mpidou project and the zabgreb airport proposal.actually these are 2 slighly different versions.the metz project has bulky woven poles while the airport project has skinny non-woven poles.metz:
the airport version:
my current situation:
for now i have the poles as separate surfaces from the roof. they do follow each other smoothly but they are separate objects (and i don't know how to merge them, since brep union doesn't seem to work).
i also have the beam grid applied to the roof surface:
i need to make the beams follow the "poles". either of the two versions depicted above would be fine, whichever is quickest to do...
my definition currently has the hex grid in uv space, but i also have a version where the grid is in xy space and projected vertically onto the surface.
ban's project has the grid in xy space and projected onto the wavy surface, BUT it has local deformations of the grid around the poles:
in my version the poles are also slanted which probably isn't helping doing this easy..
i also centered the meeting point of the pole axis on centers of hexagons, to get some sort of radial symmetry for the upcoming grid morph.
anyway, i really hope i can find some help around here, lend me your thoughts....
thanks for the interest
…
nowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities. The Call for Clusters is now open to proposals which respond in innovative ways to this year's challenge.
Deadline: September 19 2011
More information can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=146
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information.Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities.sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org…
t. So here we go!
1. Honeybee is brown and not yellow [stupid!]...
As you probably remember Honeybee logo was initially yellow because of my ignorance about Honeybees. With the help of our Honeybee expert, Michalina, now the color is corrected. I promised her to update everyone about this. Below are photos of her working on the honeybee logo and the results of her study.
If you think I'm exaggerating by calling her a honeybee expert you better watch this video:
Thank you Michalina for the great work! :). I corrected the colors. No yellow anymore. The only yellow arrows represent sun rays and not the honeybee!
2. Yellow or brown, W[here]TH Honeybee is?
I know. It has been a long time after I posted the initial video and it is not fun at all to wait for a long time. Here is the good news. If you are following the Facebook page you probably now that the Daylighting components are almost ready.
Couple of friends from Grasshopper community and RADIANCE community has been helping me with testing/debugging the components. I still think/hope to release the daylighting components at some point in January before Ladybug gets one year old.
There have been multiple changes. I finally feel that the current version of Honeybee is simple enough for non-expert users to start running initial studies and flexible enough for advanced users to run advanced studies. I will post a video soon and walk you through different components.
I think I still need more time to modify the energy simulation components so they are not going to be part of the next release. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to set up and run a wrong energy simulation and I really don’t want to add one new GIGO app to the world of simulation. We already have enough of that. Moreover I’m still not quite happy with the workflow. Please bear with me for few more months and then we can all celebrate!
I recently tested the idea of connecting Grasshopper to OpenStudio by using OpenStudio API successfully. If nothing else, I really want to release the EnergyPlus components so I can concentrate on Grasshopper > OpenStudio development which I personally think is the best approach.
3. What about wind analysis?
I have been asked multiple times that if Ladybug will have a component for wind study. The short answer is YES! I have been working with EFRI-PULSE project during the last year to develop a free and open source web-based CFD simulation platform for outdoor analysis.
We had a very good progress so far and our rockstar Stefan recently presented the results of the work at the American Physical Society’s 66th annual DFD meeting and the results looks pretty convincing in comparison to measured data. Here is an image from the presentation. All the credits go to Stefan Gracik and EFRI-PULSE project.
The project will go live at some point next year and after that I will release the Butterfly which will let you prepare the model for the CFD simulation and send it to EFRI-PULSE project. I haven’t tried to run the simulations locally yet but I’m considering that as a further development. Here is how the component and the logo looks like right now.
4. Teaching resources
It has been almost 11 months from the first public release of Ladybug. I know that I didn't do a good job in providing enough tutorials/teaching materials and I know that I won’t be able to put something comprehensive together soon.
Fortunately, ladybug has been flying in multiple schools during the last year. Several design, engineering and consultant firms are using it and it has been thought in several workshops. As I checked with multiple of you, almost everyone told me that they will be happy to share their teaching materials; hence I started the teaching resources page. Please share your materials on the page. They can be in any format and any language. Thanks in advance!
I hope you enjoyed/are enjoying/will enjoy the longest night of the year. Happy Yalda!
Cheers,
-Mostapha
…
DP ($$$ aside), GC, and Grasshopper. Arthur’s original question is very important
and the exact question (and hopefully answer) I was hoping to find on a
forum.
“How to take intelligent 3D parametric generative design models (scripting, etc.) into 2D documents?" Or, deliver the 3D design for evaluation, bid, construction, etc.
I am intrigued by Jon’s comments in the same thread and would like to know how I can learn more about the process (and
pitfalls) of turning over a 3D digital generative models to a contractor/fabricator.
Are there any industry guidelines established I could use as a reference to guide our firm through this type of uncharted territory?
Arthur’s question is very reminiscent of 10 years ago when I was frustrated with the amount of time spent on the development of a 3D model design (physical and/or virtual) only to have to wipe the table clean and start the process all over again in 2D in order to document the project for delivery. From this I jumped head first into BIM and Revit, vowing never to go back to unintelligent 2D line work. I am now working on Bentley software (v8i: Microstation and Bentley Architecture) with the access and desire to venture into Generative Components. I am very intrigued by Rhino/Grasshopper primarily with the apparent ease of use and available resources assisting in the learning process – something not really available with Bentley.
In hindsight, as I am doing my software research I think the current use of Revit and BA (Bentley Architecture) are more of a “bridge”
between the past (decades of digital 2D work, i.e. AutoCAD) and where hopefully
we all will be someday in the near future (100% 3D modeling, i.e. Digital
Project??). Without having the experience
it would appear that DP/CATIA (PLM software) are closer to this than any other
type of software. As complicated as the
industry standards are for the automobile and airline industry, I feel we
(architectural industry and others) are heading in a similar direction with
total understanding (PLM/ Evidence Based Design) of a design (a whole other topic). If anything I think the market will begin to
demand it sooner or later.
Gehry (DP) article NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/11gehry.html
I know these type of broad discussions (software vs. software) can be blown out of proportion on forums, but I am would like to read
the pulse of those who are already in the trenches (using Grasshopper, CATIA, Digital Project, Generative Components, others??) and hear your thoughts. Just as valuable would be other threads,
industry articles/reviews of 3D parametric generative design software.
Thanks,
Boyd…
helped to make grasshopper a great platform for research and design in parametric design and fabrication including, Andy Payne, Daniel Piker, and Ronnie Parsons and Gil Akos from Studio Mode. In addition, this is the first AA Summer program to happen in the US and will bring many faculty and students from the EmTech program to San Francisco.
Here is the whole description:
BIODYNAMIC STRUCTURES AA Visiting School @ CCA California College of the Art Monday 12 to Wednesday 21 July, 2010
Biodynamics is the study of the force and energy of dynamic processes on living organisms. Through simple mechanisms embedded within the material logic of natural systems, specific stimuli can activate a particular response. This response occurs in carnivorous plants such as the Venus fly-trap, which uses turgor pressure to trap small insects in order to feed, and worms, which by contracting differently oriented muscles, achieve movement. This ten-day intensive workshop, co-taught by the faculty of the Emergent Technologies and Design Programme at the AA and the faculty of Architecture and MEDIAlab at California College of the Arts, will explore active systems in nature, investigating biomimetic principles in order to analyze, design and fabricate prototypes that respond to electronic and environmental stimuli. Students will work in teams to research specific biological systems, extracting logics of organization, geometry, structure and mathematics. Advanced analysis, simulation, modeling and fabrication tools will be introduced in order to apply this information to the design of both passive and active responsive architectural systems. Investigation and application of robotics, sensors and actuators will be employed for the activation of the material system investigation through the construction of working responsive prototypes.
+ CONTENT TAGS: Biodynamic, Parametric, Scripted, Mimetic, Responsive, Interactive, Digitally Fabricated
+ SOFTWARE: Rhino, Grasshopper, Firefly, RhinoScript, Arduino, Processing
CORE FACULTY
Michael Weinstock (Academic Head, Director of Emergent Technologies Programme, AA London UK)
Christina Doumpioti, Evan Greenberg, Konstantinos Karatzas (Tutors, AA EmTech Programme, London UK)
Jason Kelly Johnson (Future Cities Lab), Andrew Kudless (Matsys) (CCA MediaLab Coordinators, SF CA)
ASSOCIATED FACULTY
George Jeronimidis (Director of Center for Biomimetics, University of Reading UK); Andrew Payne (LIFT Architects, Grasshopper Primer); Daniel Segraves (ASGG Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture); Ronnie Parsons + Gil Akos (Studio Mode, NY); Daniel Piker (Kangaroo Project Live Physics)
ASSOCIATED LECTURERS:
Thom Faulders (Faulders Studio, San Francisco CA); Lisa Iwamoto and Craig Scott (Iwamoto/Scott Architects, San Francisco CA); David Gissen (HTC Experiments/CCA); Ila Berman (CCA Director of Architecture); Wendy Ju (CCA/Stanford University); Andrew Sparks (CCA); Nataly Gattegno (Future Cities Lab, San Francisco CA);
ENROLLMENT INFORMATION:
http://sanfrancisco.aaschool.ac.uk/; or visit the CCA MEDIAlab website: http://mlab.cca.edu
(Workshops are non-credit. Enrollment is processed by the AA. Workshop will run the full 10 days.)
CCA Faculty Coordinators: Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Kudless
AA Microblog Site: http://sanfrancisco.aaschool.ac.uk/
twitter: bioworkshopsf
Contact
visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk or mlab@cca.edu
Downloads
Application Form…
EP output variables are to calculate outdoorAirEnergy?
Thank you very much!
Output variables on the Read EP Results component:[1] totalThermalEnergy=cooling+heating[2] thermalEnergyBalance=cooling (-)andheating (+)[3] cooling= Zone Ideal Loads Supply Air Total Cooling Energy [J](Hourly)=Zone Ideal Loads Supply Air Sensible Cooling Energy [J](Hourly)+ Zone Ideal Loads Supply Air Latent Cooling Energy [J](Hourly)[4] heating= Zone Ideal Loads Supply Air Total Heating Energy [J](Hourly)= Zone Ideal Loads Supply Air Sensible Heating Energy [J](Hourly) + Zone Ideal Loads Supply Air Latent Heating Energy [J](Hourly)[5] electricLight=Zone Lights Electric Energy [J](Hourly)[6] electricEquip=Electric Equipment Electric Energy [J](Hourly)[7] peopleGains=Zone People Total Heating Energy [J](Hourly)[8] totalSolarGain=Zone Windows Total Transmitted Solar Radiation Energy[9] infiltrationEnergy=Zone Infiltration Total Heat Gain Energy (+)andZone Infiltration Total Heat Loss Energy (-)[10] outdoorAirEnergy= ???[11] natVentEnergy=Zone Ventilation Total Heat Gain Energy (+)andZone Ventilation Total Heat Loss Energy (-)[12] operativeTemperature=Zone Operative Temperature[13] airTemperature=Zone Mean Air Temperature[14] meanRadTemperature=Zone Mean Radiant Temperature[15] relativeHumidity=Zone Air Relative Humidity[16] airFlowVolume=[infiltrationFlow] Zone Infiltration Standard Density Volume Flow Rate+[natVentFlow] Zone Ventilation Standard Density Volume Flow Rate+[mechSysAirFlow] Zone Mechanical Ventilation Standard Density Volume Flow Rate+[earthTubeFlow] Earth Tube Air Flow Volume[17] airHeatGainRate=[surfaceAirGain] Zone Air Heat Balance Surface Convection Rate+[systemAirGain] Zone Air Heat Balance System Air Transfer Rate
Output variables on the Read EP Surface Results component:[1] surfaceIndoorTemp= Surface Inside Face Temperature[2] surfaceOutdoorTemp=Surface Outside Face Temperature[3] surfaceEnergyFlow=[opaqueEnergyFlow] Surface Average Face Conduction Heat Transfer Energy+[glazEnergyFlow] Surface Window Heat Gain Energy[4] opaqueEnergyFlow =Surface Average Face Conduction Heat Transfer Energy[5] glazEnergyFlow= Surface Window Heat Gain Energy[6] windowTotalSolarEnergy=Surface Window Transmitted Solar Radiation Energy[7] windowBeamEnergy=Surface Window Transmitted Beam Solar Radiation Energy[8] windowDiffEnergy=Surface Window Transmitted Diffuse Solar Radiation Energy[9] windowTransmissivity=Surface Window System Solar Transmittance…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
analysis with Honeybee. Here is the tentative outline:
09:00 - 09:30
What is Honeybee, Introduction to daylighting simulation
09:30 - 11:00
Geometry preparation workflows, Radiance materials
11:00 - 11:10
Break
11:10 - 12:30
Sky types, Run your first simulation
12:30 - 13:30
Lunch
13:30 - 15:00
Daylighting analysis types, Result visualization, Getting started with annual daylight
15:00 - 15:15
Break
15:15 - 16:00
Annual daylight analysis and Results interpretation
Check MEBD page for more information including the registration link: http://www.mebd-penndesign.info/Honeybee-MEBD-Workshop-PennDesign
Please feel free to forward this to anyone of interest.
Cheers,
Mostapha
PS: Thank you all for the kind comments and emails for the Ladybug workshop. We recorded the workshop and are in the process of figuring out how to share it with the public. I will send an update once it is uploaded.
…