tors: R.G.D.E tutors Mostafa R. A. Khalifa, Architect (PhD - UNICAM - Italy)
Assistants: Nagham Baitawy - Architect - Jordan
Ahmed Hassan - Architect & TA - Egypt
deadline registration August, 25th , 2013
http://grasshopperworkshopamman.blogspot.com/ introduction: This workshop will introduce basic and advanced notions of Grasshopper and the methodology of parametric design and algorithmic modeling and its usage in Architecture, design, landscape, and urban scale. It is intended for professionals and students with a minimum experience in 3D Modeling.
…
the loops haven't even started yet. This is a one time overhead - re-starting the loops after that doesn't have this long delay until you close and re-open the file.
Second, I got some encouraging results rather quickly but then spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME trying to replace the inner loop with a "Fast Loop". These are not well behaved in the sense that they don't respond to <ESC> like the "Classic" loops do so you can't stop them; and I never got the same results as the "Classic", no matter what I tried - but ultimately, I just got too frustrated with "Fast Loop" causing Rhino/GH and my whole laptop to freeze up - VERY BAD!!!!!!!!!!
I re-wired the loops slightly so that the hour used by your 'analysisPeriod' cluster is determined by the 'D0' value inside the inner loop.
I added a "Loop On / Loop Off" switch to stop/start the looping (which was useless with "Fast Loop" - grrr....).
I 'Simplified' the 'D1' output of the inner loop and enabled 'Record data' and 'Output after the last' on the outer loop.
And I got this - four buildings over three hours takes about 20 seconds:
Eleven buildings over three hours takes about one minute.
I'm not sure what will happen when I increase the hours and number of buildings but will try it when I have more time. It might be a good idea to avoid writing to Excel inside the loops and wait for the end results before writing them to an Excel file?
There are more possibilities for re-wiring based on simplifying various outputs but I'm tired of this for now and have other things to do. The exponential slowdown you observed might be due in part to Anemone adding an extra branch path every time it loops; adding 'Simplify' might help this?
P.S. 11 buildings over 13 hours (6am to 6pm) took 5 minutes 38 seconds.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:54pm on January 18, 2016
f objects with the main ring body, and that cannot be done in parallel since you are modifying the item once at a time, algorithmically.
The original example of a cylinder and sphere are textbook failures of the Rhino 5 dumb algorithm, since that combination features kissing surfaces that confuse Rhino about where they are intersecting since really in tolerance values they are overlapping along a ribbon instead of a sharp line.
Normally you would slightly move or rescale one of the pair to create a single loop intersection curve that doesn't wander around in jerky fashion trying to combine two surfaces that fail to actually plunge through one another.
Your main Boolean union is 116 prongs with a ring base, and that's slow because Rhino bogs down as the model gets more an more complicated with each internal step, I imagine.
The speed is not all that slow either, only 21 seconds for the Booleans themselves.
If you turn of Grasshopper preview meshing via the toolbar menu it should be significantly faster while you are tweaking the design.
To troubleshoot the slow Boolean, I went into Rhino and tried merely splitting the ring body with the prongs and that itself was just about as slow as the Boolean union, so Rhino is not being badass about it. Then I exploded the ring body and tried splitting just that with the prongs and it was *much* faster to operate on just that single surface! The black box reveals itself a bit.
In kind, splitting the prongs with that single surface was about the same speed as splitting it with the whole ring body, so no speed gain there.
But, to speed up your script, since we *cannot* in fact use parallel processing, we can instead manually create that prong surface by doing our own splits and using Grasshopper's natural order of parts, hopefully consistent, to get rid of the junk.
That prong surface is item 4 of an exploded object.
So I will mutually split them and tease out the good parts from the junk and then rejoin the parts, no Boolean union component needed.
First, I went into your prong cluster and removed the capping, so I have merely an open revolution surface instead of a polysurface, letting me access the surface trim command after quickly finding the BrepBrep intersection curves between the prongs and the single ring surface.
For that Boolean union step I'm down from 11 seconds to 4 seconds, but confusingly we added a second to the Boolean difference that follows:
It's fast since we are manually selecting junk instead of Rhino having to sort which is which, I imagine.
We still have a slow Boolean subtraction of the gems and holes from the finished ring body.
That's not simple so will remain slow and cannot be parallel processed since again there's a single main ring body being modified in each step, and nor are there simple pairs of split object to select from manually to discard junk.
…
he resulting STL file has no problems. I was going to make a 3D print of it but I thought I could make it even more interesting.
When I make a duplicate piece of geometry with reversed curve rotation values and combine the 2 together I get this interesting result:
However, after baking this geometry the exported STL file has a huge number of errors - there are literally thousands of flipped normals, multiple mesh parts, and disconnected triangles.
I have tried lots of things to resolve this and none of them worked: converting to meshes in GH, GH mesh smooth, Rhino Solid Union, Mesh Repair, Align Normals, etc. I use 3D Builder to correct STL problems, but it can't fix this one.
An even more interesting shape happens when I twist the above shape in one direction, and then add it to another that is twisted in the opposite direction:
Of course the STL file for this one is even worse because it just compounds the previous problems.
Is there any way to resolve these problems? My GH file is somewhat messy and perhaps a bit obscure, but I'd be happy to clean it up and share it with anyone who thinks there is a way to get this puppy working.
…
Added by Birk Binnard at 11:56am on September 22, 2016
our own, understand third-party tutorials and process to the advanced sessions.
register for 29€/3hrs
GMT: SAT, 13 DEC 2014 @ 3:00PM / 29€
Introduction to vectors, vectors vs. points, vector addition, cross product, dot product, vector operations, vector display, practical use, planes/frames, normals.
Introduction to domains, t parameter, evaluate curve, boundaries, remap, reparametrize, UV coordinates, evaluate surface.
GMT: SUN, 14 DEC 2014 @ 3:00PM / 29€
Introduction to data trees, graft, flatten, unflatten, tree statistics, cherry picker, simplify, shift path, path mapper, tree item, tree items.
WEBINARS
The webinars are series of on-line live courses for people all over the world. The tutor broadcasts the screen of his computer along with his voice to the connected spectators who can ask questions and comment in real time. This makes webinars similar to live workshops and superior to tutorials. The rese arch Grasshopper® sessions are unique for their thorough explanation of all the features, which creates a sound foundation for your further individual development or direct use in the practice. All sessions are held entirely in English.
PAST EVENTS
…
Added by Jan Pernecky at 2:27am on December 11, 2014
of Space, 1984) and specified in (Turner A. , “Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis, 2007), intuitively describe the difficulty of getting to other spaces from a certain space. In other words, the higher the entropy value, the more difficult it is to reach other spaces from that space and vice-versa. We compute the spatial entropy of the node as using the point depth set:
(11)
“The term is the maximum depth from vertex and is the frequency of point depth *d* from the vertex” (ibid). Technically, we compute it using the function below, which itself uses some outputs and by-products from previous calculations:
Algorithm 4: Entropy Computation
Given the graph (adjacency lists), Depths as List of List of integer, DepthMap as Dictionary of integer
Initialize Entropies as List(double)
For node as integer in range [0, |V|)
integer How_Many_of_D=0
double S_node=0
For depth as integer in range [1, Depths[node].Max()]
How_Many_of_D=DepthMap.Branch[(node,depth)].Count
double frequency= How_Many_of_D/|V|
S_node = S_node - frequency * Math.Log(frequency, 2)
Next
Entropies [node] = S_node
Next
…
nts for Ladybug too. They are based on PVWatts v1 online calculator, supporting crystalline silicon fixed tilt photovoltaics.
You can download them from here, or use the Update Ladbybug component instead. If you take the first option, after downloading check if .ghuser files are blocked (right click -> "Properties" and select "Unblock").
You can download the example files from here.
Video tutorials will follow in the coming period.
In the very essence these components help you answer the question: "How much energy can my roof, building facade, solar parking... generate if I would populate them with PV panels"?
They allow definition of different types of losses (snow, age, shading...) which may affect your PV system:
And can find its optimal tilt and orientation:
Or analyse its performance, energy value, consumption, emissions...
By Djordje Spasic and Jason Sensibaugh, with invaluable support of Dr. Frank Vignola, Dr. Jason M. Keith, Paul Gilman, Chris Mackey, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Niraj Palsule, Joseph Cunningham and Christopher Weiss.
Thank you for reading, and hope you will enjoy using the components!
EDIT: From march 27 2017, Ladybug Photovoltaics components support thin-film modules as well.
References:
1) System losses:
PVWatts v5 Manual, Dobos, NREL, 2014
2) Sun postion equations by Michalsky (1988):
SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Gilman, NREL, 2014
edited by Jason Sensibaugh
3) Angle of incidence for fixed arrays:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
4) Plane-of-Array diffuse irradiance by Perez 1990 algorithm:
PVPMC Sandia National Laboratories
SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Gilman, NREL, 2014
5) Sandia PV Array Performance Module Cover:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
6) Sandia Thermal Model, Module Temperature and Cell Temperature Models:
Photovoltaic Array Performance Model, King, Boys, Kratochvill, Sandia National Laboratories, 2004
7) CEC Module Model: Maximum power voltage and Maximum power current from:
Exact analytical solutions of the parameters of real solar cells using Lambert W-function, Jain, Kapoor, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, V81 2004, P269–277
8) PVFORM version 3.3 adapted Module and Inverter Models:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
9) Sunpath diagram shading:
Using sun path charts to estimate the effects of shading on PV arrays, Frank Vignola, University of Oregon, 2004
Instruction manual for the Solar Pathfinder, Solar Pathfinder TM, 2008
10) Tilt and orientation factor:
Application for Purchased Systems Oregon Department of Energy
solmetric.com
11) Photovoltaics performance metrics:
Solar PV system performance assessment guideline, Honda, Lechner, Raju, Tolich, Mokri, San Jose state university, 2012
CACHE Modules on Energy in the Curriculum Solar Energy, Keith, Palsule, Mississippi State University
Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0, Hammond, Jones, SERT University of Bath, 2011
The Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) of Photovoltaics: Methodology and Comparisons with Fossil Fuel Life Cycles, Raugei, Fullana-i-Palmer, Fthenakis, Elsevier Vol 45, Jun 2012
12) Calculating albedo: Metenorm 6 Handbook part II: Theory, Meteotest 2007
13) Magnetic declination:
Geomag 0.9.2015, Christopher Weiss…
ents will react to sensors, creating a range of different lighting and spatial effects that will trigger further movement and produce a feedback loop of behaviour and response. To accommodate this responsiveness, the design will be developed using parametric associative modeling, processing, arduino, and digital fabrication using the CNC and Laser Cutters. Students can both develop completely new designs, and/or work on the evolution of the Workshop 1 Supple Pavilion project.
The Visiting School will return to Barracão Escola de Carnaval to evolve the design of the migrating Pavilions, their contents and their context, exploring a design philosophy of interactive event design and the production of a creative fusion of high-tech design generation and fabrication with low-tech redefinition of Carnival-float artisan techniques, paraphernalia, and materials. We will work in the immense and creative Pimpolhos warehouse, collaborating with local artisans of several Samba Schools in the post-industrial, partly-derelict Porto do Rio area, (the birthplace of the Carnival and Samba), introducing digital fabrication techniques. The goal is to create interventions for micro-venues and cultural events that express the identity of the Samba culture within the `Porto Maravilha` planning.
Instruction for the Supple Pavilions workshop series will be led by Rob Stuart-Smith of Kokkugia, Lawrence Friesen of Generative Geometry, Ivan Ivanoff of Interactive Art Estado Lateral Media Lab, Toru Hasegawa of Proxy, with Anne Save de Beaurecueil and Franklin Lee of SUBdV, along with other AA tutors, the Pimpolhos Artistic Directors, and Carnival float-fabricators. Each workshop will provide an introduction to computational design (Grasshopper, Processing and Arduino) and digital fabrication, no previous computational experience is required. Students taking part in multiple workshops will have access to advanced computation instruction. This workshop will produce 1:1 prototyping, exploring the structure and transformations of the pavilions. Final fabrication and assemblage will occur in July.
The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide. Participants can take part in one or more workshops, with fee discounts offered to those interested in multiple workshops.
…
hat offer an even spacing of 11 gems from 0.0 to 1.0, and though the Anenome script works it is not as robust to various shapes and sometimes just stops at some point even on mellow curves:
The Hoopsnake script in the other thread: Hoopsnake doesn't want to appear multiple times in a document since resetting one resets them all and it only runs the first instance when I pasted two more copies of the whole script in, so I'll do them separately, and instead of an input reset wire, there is a right click Reset All item in the pop-up menu.
I understand now how the two looping components work, in having a geometry input for the first item, then they accept a second item input as new geometry that then gets looped as the new geometry replaces the original. What a great hack, so I was wrong above about only being able to loop numerical values.
Since I really like Anenome better due to its nice interface, I've converted the old thread Hoopsnake program to Anenome. It still won't handle multiple curve pairs, so I made copies of the whole script.
I learned a lot today. Thanks guys. Given how well these straightforward scripts can work, I'll bet there's a much shorter Python version possible, one that most anybody could understand and thus adapt. If I have time I can start again this time from scratch. Converting the long one taught me about the problem though. Grasshopper makes it easier though, since Circle TTT only needs one center point hint whereas Rhinocommon TryFitCircleTTT needs three.…