multiply of variants from Galapagos, to have a chance for better analysis and comparability after. I also would like to use more then one solution in my design after.
In old topics i found kind of 3 solutions.
1.Change Galapagos to octopus ( what don t really want to do, i am kind of happy with Galapagos)
2. Use Slingshot! and MySQL Database ( it s look a little bit too complicated from the first view)
3. Use Colibri and Design Explorer Platform (looks kind of pretty way to solve my problem)
So i tried to add Colibri components to my definition , but have some mistake in the Colibri Aggregator after adding the Genome "An item with the same key already been added". I think it comes because for some steps i am using the "Gen Pool" and not a normal slider. Is it a way to connect Gen Pool and Colibri (i really prefer to have it, then a lot of sliders in some cases)?
And the second question (if i will get it solved with gen pool), could i somehow controll the recording process? For example i would likte to record only variants wit fitness over 90% or start recording just after 20. generation and record till the end?
I also opend for all other possibilities to reach the same goal (record/save/bake multiply variants from galapagos)
…
starting as soon as possible.
We're offering challenging projects, insights and contact to leading industry companies, project responsibilities according to abilities and initiative, great work environment and laid-back atmosphere, room to play and evolve,...
Our ideal candidate:
- is passionate about construction, engineering and (computational) design
- is proficient in Rhino / Grasshopper / (GH-)Python
- knows his ways around the Adobe Suite and MS Office
- has a current work permit for Germany
- is a German speaker (other native speakers also welcome, with excellent English skills)
- has an architectural background (Student / BA / MA /...), ideally with work experience
- is interested / has experience in digital manufacturing and prototyping
- will be able to join us shortly
We're looking forward to your applications / inquiries / CVs to: mpelzer@fat-lab.de
View our past projects here: www.fat-lab.com
(Current projects, unfortunately, are non-disclosed)
…
eventually found out about genetic algorithms on which I found extensive researches, projects,... ! I looked into it and ended up on a few papers which I believe are the jumpstart for my master thesis.
"Galapagos; on the logic and limitations of generic solvers" by David RuttenArticle in Architectural Design 83(2) March 2013
"Black-box optimisation methods for architectural design" by Thomas Wortmann and Giacomo NanniciniConference Paper: CAADRIA 2016, At Melbourne, AU, Volume: 177-186
So I started looking into alternatives to genetic algorithms in architectural design.So far, I've ended up on :
Thomas Wortmann's work with the surrogate(or model) based optimization approach!You can check out the tool he developped for GH (Opossum):http://www.food4rhino.com/app/opossum-optimization-solver-surrogate-models
Judyta Cichocka's work, specially with the Swarm approachYou can check out the tool she developped for GH (Silvereye):http://www.food4rhino.com/app/silvereye-pso-based-solver
And that's it !!! I've been researching through article references (mainly on "researchgate") but I'm now stuck in a loop of references I already visited!That probably means the litterature on the subject is not (yet) extended but I might probably be missing something.The keywords make it difficult to search : "optimisation", "algorithms", "architecture", send me most of the time to computational engineering and deep mathematics papers I unfortunately do not have the background knowledge to comprehend ! So there it is ! If you have any clue of where (or how ! ) I should be looking, please tell me :)I know Mr Rutten is pretty active on the forum so hopefully... (fingers crossed :p) !Also if you have any good tips for getting into algorithms in general (you think could help), I'd be glad to hear(read) it ! A book, tutorials maybe ?!So, autors, architects, projects books, articles, conferences I should go to,specialized architecture offices/studios (I'm also looking for an internship so ...).If you know about a more appropriate forum please let me know !If you want to get deeper into this, you can contact me at :
e1635331@student.tuwien.ac.at
tdissaux@student.ulg.ac.be
My master thesis is due for may 2018 but I have a paper to write for January 2018 in order to be elligible for a PHD program afterwards.What I mean by that is that if you read this message in 6 month, I'll still be open to discussion !
I am right now an erasmus student at TUWien (Vienna) but my main university is The university of Liège in Belgium.I can handle French, English, Italian litterature and eventually Dutch if really you think it's worth it ! I have access to most online libraries via my university's portals so access shouldn't be an issue !I'm very excited to hear from you I wish you all a great day,Cheers,Thomas
…
thought that architect's love for drawing comes from the necessity of translate abstract ideas into built 3D reality, and the technology behind that 2D representation has not evolve so much until some decades ago. Our teachers come from that times: times when computers try to find their place in the reality representation world. If you try to imagine that people that have always drawn with pencils adapting to this new tools...some become fan of new methods, other just keep the old fashion workflow (like Andrew said in the article, Schumacher VS Graves)
We've bear (at least Andrew and me :P) in 80's with first video games, computers (I still remember my old x286 with 1Mb RAM and 20Mb of HD and that MS-DOS interface)...New technology was natural for us...But there is a big difference between traditional drawing and new computer aided tools: the learning curve. To draw you only need to take a pen and put over a paper (that interface is understood by children easily) , but traditional computational tools (new touch interfaces are out of this group) are based in a complex logic and environment that is not easy to understand for some people.
In the workshops I'm teaching in, I try to put all that tools (new and old one) in my students hands and motivate them to mix and use them together (Andrew knows a little bit about that :P). Why not to make a lines sketch with GH and then print it and render with some markers?; the last step could be scan the result and enhance it in Photoshop adding textures, vegetation, some background...There are no rules, only a bunch of tools to explore and use to develop your ideas, evolve and finally represent them.
I bet to the touch interfaces (with some augmented reality sauce) like that one that will be able to blend both worlds, analog and digital, offering that fluidity and natural interaction that Grave miss in digital tools. And our generation attached to this "not natural" interfaces will need to change its mind and adapt to that new and amazing interface that our children will love.
Only to complete:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aXV-yaFmQNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>…
Added by Ángel Linares at 5:40pm on September 10, 2012
e volume. The yellow line above.
This volume, green on the above image
So with this there was an intersection with the Brep volume of the chair and the lattice.
After that I used cocoon. Here the parameters I used for the Brep and curve. So The Brep was offsetted.
The model is 80 unit height and cell size is 0.2 so roughly there are 400 divisions in Z. If cubic it will give 6.4 millions of cells. To my point of view it is important to choose well the cell size in order to have not hundred of million of cells. Here 6 millions was usable. The general thing with Cocoon is alwas to test it on small objects first.
A close view of mesh. Edge length is 0.1 unit. There are 6 millions of triangles.
…
r "virtual partitions" as follows:
What I mean "air walls" here, is derived from the description of the E+ documentation with the header of "Air wall, Open air connection between zones". (Page 17, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/tips_and_tricks_using_energyplus.pdf)
As I understand, the term "air wall" used in E+ here refers to a description of something like "boundary condition" between adjacent interzone heat transfer surfaces, but not a kind of "construction or material" (like air space resistance or air gaps within a wall/double glazing window).
The main purpose of introducing the "air wall", is to simulate or approximate the airflow/convection/natural ventilation effect between multiple thermal zones which are connected by a large opening.
In my previous tests, using HBzones and GB, I managed to create the gbXML file which can be successfully imported to DB (without assigning any constructions within HB). And the adjacency condition can be recognized automatically by DB, even when I did not use the "Solve adjacencies" component in HB - shared surfaces between multiple thermal zones are recognized automatically by BD as "internal - partition"(which are standard partitions, but not virtual partitions).
In order to create/approximate "virtual partition", I need to manually draw a "hole" in the standard partition surface (fig.1&2). Again, the reason why we want to use "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") is that it allows airflow between multiple thermal zones which are connected by large openings and we could get different temperature of the each subdivided thermal zone which compose a large thermal zone.
My question is, if there is a possible way to simulate/approximate this kind of "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") in HBzones or in GB? If so, I would like to test if DB recognizes it or not. Actually, we expect that there is no need to involve any manual operations (like drawing a "hole" in the standard partition surface) in DB, due to an automatic optimization loop.
Thank you!
Best,
Ding
fig.1
fig.2
…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
50 and reduced the 'cell size' slider to 0.5. When the 'Azimuth' angle is changed to 180 +- 90 (dawn or dusk), the points are widely dispersed, reducing the density and increasing the number of cells in the "sparse grid". Under these conditions, the number of cells was ~2000 and the Profiler time for 'Boundary' went up to a full minute or more each time 'Altitude' or 'Azimuth' was changed.
So I created this code to benchmark some alternatives and found two interesting things:
'Boundary' surface performance (v.1) is not linear. As the number of surfaces goes from 1000 to 2000, the time per surface goes up dramatically.
I tried three alternatives for creating a rectangular surface at a given point that are all substantially faster: v.2, v.3 and v.4. For 2000 points, v.4 is 150 times faster than v.1 !!!
Performance of v.2, v.3 and v.4 are similar and all scale up very well. To benchmark beyond 2000 points, I recommend disabling the VERY SLOW v.1. At 5000 points the 'Pop2D' component takes ~11.3 seconds but v.3 and v.4 take less than one second to generate 5000 surfaces!
See boundary_2015Nov19a.gh attached.
So I replaced the 'Rectangle' and 'Boundary' components in my sun reflection model with v.4 in focus_2015Nov19b.gh (also attached) and the performance is amazing.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this performance issue with 'Boundary' on the forum before but as with many things, I didn't realize what a major obstacle it can be until I discovered this for myself.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:16pm on November 19, 2015
grout lines, a tile surface and tile perimeter poly line). I then use that as a Mesh (from Rhino) in the second definition.
2. I can tile out the mesh surface and rotate all the tiles in 90 deg. increments.
To get what I wanted. I took the Mesh and have copied it in series to make a grid. I can then control the dimensions of the grid. X and Y extents. I can also rotate the tiles around their centers.
The spacing of the grid is set from an edge curve of the tile (or mesh). This sets the size of the squares in the grid themselves.
See definition, images and Rhino 4 File, to give the definitions a shot. I have labeled how to use them.
My question -- how can I randomly rotate squares in my grid? I would like the deg of rotation to be random and also which tiles they are.
Also how might I rotate (every other tile) for example? So that I can control the pattern more?
Thoughts?
Thanks!
…