nd improvements. Many of the new features and components announced in the last release have become stable and have emerged from their WIP section. Additionally, after two years of work, we are happy to announce that we finally have full support of an OpenStudio connection within Honeybee, which has ushered in a whole host of new features, notably the modelling of detailed HVAC systems. As always you can download the new release from Food4Rhino. Make sure to remove the older version of Ladybug and Honeybee and update your scripts.
LADYBUG
1 - Solar Hot Water Components Out of WIP
After much beta-testing, bug-fixing, and general development, all of the Photovoltaic and Solar Hot Water components are now fully out of WIP! The main component is based on a Chengchu Yan's publication. Components have been added to Ladybug thanks to the efforts of Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic.. See Djorje’s original release post of the solar hot water components for more information on the components that just made it out of WIP.
2 - New Terrain Shading Mask Released in WIP
In addition to Djordje’s prolific addition of renewable energy components, he has also contributed a widely-useful component to generate terrain shading masks, which account for the shading of surrounding mountains/terrain in simulations. While initially added to assist the solar radiation radiation and renewable energy components, the component will undergo development to optimize it for energy and daylight simulations over the next few months. Another new component called Horizon Angles can be used to visualize and export horizon angles. You can test them out now by accessing them in the WIP section. For more information, see Djordje’s release post on the GH forum here.
3 - New Mesh Selector Component
After realizing that the Optimal Shade Creator component has applications to a whole range of analyses, it has now been re-branded as the Mesh Selector and has been optimized to work easily with these many analyses. Specifically, the component selects out the portion of a mesh that meets a given threshold. This can be the portion of a shade benefit analysis meeting a certain level of shade desirability, the portion of a radiation study meeting a certain level of fulx, the portion of a daylight analysis meeting a certain lux threshold, and much more!
4 - Solar Adjusted Temperature Now Includes Long Wave Radiation
Thanks to a question asked by Aymeric and a number of clarifications made by Djordje Spasic, the Solar Adjusted Temperature component now includes the ability to account for long-wave radiative loss to the sky in addition to it original capability to account for short wave radiation from the sun. As such, the component now includes all capabilities of similar outdoor comfort tools such as RayMan. The addition of this capability is also paralleled by the addition of a new horizontalInfraredRadiation output on the ImportEPW component. See the updated solar adjusted example file hereto see how to use the component properly.
5 - Support for both Log and Power Law Wind Profiles
In preparation for the future release of the Butterfly CFD-modelling insect, the Ladybug Wind Profile component now includes the option of either power law or log law wind profiles, which are both used extensively in CFD studies. Thanks goes to Theodoros Galanos for providing the formulas!
6 - New Radiant Asymmetry Comfort Components
Prompted by a suggestion from Christian Kongsgaard, Ladybug now includes components to calculate radiant asymmetry discomfort! For examples of how to use the components see this example file for spatial analysis of radiant asymmetry discomfort and this example for temporal analysis.
7 - Pedestrian Wind Comfort Component Released in WIP
In preparation for the impending release of the butterfly CFD-modelling insect, Djordje Spasic with assistance from Liam Harrington has contributed a component to evaluate outdoor discomfort and pedestrian safety. The component identifies if certain areas around the building are suitable for sitting, building entrances-exits, window shopping... based on its wind microclimate. Dangerous areas due to high wind speeds are also identified.You can check it out now in the WIP section.
HONEYBEE
1 - New HVAC Systems and Full OpenStudio Support
After a significant amount of development on the part of the OpenStudio team and two years of effort on the part of LB+HB developers, we (finally!) have full support for an OpenStudio connection within Honeybee. By this, we mean that any energy simulation property that can be assigned to a HBZone will be taken into account in the simulation run by the OpenStudio component. The connection to OpenStudio has brought with it several new capabilities. Most notably, you can now assign full HVAC systems and receive energy results in units of electricity and fuel instead of simple heating and cooling loads. This Honeybee release includes 14 built-in HVAC template systems that can be assigned to the zones, each of which can be customized:
0. Ideal Air Loads 1. PTAC | Residential 2. PTHP | Residential 3. Packaged Single Zone - AC 4. Packaged Single Zone - HP 5. Packaged VAV w/ Reheat 6. Packaged VAV w/ PFP Boxes 7. VAV w/ Reheat 8. VAV w/ PFP Boxes 9. Warm Air Furnace - Gas Fired 10.Warm Air Furnace - Electric 11.Fan Coil Units + DOAS 12.Active Chilled Beams + DOAS 13.Radiant Floors + DOAS 14.VRF + DOAS
Systems 1-10 are ASHRAE Baseline systems that represent much of what has been added to building stock over the last few decades while systems 11-14 are systems that are commonly being installed today to reduce energy use. Here is an example file showing how to assign these systems in Honeybee and interpret the results and here is an example showing how to customize the HVAC system specifications to a wide variety of cases. To run the file, you will need to have OpenStudio installed and you can download and install OpenStudio from here.
In addition to these template systems within Honeybee, the OpenStudio interface includes hundreds of HVAC components to build your own custom HVAC systems. OpenStudio also has a growing number of user-contributed HVAC system templates that have been integrated into a set of scripts called "Measures" that you can apply to your OpenStudio model within the OpenStudio interface. You can find these system templates by searching for them in the building components library. Here is a good tutorial video on how to apply measures to your model within the OpenStudio interface. Honeybee includes a component that runs these measures from Grasshopper (without having to use the OpenStudio interface), which you can see a demo video of here. However, this component is currently in WIP as OpenStudio team is still tweaking the file structure of measures and it is fairly safe to estimate that, by the next stable release of Honeybee, we will have full support of OpenStudio measures within GH.
2 - Phasing Out IDF Exporter
With the connection to OpenStudio now fully established, this release marks the start of a transition away from exporting directly to EnergyPlus and the beginning of Honeybee development that capitalizes on OpenStudio’s development. As such THIS WILL BE THE LAST STABLE RELEASE THAT INCLUDES THE HONEYBEE_RUN ENERGY SIMULATION COMPONENT.
The Export to OpenStudio component currently does everything that the Run Energy Simulation component does and, as such, it is intended that all GH definitions using the Run Energy Simulation component should replace it with the OpenStudio component. You can use the same Read EP Result components to import the results from the OpenStudio component and you can also use the same Energy Sim Par/Generate EP Output components to customize the parameters of the simulation. The only effective difference between the two components is that the OpenStudio component enables the modeling of HVAC and exports the HBZones to an .osm file before converting it to an EnergyPlus .idf.
For the sake of complete clarity, we should state that OpenStudio is simply an interface for EnergyPlus and, as such, the same calculation engine is under the hood of both the Export to OpenStudio component and the Run Energy Simulation component. At present, you should get matching energy simulation results between the Run Energy Simulation component and a run of the same zones with the OpenStudio component (using an ideal air system HVAC).
All of this is to say that you should convert your GH definitions that use the Run Energy Simulation component to have the OpenStudio component and this release is the best time to do it (while the two components are supported equally). Additionally, with this version of Honeybee you will no longer need to install EnergyPlus before using Honeybee and you will only need to install OpenStudio (which includes EnergyPlus in the install).
3 - New Schedule Generation Components
Thanks to the efforts of Antonello Di Nunzio, we now have 2 new components that ease the creation of schedule-generation in Honeybee. The new components make use of the native Grasshopper “Gener Pool” component to give a set of sliders for each hour of the day. Additionally, Antonello has included an annual schedule component that contains a dictionary of all holidays of every nearly every nation (phew!). Finally, this annual schedule component can output schedules in the text format recognized by EnergyPlus, which allows them to be written directly into the IDF instead of a separate CSV file. This will significantly reduce the size of files needed to run simulations and can even reduce the number of components on your canvas that are needed to add custom schedules. For more information, see Antonello’s explanatory images here and Antonello's example file here. You can also see a full example file of how to apply the schedules to energy simulations here.
4 - EnergyPlus Lookup Folder, Re-run OSM/IDF, and Read Result Dictionary
With the new capabilities of OpenStudio, we have also added a number of components to assist with managing all of the files that you get from the simulation. In particular, Abraham Yezioro has added a Lookup EnergyPlus Folder component that functions very similarly to the Lookup Daylight Folder component. This way, you can run an Energy simulation once and explore the results separately. Furthermore, we have added components to Re-Run OpenStudio .osm files or EnergyPlus .idf files within Grasshopper. These components are particularly useful if you edit these .osm or .idf files outside of Honeybee and want to re-run them to analyze their results in Grasshopper. Lastly, a component has been added to parse the .rdd (or Result Data Dictionary) file that EnergyPlus produces, enabling you to see all of the possible outputs that you can request from a given simulation.
5 - Electric Lighting Components Out of WIP
After Sarith Subramaniam’s initial components to model electric lights with Radiance in the last release, we are happy to report that they have been fully tested and are out of WIP. Improvements include support for all types of light fixture geometries and the ability to use the components in a more “Grasshoppery” list-like fashion. See Sarith’s original release post for more information and several example files showing how to use the components can be found here. 1 , 2 , 3 .
6 - Improvements to THERM Components
A number of bug fixes and improvements have been made to the THERM components in order to make their application more flexible and smooth. Special thanks is due to Derin Yilmaz , Mel King , Farnaz , Ben (@benmo1) , and Abraham Yezioro for all of the great feedback in the process of improving these components.
7 - HBObject Transform Components
After some demand for components that can ease the generation of buildings with modular zone types, two components to transform HBObjects with all of their properties have been added to the 00 | Honeybee section. The components allow you to produce copies of zones that are translated or rotated from the original position.
8 - Comfort Maps Supports PET and Integration of CFD Results
Thanks to the addition of the ‘Physiological Equivalent Temperature’ (PET) component by Djordje Spasic in the last stable release, it is now possible to make comfort maps of PET with Honeybee. PET is particularly helpful for evaluating OUTDOOR comfort with detailed wind fields at a high spatial resolution. As such, the new PET recipe has also been optimized for integration with CFD results. The windSpeed_ input can now accept the file path to a .csv file that is organized with 8760 values in each column and a number of columns that correspond to the number of test points. Components to generate this csv from Butterfly CFD results will be coming in later releases. Stay tuned!
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.
Enjoy!Ladybug Analysis Tools Development Team
…
a and we'll stop adding new stuff. At this point the Grasshopper version will be rolled to 1.0 Beta 1 and we'll keep on fixing serious bugs, resulting in Grasshopper 1.0 Beta 2 etc. etc. until the product is stable enough to be treated as a commercially viable product.
This does not mean Grasshopper will no longer be free. Robert McNeel & Associates (who develop and own the copyrights to Grasshopper) haven't decided yet whether or not to sell Grasshopper or whether to keep it as a free plug-in for Rhino customers.
As soon as Grasshopper 1.0 goes into beta, all development (apart from the odd bug-fix) stops and we start typing on Grasshopper 2.0. It will probably be a few months until the first 2.0 WIP version is released but basically the whole process starts over.
What are we looking to accomplish for 1.0 and which things are planned for 2.0 and beyond? The only major feature still missing in 1.0 is the Remote Control Panel. This feature was removed at some point and has been partially rewritten since then. Once it's finished, we consider the 1.0 feature set to be complete.
To be honest we've made very few concrete plans yet concerning 2.0, however it's clear that some things need to be at least seriously considered and researched. Here follows a list in no particular order:
Documentation System. This is one of the things we know we're going to do as we've already started. The Grasshopper help system will need to be rewritten and a lot of help topics need to be typed up. We have a pretty good idea what it is we want to accomplish with the new help and how we're going to go about it.
Vocabulary. Along with new documentation we'll critically analyse the current terminology and vocabulary of Grasshopper. We'll probably come up with glossaries and style sheets. We want to use words that are —at best— self documenting and —at worst— non ambiguous.
SDK and core library cleanup/improvement. Grasshopper was the first large scale product I ever developed and a lot of mistakes were made in the SDK design. A lot of functions and classes have been marked obsolete over time and many operations are not properly bottlenecked. I also want to add a lot more events so it's easier for code to keep close tabs on what's going on at any given moment.
GUI platform. At the moment Grasshopper is pure .NET winforms using GDI+ for all the interface drawing. There are certain performance issues with using large GDI+ surfaces and certain limitations on what we can and cannot draw. We will be investigating other graphics pipelines such as WPF, OpenGL, DirectX, OpenTK and whatever else seems promising.
Multi-threading. It is clear that some components are embarrassingly parallel, and since almost every single laptop and desktop has at least 4 cores these days it would be a shame not to use them. We will investigate what it takes to implement multi-threading as a standard feature.
Large file support. Grasshopper becomes awkward to use when a document contains more than a hundred or so components. We need to both improve the interface to provide methods for layering or grouping sub-algorithms and also add ways to reduce memory and computational overhead.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
os3D + Grasshopper3D + Maya + Advanced Plugins & Demo Toolkits]
// Level
Basic, Intermediate & Advanced
(Previous parametric design knowledge not obligatory - Studio is adaptive to basic & advanced users)
// Agenda
The workshop aims to provide a detailed insight to ‘parametric design’ and embedded logics behind it through a series of design explorations using Rhinoceros & Grasshopper platforms, along with understanding of data-driven design strategies. An insight to Computational Design and its subsets of Parametric Design, Algorithmic Design, Generative Design and Evolutionary Design will be provided through presentations, technical sessions & studio work. Studio work will be focusing on modulation of geometry and iterative form using Parametric Design methods that will lead to explorations of spatial geometries that can be articulated as architectural constructs or abstract artistic interventions. There will be a demonstration of Fluid Form Modelling using Autodesk Maya on Day03.
The 1st batch of workshop in London took place in January 2020 with an exploratory learning output for ~20+ participants that travelled from different parts of the world to be a part of 3-day workshop titled Parametric Modulations. V2.0 is the evolved workshop with new toolkit add-ons for the 2nd batch and demonstrative tools & examples for future use of participants to get a deeper understanding of Computational & Parametric Design.
// Methodology
The 3-day studio / workshop shall focus on inculcating the following aspects as a part of curriculum:
Computational Design Techniques & Parametric Design
Data, Mathematics & Geometry
Geometry Rationalization
Iterative Form Development
Digital simulation of forces
Environmental Analysis (Tool-kits & Example files for future use)
Collaborative Design Exercises to understand application of the learnt tools
Documentation and Presentation
Hands-on Demonstration of Maya (Polygonal Mesh Modelling)
The workshop is suitable for beginners, intermediate as well as advanced users of these tools and very helpful for anyone planning to start their Masters in UK as this 3-day workshop would serve as a bootcamp to kick-start anyone's journey in Computational Design.
…
ng is deciding how and where to store your data. If you're writing textual code using any one of a huge number of programming languages there are a lot of different options, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. Sometimes you just need to store a single data point. At other times you may need a list of exactly one hundred data points. At other times still circumstances may demand a list of a variable number of data points.
In programming jargon, lists and arrays are typically used to store an ordered collection of data points, where each item is directly accessible. Bags and hash sets are examples of unordered data storage. These storage mechanisms do not have a concept of which data comes first and which next, but they are much better at searching the data set for specific values. Stacks and queues are ordered data structures where only the youngest or oldest data points are accessible respectively. These are popular structures for code designed to create and execute schedules. Linked lists are chains of consecutive data points, where each point knows only about its direct neighbours. As a result, it's a lot of work to find the one-millionth point in a linked list, but it's incredibly efficient to insert or remove points from the middle of the chain. Dictionaries store data in the form of key-value pairs, allowing one to index complicated data points using simple lookup codes.
The above is a just a small sampling of popular data storage mechanisms, there are many, many others. From multidimensional arrays to SQL databases. From readonly collections to concurrent k-dTrees. It takes a fair amount of knowledge and practice to be able to navigate this bewildering sea of options and pick the best suited storage mechanism for any particular problem. We did not wish to confront our users with this plethora of programmatic principles, and instead decided to offer only a single data storage mechanism.*
Data storage in Grasshopper
In order to see what mechanism would be optimal for Grasshopper, it is necessary to first list the different possible ways in which components may wish to access and store data, and also how families of data points flow through a Grasshopper network, often acquiring more complexity over time.
A lot of components operate on individual values and also output individual values as results. This is the simplest category, let's call it 1:1 (pronounced as "one to one", indicating a mapping from single inputs to single outputs). Two examples of 1:1 components are Subtraction and Construct Point. Subtraction takes two arguments on the left (A and B), and outputs the difference (A-B) to the right. Even when the component is called upon to calculate the difference between two collections of 12 million values each, at any one time it only cares about three values; A, B and the difference between the two. Similarly, Construct Point takes three separate numbers as input arguments and combines them to form a single xyz point.
Another common category of components create lists of data from single input values. We'll refer to these components as 1:N. Range and Divide Curve are oft used examples in this category. Range takes a single numeric domain and a single integer, but it outputs a list of numbers that divide the domain into the specified number of steps. Similarly, Divide Curve requires a single curve and a division count, but it outputs several lists of data, where the length of each list is a function of the division count.
The opposite behaviour also occurs. Common N:1 components are Polyline and Loft, both of which consume a list of points and curves respectively, yet output only a single curve or surface.
Lastly (in the list category), N:N components are also available. A fair number of components operate on lists of data and also output lists of data. Sort and Reverse List are examples of N:N components you will almost certainly encounter when using Grasshopper. It is true that N:N components mostly fall into the data management category, in the sense that they are mostly employed to change the way data is stored, rather than to create entirely new data, but they are common and important nonetheless.
A rare few components are even more complex than 1:N, N:1, or N:N, in that they are not content to operate on or output single lists of data points. The Divide Surface and Square Grid components want to output not just lists of points, but several lists of points, each of which represents a single row or column in a grid. We can refer to these components as 1:N' or N':1 or N:N' or ... depending on how the inputs and outputs are defined.
The above listing of data mapping categories encapsulate all components that ship with Grasshopper, though they do not necessarily minister to all imaginable mappings. However in the spirit of getting on with the software it was decided that a data structure that could handle individual values, lists of values, and lists of lists of values would solve at least 99% of the then existing problems and was thus considered to be a 'good thing'.
Data storage as the outcome of a process
If the problems of 1:N' mappings only occurred in those few components to do with grids, it would probably not warrant support for lists-of-lists in the core data structure. However, 1:N' or N:N' mappings can be the result of the concatenation of two or more 1:N components. Consider the following case: A collection of three polysurfaces (a box, a capped cylinder, and a triangular prism) is imported from Rhino into Grasshopper. The shapes are all exploded into their separate faces, resulting in 6 faces for the box, 3 for the cylinder, and 5 for the prism. Across each face, a collection of isocurves is drawn, resembling a hatching. Ultimately, each isocurve is divided into equally spaced points.
This is not an unreasonably elaborate case, but it already shows how shockingly quickly layers of complexity are introduced into the data as it flows from the left to the right side of the network.
It's no good ending up with a single huge list containing all the points. The data structure we use must be detailed enough to allow us to select from it any logical subset. This means that the ultimate data structure must contain a record of all the mappings that were applied from start to finish. It must be possible to select all the points that are associated with the second polysurface, but not the first or third. It must also be possible to select all points that are associated with the first face of each polysurface, but not any subsequent faces. Or a selection which includes only the fourth point of each division and no others.
The only way such selection sets can be defined, is if the data structure contains a record of the "history" of each data point. I.e. for every point we must be able to figure out which original shape it came from (the cube, the cylinder or the prism), which of the exploded faces it is associated with, which isocurve on that face was involved and the index of the point within the curve division family.
A flexible mechanism for variable history records.
The storage constraints mentioned so far (to wit, the requirement of storing individual values, lists of values, and lists of lists of values), combined with the relational constraints (to wit, the ability to measure the relatedness of various lists within the entire collection) lead us to Data Trees. The data structure we chose is certainly not the only imaginable solution to this problem, and due to its terse notation can appear fairly obtuse to the untrained eye. However since data trees only employ non-negative integers to identify both lists and items within lists, the structure is very amenable to simple arithmetic operations, which makes the structure very pliable from an algorithmic point of view.
A data tree is an ordered collection of lists. Each list is associated with a path, which serves as the identifier of that list. This means that two lists in the same tree cannot have the same path. A path is a collection of one or more non-negative integers. Path notation employs curly brackets and semi-colons as separators. The simplest path contains only the number zero and is written as: {0}. More complicated paths containing more elements are written as: {2;4;6}. Just as a path identifies a list within the tree, an index identifies a data point within a list. An index is always a single, non-negative integer. Indices are written inside square brackets and appended to path notation, in order to fully identify a single piece of data within an entire data tree: {2,4,6}[10].
Since both path elements and indices are zero-based (we start counting at zero, not one), there is a slight disconnect between the ordinality and the cardinality of numbers within data trees. The first element equals index 0, the second element can be found at index 1, the third element maps to index 2, and so on and so forth. This means that the "Eleventh point of the seventh isocurve of the fifth face of the third polysurface" will be written as {2;4;6}[10]. The first path element corresponds with the oldest mapping that occurred within the file, and each subsequent element represents a more recent operation. In this sense the path elements can be likened to taxonomic identifiers. The species {Animalia;Mammalia;Hominidea;Homo} and {Animalia;Mammalia;Hominidea;Pan} are more closely related to each other than to {Animalia;Mammalia; Cervidea;Rangifer}** because they share more codes at the start of their classification. Similarly, the paths {2;4;4} and {2;4;6} are more closely related to each other than they are to {2;3;5}.
The messy reality of data trees.
Although you may agree with me that in theory the data tree approach is solid, you may still get frustrated at the rate at which data trees grow more complex. Often Grasshopper will choose to add additional elements to the paths in a tree where none in fact is needed, resulting in paths that all share a lot of zeroes in certain places. For example a data tree might contain the paths:
{0;0;0;0;0}
{0;0;0;0;1}
{0;0;0;0;2}
{0;0;0;0;3}
{0;0;1;0;0}
{0;0;1;0;1}
{0;0;1;0;2}
{0;0;1;0;3}
instead of the far more economical:
{0;0}
{0;1}
{0;2}
{0;3}
{1;0}
{1;1}
{1;2}
{1;3}
The reason all these zeroes are added is because we value consistency over economics. It doesn't matter whether a component actually outputs more than one list, if the component belongs to the 1:N, 1:N', or N:N' groups, it will always add an extra integer to all the paths, because some day in the future, when the inputs change, it may need that extra integer to keep its lists untangled. We feel it's bad behaviour for the topology of a data tree to be subject to the topical values in that tree. Any component which relies on a specific topology will no longer work when that topology changes, and that should happen as seldom as possible.
Conclusion
Although data trees can be difficult to work with and probably cause more confusion than any other part of Grasshopper, they seem to work well in the majority of cases and we haven't been able to come up with a better solution. That's not to say we never will, but data trees are here to stay for the foreseeable future.
* This is not something we hit on immediately. The very first versions of Grasshopper only allowed for the storage of a single data point per parameter, making operations like [Loft] or [Divide Curve] impossible. Later versions allowed for a single list per parameter, which was still insufficient for all but the most simple algorithms.
** I'm skipping a lot of taxonometric classifications here to keep it simple.…
Added by David Rutten at 2:22pm on January 20, 2015
3. receiver gets data from sender via input (0) < the data here may be changed in the meantime, for instance if its a double then I would like to add 1 to it.
4. receiver sends data to sender's input(2)
5. go to 1.
VS 2013 studio project folder
SENDER
Public Class loopStart Inherits GH_Component
Dim cnt As Integer
Friend Property counter() As Integer Get Return cnt End Get Set(value As Integer) cnt = value End Set End Property
Dim iData As New GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)
Friend Property startData() As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo) Get Return iData End Get Set(value As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)) iData = value End Set End Property
Public Sub New() MyBase.New("loopStart", "loopStart", "Start the loop with this one.", "Extra", "Extra") End Sub
Public Overrides ReadOnly Property ComponentGuid() As System.Guid Get Return New Guid("bdf1b60d-6757-422b-9d2d-08257996a88c") End Get End Property
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterInputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dIn", "Data to loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) pManager.AddIntegerParameter("Steps", "S", "Number of loops", GH_ParamAccess.item) pManager.AddGenericParameter("<X>", "<X>", "Please leave this one alone, don't input anything.", GH_ParamAccess.tree) pManager.Param(2).Optional = True End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterOutputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_OutputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dOut", "Data to loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) End Sub
Public Overrides Sub CreateAttributes() m_attributes = New loopStartAttributes(Me) End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub SolveInstance(ByVal DA As Grasshopper.Kernel.IGH_DataAccess)
Dim numLoop As Integer DA.GetData(1, numLoop)
Dim loopDt As New Grasshopper.Kernel.Data.GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)
If cnt = 0 Then Me.startData.Clear() DA.GetDataTree(0, Me.startData) loopDt = startData.Duplicate DA.SetDataTree(0, loopDt) End If
If cnt < numLoop - 1 And cnt > 0 Then DA.GetDataTree(2, loopDt) DA.SetDataTree(0, loopDt) Me.ExpireSolution(True) Else DA.GetDataTree(2, loopDt) DA.SetDataTree(0, loopDt) End If
cnt += 1
End Sub
End Class
RECEIVER
Public Class loopEnd Inherits GH_Component
Dim aData As New GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)
Friend Property anyData() As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo) Get Return aData End Get Set(value As GH_Structure(Of IGH_Goo)) aData = value End Set End Property
Public Sub New() MyBase.New("loopEnd", "loopEnd", "End the loop with this one.", "Extra", "Extra") End Sub
Public Overrides ReadOnly Property ComponentGuid() As System.Guid Get Return New Guid("3ffa3b66-8160-4ab3-87c9-356b2c17aadd") End Get End Property
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterInputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dIn", "Data to loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub RegisterOutputParams(ByVal pManager As Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Component.GH_OutputParamManager) pManager.AddGenericParameter("Data", "dOut", "Data after the loop", GH_ParamAccess.tree) End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub SolveInstance(ByVal DA As Grasshopper.Kernel.IGH_DataAccess) Me.aData.Clear() DA.GetDataTree(0, Me.aData) runner()
DA.SetDataTree(0, Me.aData) End Sub
Sub runner()
Dim doc As GH_document = Grasshopper.Instances.ActiveCanvas.Document Dim docl As list(Of iGH_DocumentObject) = (doc.Objects)
For i As Integer = 0 To docl.count - 1 Step 1 Dim comp As Object = docl(i) If comp.NickName = "loopStart" Then Dim compp As IGH_Param = comp.Params.input(2) compp.VolatileData.Clear() compp.AddVolatileDataTree(anyData) Exit For End If Next End Sub
End Class
…
option, after downloading check if .ghuser files are blocked (right click -> "Properties" and select "Unblock"). Then paste them in File->Special Folders->User Object Folder. You can download the example files from here. They act in similar way, Ladybug Photovoltaics components do: we pick a surface, and get an answer to a question: "How much thermal energy, for a certain number of persons can my roof, building facade... generate if I would populate them with Solar Water Heating collectors"? This information can then be used to cover domestic hot water, space heating or space cooling loads:
Components enable setting specific details of the system, or using simplified ones. They cover analysis of domestic hot water load, final performance of the SWH system, its embodied energy, energy value, consumption, emissions... And finding optimal system and storage size. By Dr. Chengchu Yan and Djordje Spasic, with invaluable support of Dr. Willian Beckman, Dr. Jason M. Keith, Jeff Maguire, Nicolas DiOrio, Niraj Palsule, Sargon George Ishaya and Craig Christensen. Hope you will enjoy using the components! References: 1) Calculation of delivered energy: Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, John Wiley and Sons, J. Duffie, W. Beckman, 4th ed., 2013. Technical Manual for the SAM Solar Water Heating Model, NREL, N. DiOrio, C. Christensen, J. Burch, A. Dobos, 2014. A simplified method for optimal design of solar water heating systems based on life-cycle energy analysis, Renewable Energy journal, Yan, Wang, Ma, Shi, Vol 74, Feb 2015
2) Domestic hot water load: Modeling patterns of hot water use in households, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Lutz, Liu, McMahon, Dunham, Shown, McGrue; Nov 1996. ASHRAE 2003 Applications Handbook (SI), Chapter 49, Service water heating
3) Mains water temperature Residential alternative calculation method reference manual, California energy commission, June 2013. Development of an Energy Savings Benchmark for All Residential End-Uses, NREL, August 2004. Solar water heating project analysis chapter, Minister of Natural Resources Canada, 2004.
4) Pipe diameters and pump power: Planning & Installing Solar Thermal Systems, Earthscan, 2nd edition
5) Sun postion and POA irradiance, the same as for Ladybug Photovoltaics (Michalsky (1988), diffuse irradiance by Perez (1990), ground reflected irradiance by Liu, Jordan (1963))
6) Optimal system and storage tank size: A simplified method for optimal design of solar water heating systems based on life-cycle energy analysis, Renewable Energy journal, Yan, Wang, Ma, Shi, Vol 74, Feb 2015.…
But not just any gum tree. The angophora, no less:
Why? Because I like nature, that's why. Every time I see new designs –especially architectural designs– it worries me that the natural environment is being taken over. Not just that, but even the new materials used in all product designs has to come from nature as well [read: mines].
So. People are forgetting that we still need trees and I believe that if someone sees a beautiful [read: established] tree in their architectural plans, they are going to be much more likely to build around it and not cut it down. That alone would no doubt increase the value of the house.
My thinking is that current tree models suck. They look unnatural and I think I know why. They're not random or organic enough. They're not detailed enough. That's basically my 'rationale' for this project. Just look at how different all of these tree trunks are!
So I am not being paid for this project. It's a personal project of mine. I'm just worried about the trunk shape for now — I'll worry about all the leaves... when I get to that.
I am a grasshopper beginner. Please keep that in mind. I am also fairly hopeless at traditional programming, but I find the visual approach of grasshopper much easier to grasp. So unfortunately I have gotten stuck and need some help, even just a clue, as to how to proceed.
That said, here is my current progress:
About a year ago, I started modelling with straight trunks using pipe sections, to see if I could get a very basic "tree" shape. And to see if I could join the segments together. Yes it works but it looks hopeless as you can imagine. Then I stopped for a long while. Now I'm back at it, hoping to improve a lot more.
I have already made one basic vertical nurbs curve with tangents at either end as the main "trunk".
I tried creating two ellipses at each end of the main trunk/curve and lofting between them but it omitted the main curve/rail. So it ended up being an elliptical trunk with straight sides which of course still didn't look right.
Then I divided the first main curve up into a number of segments. I think that is a better approach.
I have taken the parameters of the curve at each segment (probably the tangent, but I am unsure what the exact parameter is) and used that to form a basic angled plane at each segment/division.
I have been able to draw ellipses at each segment and rotate them onto the plane.
I was going to loft it together later on. A Curved loft with elliptical cross-sections looks much better than straight a pipe does, but still looks too unnatural.
I quickly realised that tree trunks are not elliptical, but rather, shaped more like 'kidneys'.
The next step was to create >3 points on each of those planes (spaced fairly evenly around the ellipse so as not to create a really funky/unwanted shape).
Maybe it would be better to model with a triangle or other polygon instead of an ellipse. I haven't got that far yet... because here is where I am getting stuck.
I managed to find a way of getting three roughly 'triangular' points along each that ellipse.
I also managed to create three nurbs cuves in the Z direction which intersected those three points, a bit like three seams down the side of the tree trunk, but couldn't figure out how to loft it all together.
I think it was the wrong approach anyway... I'd rather try to create a bunch of nurbs curves at each of the XY planes so as to get more control of the shape.
What I am trying to do now is create three roughly triangular-spaced points on a basic ellipse through which I can then draw a simple nurbs curve (think like a cross section of the trunk).
I would then like to add some XY-only randomness to the positions of those points. Not Z randomness, otherwise the trunk is going to get messed/kinked up. That's probably very important.
Then I would like to loft those nurbs curvs at each XY plane together forming the basic tree trunk, which also tapers based on some other variable (a non-linear factor, not simply distance from ground plane, perhaps something else?).
I have attached the GH file.
I am also open to suggestions if you have a better way of solving a problem. I would like to retain control over a lot of factor such as number of branches, spacing, average branch length, etc. My main contrsaints are that the entire thing has to be somewhat random and non-linear.
…
RESENTERS PETER ARBOUR seele KEITH BOSWELL Skidmore Owings & Merrill MARK E. DANNETTEL Thornton Thomasetti LISA IWAMOTO IwamotoScott JASON KELLY JOHNSONFuture Cities Lab/California College of the Arts HAO KO Gensler BILL KREYSLER Kreysler & Associates ANDREW KUDLESS Matsys/California College of the Arts CHRIS LASCH Aranda\Lasch ARNOLD LEE HOK MIC PATTERSON Enclos, Corp. M. MIN RA Front GEOFF ROSSI Element DENNIS SHELDEN Gehry Technologies ANN SMITH Cambridge Architectural MARCELLO SPINAP-A-T-T-E-R-N-S SANJEEV TANKHA Buro Happold BEN TRANEL Gensler PHIL WILLIAMS Webcor Builders & Consulting Group
DIGITAL FABRICATION WORKSHOPS
8 LU/HSW or 8 LU credits (depending upon workshop choice)
Friday, July 27th 2012 9:00 AM – 6:00 PMCalifornia College of the Arts San Francisco, California
PARAMETRIC ENVELOPES WITH GRASSHOPPERANDREW KUDLESS Matsys Design/California College of the Arts
COMPOSITE FACADES IN ARCHITECTUREBILL KREYSLER & JOSHUA ZABEL Kreysler & Associates
RESPONSIVE BUILDING FACADESJASON KELLY JOHNSON Future Cities Lab/California College of the Arts
SCRIPTED FACADESCHRIS LASCH Aranda/Lasch
PARAMETRIC FACADE TECTONICSKEVIN MCCLELLAN & ANDREW VRANA Digital Fabrication Alliance
BIM MODELING WITH REVIT/INTRO TO VASARIGERMAN APARICIO California College of the Arts & Autodesk Fellow
Facade technologies are developing at a more dynamic rate than almost any other issue related to construction today with an impact on performance, sustainability, materials, fabrication, design, delivery and much more. What was once thought impossible is now an everyday reality, and the future promises accelerating change.
Presented by Enclos and The Architect’s Newspaper, COLLABORATION will bring together in a two-day event, the industry, the profession, and the academy to explore the evolution and the issues surrounding today’s high tech building envelope through case studies and lectures presented by foremost
practitioners, as well as panel discussions, and workshops conducted by leaders in the AEC profession.
Aimed at architects, building owners and developers, general contractors, engineers, fabricators, material suppliers, educators, and students, the event’s panels and sessions address the transformative opportunities created by new technologies and resources. From using BIM for communicating effectively with fabricators, to energy modeling, to retrofitting practices and the latest design tools, the COLLABORATION conference offers an unprecedented opportunity to survey the possibilities of designing in the digital age.
Who Should Attend
Architects, designers, engineers, building owners, developers, and facade consultants interested in gaining increased understanding of cutting-edge building envelope technologies.…