onents to the latest version and, as you can see, everything works fine:
Over the next week, I am going to be adding in several new capabilities to the Adaptive model in LB+HB that are not an official part of ASHRAE or ISO standards but they are endorsed by the experts and researchers who have helped build the standards. Mostapha, I will be sure to have the component give a comment any time that these un-standardized methods are used and I will be clear that I have made them a part of LB because I have found these insights from new research to be particularly helpful to design processes for passive architecture. Also, I think many of us recognize that both ASHRAE and ISO were initially founded to produce standards for conditioned or refrigerated spaces and that, understandably, they . Among the features that I will be adding in:
1) You will have the option of using either the American ASHRAE adaptive model or the ISO EN-15251 model (see the CBE's comfort tool for a visual of the differences - http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/).
2) In addition to a different comfort polygon, the European standard also uses a "running mean" outdoor temperature instead of the average monthly outdoor temperature. This "running mean" is computed by looking at the average temperatures over the last week and weights each of the daily average temperatures by how recent it is. This makes more sense to me than the ASHRAE method and addresses the issue that you bring up, Alejandro. Needless to say, the updated adaptive model will allow you to use either a running mean or average monthly temperature with either the American or European polygon.
3) The WIP adaptive chart currently has an option for a "levelOfConditioning". This input allows you to make use of research the was conducted along-side the initial development of the adaptive model, which showed that the findings did not contradict the PMV model when people were surveyed in fully conditioned buildings. This parallel research ended up producing a different correlation between the outdoor and desired indoor temperatures and this correlation had a much shallower slope than the official adaptive model for fully naturally-ventilated buildings. The levelOfConditioning allows you to make a custom correlation for full natural ventilation, full conditioning or (presumably) somewhere in between for a mixed-mode building. This levelOfConditioning will become an official input for all LB components using the adaptive model (not just the chart at the moment).
At the end of all of this, I will put together a new video series on Adaptive comfort so that we are all on the same page about how to use the model.
-Chris…
Send Feedback
Defines enumerated values for all implemented corner styles in curve offsets.
Namespace: Rhino.GeometryAssembly: RhinoCommon (in RhinoCommon.dll) Version: 5.1.30000.12 (5.0.20693.0)
Syntax
C#
public enum CurveOffsetCornerStyle
Visual Basic
Public Enumeration CurveOffsetCornerStyle
Members
Member name
Value
Description
None
0
The dafault value.
Sharp
1
Offsets and extends curves with a straight line until they intersect.
Round
2
Offsets and fillets curves with an arc of radius equal to the offset distance.
Smooth
3
Offsets and connects curves with a smooth (G1 continuity) curve.
Chamfer
4
Offsets and connects curves with a straight line between their endpoints.
…
... er ... hmm ... I would strongly suggest Plan B:
How to get the gist of C# in just 123 (+1) easy steps (I've already posted that 3-4 times if memory serves well):
Step 0: get rid of the computer (press the OFF button), buy some cigars:
Step 1: get the cookies
The bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).
The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).
The bible PlanC: C# 5.0/6.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favorite
The reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334
The candidates:
C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)
C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)
C# Language (Jones)
Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)
Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)
...
Step 120: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)
Step 121: tun ON computer
Step 122: do something
Step 123: shut down computer permanently, forget all that
May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.…
reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…
l, you can find examples of parametric design using LB/HB, specifically the HB component pollinator workflows.
In these examples, a GH component (data recorder) is used to locally store either input parameters or output values of different model configurations and transmit them to pollinator. I can imagine, depending on how your facade is made parametric in GH, that you could save those input parameters (e.g. angle of surfaces or height of extrusion) and output variables for each iteration (e.g. annual shading).
This a search process through the design space. I do think that if you would set up the model as such, then it would be ok that the components in the PV workflow resetted after each iteration as the results would be saved. There is even a really good visualization platform Mostapha has shared to go along pollinator.
You can find examples of these workflows in the forum, simply search pollinator. I have one that I shared somewhere as well, although it was doing rudimentary things it would help.
This design space approach is a bit different than the optimization approach utilizing components like galapagos. It gives you an idea of the space of possible different desings and allows you to compare alternatives. Plus, it usually allows me to avoid all these issues of losing results between components in the workflo.
I also find it very handy and much more efficient than simply allowing a component optimize everything for me. However, it can ncrease almost exponantially (or is it geometrically, I am always bad at this) to the range and number of your input parameters. So, if each square on the wall has more than a couple of input values for a a few input parameters, I would expect this to take a long time. Thankfully, the components in the workflow will let you know exactly how many iterations.
If this method is interesting to you and you follow it I would suggest a few things to hasten the process like utilizing only the squared above and on the sides of the PV panel, since the others won't really affect shading, selecting just 2 or 3 characteristic angles for extrusions, and perhaps approximating energy production through annual shading numbers (since I imagine they have an almost linear relationship).
I do hope that I have understood what you want to do and the above information helps. I'm sure Djordje will give much better feedback on the specifics of the PV workflow. I will try and keep this page saved so that I can send over the example once I'm back at work mid of next week.
Good luck!
Kind regards,
Theodore.
…
st variety of papers (mostly related with LIDAR airborne sampled clouds) ... but ... hmm ... no code (other than some "abstract" algos that may (or may not) work). Reason? A very hot cake that one these days: from reverse engineering to DARPA founded future defense systems and up to cruse missiles pattern recognition algos.
The solution (obviously doable only via code) is the so called flat hard clustering ... were points are sampled into clusters based on the coPlanarity "rule". For large amounts recursive octTrees (an oriented box divided in 8 "partitions") subdivisions are used and then pts are processed in parallel (and then clusters are re-evaluated in order to "absorb" other clusters with same plane A,B,C,D vars etc etc).
See what's happening in a very carefully made test point collection:
3.7 ms and the "ideal" clustering (7 search loops VS the max 42M theoretical threshold):
Depending on the pts "preparation" ... a considerable more time/search loops is required ... and ... well ... also "valid" clusters (4 points and up) made:
So "ideally" speaking in your case:
1. Mesh faces center points (or alternatively: mesh vertices) are sampled into a pts collection .
2. Hard flat coPlanarity clustering is attempted yielding pts/planes in equivalent DataTrees.
3. Planar Breps are made with respect the planes (like the black things captured above) and sampled, say, into a breps List.
4. The method Brep[] solids = Brep.CreateSolid(breps); is used for attempting to create your desired "engulfing" brep. This method is very slow mind (other waaaay faster approaches also available).
…
ace
4 : Waterplane inertia
5 : "Finesse" f = WLL/(V^1/3) _ f stands for "frog" also, I think you use WLL^3/V in the English speaking world. I could have used WLL directly because the hull is set at the desired displacement before analysis - no use to test at random displacement indeed!
---First try on a 40' cruiser with jittery control points and bad volume repartition, a 30-seconds-work to a tee.
Red dots are original points, white mesh is current surface control polygon.
INPUT
After just a few steps I was able to find good candidates. Check the video.
OUTPUT
---Second try on an Open 60' hull. This was an rhino modeling exercise for students, so it's clean and realistic already, and I gave the same objective values as the original to see if it would fall on its feet. In this case I blocked the edges points.
I was amazed to see that It works!
INPUTOUTPUT
See the nice diagram! All points closest to the wet surface axis have good CP and position. On the left, very round hulls with poor stability (purple) and short WLL (big), on the right, wide hulls with higher water resistance (cyan) and longer WLL (small).
This is only one generation. with a few steps more it zooms in where the two sides meet. The two surfaces actually cross and I found very quickly an individual dominant on both wet surface and stability fronts.
I LIKE IT :)))
========
…
ave bugs and your set-up may differ from what we tested. If you find any, please note bugs in the comments so we can fix them, thanks... Greg
The implementation is pretty logical, and open enough that you can use GH to easily link the robot toolpath and rail/table control for 1,2 and 3 axis linear rails and 1, 2 and 2x1, 1+2x1 etc. rotary tables. The 'Create External Axis' component is included so you can add you own geometry, or create other configurations.
Linear Rail: Plug External Axis into P on the robot.
The basic idea is that you instruct the rail to move the robot base plane either independently or relative to the toolpath. The later is preferable, so when you modify the toolpath the robot base position remains linked. For smooth toolpaths this works well, if you have a lot of back and forth movements, the whole robot will do that too, in which case a direct approach may suit you better, or some bracketing (we'll generate some examples for that soon).
Note: To keep the Linear Rail static while it is working on the Rotary Table, you can input a list of duplicate values to the Rail Axis input.
Rotary Table: Plug External Axis into E on the robot.
Control this through a list of angles in radians. The list of length values for the Linear Rail or the list of angles for the Rotary Table must be the same length as the number of Planes in the Path - as each value goes onto the same line of robot code.
There are two basic examples in the attached file:
Still to do:
- Integration with the IO Milling plugin.
- API calls.
- Tutorials for Create External Axis component.
For any questions, feature requests, bugs and example file requests - add your comments below... Please share you examples as well.
…
Added by Gregory Epps to IO at 12:55pm on August 12, 2015
uld help me to optimize the script, so it works reliable.
At the end the script should work only by the input of the following informations:
- Top-Curve
- Bottom-Curve
- accuracy ( like poly-count)
- is the bowl an open or closed structure?
This is an example of a good result:
From here its probably the best if you open both attached files, so you understand the problems.
1. Bug:
Offset direction of the bottomcurve needs to be set up by hand sometimes.
The script uses "loft" on a bunch of 3pt Arcs to create transitions. Arc 3pts" needs a "Point B" on the offset of the bottom line. Sometimes the offset is inverted, so i need to change it by hand.
The rule to make it work correct is: "The offset of the bottom line goes into the same direction as the top line, but on the same hight as the bottom line."
How can i implement this in GH?
2. Bug:
The floor generation needs a lot of guessing the right index numbers of lists.
The script uses 2x "Deconstruct Brep" to find the actual bottom curve of the created transition Brep. "Patch" is used to create a floor from this curve.
If the bowl is an open structure, the script creates a line between the endpoints of the bottom curve to close it, in order to create a trimmed "Patch". But again, you have to set up the right Index Numbers by hand...
3. Bug:
If the bowl is an open structure and the endpoints of the top-line and the bottom-line are the same the lofting is not working. At the moment I use a script that finds double points in the list and deletes it.
But the the result is, that the loft is not starting at the beginning or the end. Here is an Image.
I have only a little experience in gh, but i really want to learn more.
Thank you all for your help!…
me of course!So I'll try to be as clear as possible.I have two problems.The form we have is a shade. I would like to close the shape of the top so she cancling to a bulb socket. For this, I want to keep a planar surface (the same surface asthe top of the basic shape without distortion but reduced (scale)), then connect themodified form (with the attractors points) to this surface. However, it must be dividethis surface on triangle to succeed have flat surface (because the shade is made of paper and then cut out of planar sheets).I managed to do it but very complicated and non-automatic by taking each point oneby one through lists items.Do you know a way to do it automatically and it still works even if we increase the number of facets of the form?I also have a problem with attractors points to 2 different places, to distort the basic shape and create the holes.
I could wish to create as many attractors points what I want in my program but it is limited.Do you think it is possible to group all attractors points in only component (point) to make this automatic?In my program, I have managed to use several (3) points attractors to distort the basic shape using dispatch order if I want attractors for example 24 points, I wouldcreate 24 pieces of program which is quite disturb!For holes, the problem IS exactly the same.Do you have any ideas? (If you have time).
Thanks a lot.Ines
…