erona, nei giorni 01,02 e 03 dicembre 2016.
Il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico diventano sempre più rilevanti per una progettazione innovativa degli edifici. Ad esempio, il nuovo protocollo LEED 4 riconosce crediti per le simulazioni di daylighting e conferma l’importanza degli aspetti progettuali per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre i consumi di energia elettrica per l’illuminazione artificiale con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”. Senza strumenti software per la simulazione della luce non è possibile ottenere risultati di qualità. Radiance è un software validato, utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che dai progettisti ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale e artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Queste ultime facilitano le procedure di programmazione. Le principali e più versatili saranno oggetto del corso (DIVA4Rhino e Ladybug+ Honeybee, plug-in per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros 3D).
Il corso è rivolto a progettisti e ricercatori che vogliano acquisire strumenti pratici per la simulazione con Radiance al fine di mettere a punto e verificare le soluzioni più adatte alle proprie esigenze. Sono previste lezioni di teoria e pratica con esempi ed esercitazioni volte a coprire in modo dimostrativo ed interattivo i concetti trattati.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 16 novembre 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Glas Müller.…
. BIM and Parametric.
Posts and files over at Design By Many:
http://www.designbymany.com/content/model-pattern-american-cement-building
I am equally comfortable on both of these platforms, and built the same parameters into each model. My modeling experience was very similar to that of Santiago. The Revit model took 4 hours to build, while the GH deff. took 16 hours to build. Time invested is certainly not the only metric to be compared; however, it is a good demonstration of the immediacy with which modifications can be made to the component system if parameter adjustment is not satisfactory.
With credit to Andrew Kudless for his process work on Manifold, I have adapted a similar workflow tracing diagram to the two models:
My general observation is that both tool sets approach the same problem, namely providing a structured relationship between components and wholes, but from opposing directions. BIM excels at compartmentalizing individual components, while parametric modelers like GH excell at global system-wide manipulations.
In the case of the American Cement Building, modeling the cast component seems to have fit in the box of 'the whole being reducible to its parts' the best. Although i anticipated Revit having more trouble with the surface generation, I found it to be more flexible on all accounts. Building up the component in a Pattern Based Curtain System family, the direct interaction with the rig (specifying control point work planes, and offsets) allowed the network of interactions to be accessible and editable throughout the build process. This family was then applied to a curtain panel grid which itself could be flexed in proportion, and cell count.
With the GH build I originally had the intention of utilizing data trees for parallel component construction so that changes to the base grid would affect offset normals and the like. However, after i had spent three hours constructing one parametric rail curve, I was unable to continue keeping track of the parallel data structure, and reverted to building a singular component. While GH certainly has the capacity to handle this task, I have found personally that the user does not.…
component I just used different components and GH tools to do the same - and this become part of my short paper submission for SimAUD 2016). My solution compares the height of the same points of different solar envelope and then chose the lowest one. I read about the improvement you are working on and it is good but I think it is not yet what I need (or how the solar envelope tool could be more complete).
What I need is a solar envelope that would guarantee on different facades with different orientations (the example I sent you) a certain amount of direct sunlight, say 4h per day in a given period for example all the month of June at 60°N. So to guarantee the south facing facade I should chose the vectors from 10 to 14. But these are not ok for all the other facades because in this timeframe the East and West facing facades get only 2 hours and the North get 0 hours.
So the fist step would be have the possibility to chose different sun vectors for different facades. For the example I did (the 4 hours in June at 60°N) the south facing facade would need from 10 to 14, the East facing for example from 8 to 12, the West facing facade from 12 to 16 and the North facing facade from 6 to 8 and from 18 to 20.
If I would chose a single longer time frame that could get all these hours, from 8 to 20 then the resulting solar envelope would result probably smaller than the sum of the four solar envelopes.
But this is not complete yet. I mean the use of different sun vectors on different facades. The reason is that for example when I chose the sun vectors from 8 to 12 for the four hours on the East facing facade how do I know that the sun hit on the facade in that time frame or maybe it is obstructed by surrounding buildings? Since the sun at 60°N (where I live) in June rise at around 3.15 then maybe for that specific facade the sun hit from 4 to 8 and not from 8 to 12.
I did an extreme case talking about 60°N and that maybe the sun hit on a facade at 4 instead than 12, but it is just to make understand the logic. My suggestion for a more advanced solar envelope it should be integrated with the Sunlight Hours tool of ladybug. So the input should not be the sun vectors because I don't know when the sun hit on the facade but the input should be just the desired number of hours and the possibility to specify different number of hours for each facade. Then this last component that sum different solar envelope (I didn't use it yet but I understood what it does) should be integrated yes so the result would be one single solar envelope more likely using the lowest points (the highest I don't understand what for).
Let me know what you think!
…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
en la práctica de nuevos métodos de diseño y fabricación utilizando herramientas digitales. Estos procedimientos emergentes están cambiando radicalmente la manera en que nos aproximamos al proceso de diseño en términos de concepción y producción. Los participantes serán introducidos en el uso de softwares de modelado 2d y 3d para la generación de geometrías que serán posteriormente mecanizadas in situ en una máquina de control numérico CNC de 3 ejes.
¡AL FINAL DEL CURSO TE LLEVAS TU LÁMPARA A CASA!
Profesores: Equipo MEDIODESIGN* + TOOLINGROUP*
*Official Rhino Trainners. Acreditación otorgada por McNeel, desarrolladores del software Rhinoceros.
Lugar: Mediodesign. Pallars 85-91 5-2 BCN
Duración: 16 / 20 horas
Fecha: sábado 9 / domingo 10 julio de 2011
Horario: de 10h a 14h / de 16h a 20h
Plazas: 20 participantes
REQUISITOS
< Dirigido a estudiantes y profesionales de la arquitectura, diseño y profesiones afines.
< Ordenador portátil.
< Softwares instalados. En el momento de la inscripción, los participantes recibirán las instrucciones para la descarga e instalación de versiones gratuitas (trials) de los softwares.
CONTENIDOS
< Introducción al diseño avanzado y la fabricación digital.
< Entorno Rhinoceros y sus plug-ins.
< Herramientas y estrategias de trabajo CNC.
< Materiales y sus características.
< Planteamiento del ejercicio: diseño de una luminaria
< Desarrollo del archivo de RhinoCam para el mecanizado CNC.
< Mecanizado y post-producción.
< Entrega de propuestas: Presentación en formato digital del proceso de diseño y fabricación (pdf, powerpoint, etc…) y del prototipo de luminaria realizado.
INSCRIPCIONES
Precio: 199 € Materiales incluidos.
Forma de pago: mediante transferencia bancaria.
Límite fecha de inscripción: lunes 4 de julio 2011
Se otorgará certificado de asistencia. …
esos de diseño, el curso cubrirá los conceptos básicos para abordar proyectos de diseño a través del desarrollo de herramientas algorítmicas mediante un proceso de programación visual, se utilizará el software Rhinoceros 3d y el plugin Grasshopper como nuestras herramientas de trabajo.
Detalles:
Instructores: Luis de la Parra / Daniel Camiro
Lugar: Santiago centro
Ahumada Nº312 oficina 108 entrepiso, Santiago Centro (a una cuadra de metro plaza de armas).
Fechas: 27-30 de octubre 2011
Duracion: 25 horas
Cupo: Limitado a 15 plazas
Costos:
Estudiantes:$80,000
Profesionales:$100,000
Fecha limite de pago: lunes 24 de octubre 2011
Importante:Todos los niveles de experiencia son bienvenidos el único requisito es tener un entendimiento básico de los programas CAD y una actitud positiva hacia el aprendizaje de dichas herramientas.
Si planeas venir de fuera de la ciudad avísanos y te pondremos en contacto con otras personas que también vayan a hacerlo para en caso de desearlo puedan compartir su lugar de estancia.
Contacto Santiago:
Luis de la ParraCel: 714-660-33info@chidostudio.comhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Chido-Studio-Collective/233962149953480
No. Cuenta de Ahorro de Banco Estado : 00169946655
Para hacer transferencia bancaria favor de enviar mail solicitando los datos necesarios. Favor de mandarnos el deposito (scaneado) o el comprobante por mail para que recibas más información del curso y del tema a info@chidostudio.com
Todos los mails se responden en un máximo de 24 horas.
Muchas gracias por tu interés saludos
…
Added by daniel camiro at 10:48am on September 5, 2011
16-20 / PUEBLA JULY 23-27
This workshop is intended primarily for architects and designers interested in learning parametric and generative design applied to the generation and rationalization of complex geometries for their implementation in different design processes. The course will cover basic concepts and methodology to address many design issues through the development of algorithmic tools via a visual programming language and the development of digital fabrication schemes. Rhinoceros 3D and Grasshopper are going to be used as our modeling tools and V-Ray as our rendering engine. Monday to Friday from 10am to 2pm and from 4pm to 8pm 40hrs.
No previous knowledge of Rhinoceros 3D or programming required, CAD background desirable.
Students: 4,000 MXN Professionals: 5,000 MXN Info: workshop@3dmetrica.com 044 55 28790084 www.3dmetrica.com
www.facebook.com/3dmetrica
TALLER DE VERANO ARQUITECTURA PARAMETRICA DISEÑO GENERATIVO RHINO + GRASSHOPPER + V-RAY
TOUR MÉXICO 2012
MEXICALI 25 AL 29 DE JUNIO / CIUDAD DE MÉXICO 2 AL 6 DE JULIO / MORELIA 9 AL 13 DE JULIO / GUADALAJARA 16 AL 20 DE JULIO / PUEBLA 23 AL 27 DE JULIO
Este taller está dirigido principalmente a arquitectos y diseñadores interesados en el aprendizaje del diseño paramétrico y generativo aplicados a la generación y racionalización de geometrías complejas para su implementación en diferentes procesos de diseño. En el curso se abordarán los conceptos básicos y metodología para hacer frente a diversas problemáticas del diseño mediante el desarrollo de herramientas algorítmicas a través de un lenguaje de programación visual y el desarrollo de esquemas de fabricación digital. Se utilizarán Rhinoceros 3D y Grasshopper como herramientas de modelado y V-Ray como motor de renderizado. Lunes a Viernes de 10am a 2pm y de 4pm a 8pm 40 hrs.
No se requieren conocimientos previos de Rhinoceros 3D ni de programación, conocimientos previos de CAD deseables.
Estudiantes: 4,000 MXN Profesionales: 5,000 MXN Info: workshop@3dmetrica.com 044 55 28790084 www.3dmetrica.com
www.facebook.com/3dmetrica
…
ngoing Co-de-iT research called “inFORMed matter“.
The “inFORMed matter” research project focuses on the exploration of additive fabrication processes, aiming to inform as in to produce form through the morphogenetic properties and capacities of matter by embedding further information structures during the fabrication process itself.
The goal is to go beyond the current state of prototyping, according to which the physical prototype should be as close as possible a clone of its digital counterpart, thus making fabrication a purely replicational phase. Instead, by coding and embedding additional levels of information aimed at mapping and defining material features and behaviors as well as different deployment patterns from which physical and aesthetic properties arise, the production and digital fabrication phase becomes an integral part of the design process.
The workshop it’s focused about the exploration and development of the whole process of design and digital manufacturing through additive processes of ceramic mixture materials.
[.] Workshop topics:
- Anticipate material behavior through digital simulation: test and apply different tool-based conditions and parameters (extrusion direction angle, speed of extrusion, variable layer thickness, etc … ) and evaluate the consequent material behavior in order to get useful feedback for the next iteration of the digital model. The aim is to understand how to embed material properties as code/information during the digital design phase, fine tuning it towards the desired effect-outcome. - Seamless design-to-machine pipeline: shorten the information pipeline from the design process to the constructor machine. This is achieved by acting on both factors: informing directly the machines by generating the necessary code in the design tool and build the design process around the capacities of the machines involved. - Embed morphogenetic material properties as design factors: understand and manage such properties, behaviors and their potential morphological outcomes for different materials, from clay to biologic matter, in order to map and use them as an atlas of expressive possibilities and performances of the material. - Understand constraints and opportunities determined by the chosen constructor agent/machine: learn to use and manage different machines to handle the extrusion tool for additive processes and learn to evaluate and exploit the influence, constraints and given opportunities provided by different machines and movement technologies.
During the workshop will be used as tools for handling the special ceramic extruder, a customized 3D printer, type delta, and a 6-axis Comau Robot NJ 60.
The final output will be then the result of influence, cooperation and conflict of these aspects upon, with and onto one another. Only successfully combining computational simulation, material properties and capacities and machine constraints and opportunities we can effectively evaluate and push further the design process potential and foster design and fabrication skills and sensibilities that will form the basis of a more comprehensive awareness in regard to the relations between computation and material aspects.
More info at: http://www.co-de-it.com/wordpress/informed-clay-matter-2-0-fablab-torino.html…
old" for energy simulation is not available so far (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/ladybug/forum/topics/hb-daylight-setpoint-bug), I have to set up the energy simulation based on an annual daylight simulation. Hereby, I have some questions as follows.
- As for the lighting schedule (in csv format) generated from the "annual Profiles" in the "read Annual Results I" component in daylight simulation, how can I link it (instead of the default lighting schedule) to the succedent energy simulation? Could you please show this in my GH files?
I could imagine how to make "customized" EP constructions and EP loads and link them to the simulation. But, as for EP schedules, I can not figure out how the energy simulation can receive and recognize a "customized" EP schedule (i.e. from csv files). I am asking this because the light schedule generated by daylight simulation is in csv format, and also because the schedules provided by Honeybee are limited to some specific building type (i.e. office, retail etc.). But the schedules of some other type of buildings are not included, like the schedules of sports buildings.
- In the attached csv file (which is generated from the "annual Profiles" in the "read Annual Results I" component in daylight simulation), why the electric lighting is still partially "on" even when the "occupancy" shows "0 (absent)"?
For instance, "Row 16, 64...." in the csv file. As I understand, the electric lighting is partially/fully "on" only when the both of the following conditions are met, namely, there are people in the space and the illuminance level from daylight is below the threshold. Am I right?
- Is the above mentioned procedure a proper way to calculate the energy use for electric lighting when there is a lighting dimming system (the electric lighting may be continuously adjusted in proportion to the amount of daylight available)?
Apart from the above mentioned way of calculating the energy use for electric lighting, I also made other two ways for comparison showed in the attached image. But, the outcomes are very different. Which do you think is the most proper way to calculate the energy use for electric lighting when there is a lighting dimming system?
Thank you very much in advance!
Best,
Ding
…