bl&ots=SdDcwnrSA1&sig=6HulPmKNIhqKx4_rGxitteMC4CU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIg66k0LPaxgIVgY1yCh1KPAeY#v=onepage&q=chapter%2014&f=false (Blaauwendraad, J., 2010. Plates and FEM : Surprises and Pitfalls, see Chapter 14) It would be great if a feature dealing with peak moments could be incorporated in Karamba. In my work, I ended up exporting my models to Robot in order to verify the moment values. Best, Daniel 4) Hi Daniel, thank you for your reply and the link to Blaauwendraads excellent book! At some point I hope to include material nonlinearity in Karamba which will help in dealing with stress singularities. If you want you could open a discussion with a title like 'moment peaks in shells at point-supports'. Then we could copy and paste the text of our conversation into it. Best, Clemens ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------…; Added by Daniel Kolling Andersen to Karamba3D at 4:58am on July 17, 2015