o: $8500
Inicio: 1º de Marzo (concierto de inicio / 29 de Febrero // El Historial)
Horario: Martes y Jueves 18:00 a 21:00 // Sábado 10:00 a 14:00
SuperCollider es un lenguaje de programación orientado a objetos especializado en audio de avanzada. Ideal para la creación en tiempo real de aplicaciones interactivas, manejo de ambientación multicanal,investigación acústica, diseño de audio de vanguardia y música algorítmica. Es utilizado por artistas, músicos y científicos alrededor del mundo por su sintáxis clara, sencilla y moderna.
En el curso veremos a fondo la programación con patrones con SuperCollider. Los patrones, son una representación de alto nivel de tareas computacionales que, usados correctamente, facilitan infinidad de detalles de proceso, permitiendo un estilo limpio, abstracto y sencillo para principiantes, y al mismo tiempo, expresivo y abstracto para avanzados.
TEMARIO
Programación para electrónica en tiempo real.
Música generativa.
Código en vivo.
Composición algorítmica.
Diseño sonoro emergente.
Autómatas sonoros.
Traducción de código ADN a sonido.
Comunicación con otros programas.(processing).
Concierto de inicio por Jorge Ramírez y de clausura por los alumnos dentro del ciclo de música experimental El Historial.…
Added by Alberto Lara at 9:41pm on February 12, 2012
, presso la sede Manens-Tifs, nei giorni 26,27 e 28 maggio 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 12 maggio 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Pellinindustrie.…
ere is often a bit of a misconception about the differences between 'mass-spring' models and FEA. Although the method of solving is different, as I do not form a global stiffness matrix, the elements themselves and the calculation of stresses in them can be effectively the same, and based on standard real material properties and sections.
Using nodes with only 3 degrees of freedom as Kangaroo does currently, axial stresses can be calculated (a spring being a very simple finite element), and bending without torsion (following the approach described in this paper), accounting for Young's modulus and sectional area. I had been focused for a while on more geometrical optimization, but recently have been looking again at clarifying the real world units and numerical values used by Kangaroo for structural purposes.
Several other ways of modelling beam/plate/volume type elements using combinations of springs are commonly used in game/animation physics, and these can indeed be difficult to link to accurate quantitative behaviour, which has perhaps helped form the impression of mass-spring models as non accurate, but it need not be so.
The approach can also be extended to 6dof nodes, in which case it becomes possible to include torsion, anisotropic bending etc, and to base these on more standard engineering formulations for beams and other elements.
In fact I've recently worked on some software together with Gennaro Senatore and Charlie Banthorpe for Expedition Workshed that implements such 6dof elements together with large displacements, realtime interaction, and options to output bending moment/shear/torsion graphically. This is browser based (you can try it here), rather than Grasshopper but I'm currently working on bringing the same approach into Kangaroo.
Maintaining interactive speeds while avoiding numerical instabilities does pose its challenges with these methods, and for many conventional structures where the displacements are small and interaction is less important I think conventional FEA will continue to be more efficient for some time, but I do believe the approaches will eventually converge.
Thinking about it - although they are very useful techniques, continuum mechanics and infinitesimal displacements are both just useful abstractions, and no less 'artificial' than mass-spring models (and I think infinitesimal displacements are particularly counter-intuitive - real things have to move to generate stresses).
Anyway, I'm always very interested in exploring collaborations and sharing of ideas about these approaches, and would love to hear any more thoughts from the Karamba team about this...
best,
Daniel…
mand does not seem to work for me... I set that as a list (see the attached files) to get 21°C, but the .idf file always give me the default 18°C
2) I am working with the "additionalStrings" parameter, that is really great to add new features (thank you soooo much for that!). Unfortunately, I still have a problem. As I told you before, I would like to change the section "People" of Internal Gains, because I need to add other features that I use in Energy+. Using the "additionalStrings", I added the schedules I needed and set up the "Internal Gains" as a text, and it worked fine, but now I have two different "Internal Gains": the default HoneyBee one and mine, attached to the same Thermal Zone... Even if I skip the "HoneyBee_Set_Energyplus Zone Loads", there is still a default Internal Gain that I cannot avoid (see the attached files). How do you think I can solve that?
I know I cannot overwrite the HoneyBee components with the "additionalStrings", but can I remove the default Building programs of the Energyplus library, as I do with Openstudio?
I don't know if that is possible, but on the "Honeybee_bldgPrograms" command, it would be great to have a "none" string corresponding to no default program settings (which, anyway, cannot be used for European standards).
Another idea that I have, but I don't know how feasible it is, is the possibility to insert new schedules or delete the default ones from the "HoneyBee_Set_Energyplus Zone Loads", with the "Insert Parameter" command. Of course, these are only suggestions form an end user: just to solve the problem in the easiest way for you would be awesome :))
Moreover, there are a couple of new issues that I haven't experienced with the previous versions:
1) from time to time (more or less every time I run a simulation or change something in the file) the "Honeybee run Energy Simulation" gives me this error: "failed to find M in Library", where M is either a material name or a construction name. If I connect again the same materials or constructions to the HBSurfaces, or I run the "update this file" command for HoneyBee and Ladybug, the error disappears, to come back again for apparently no reason (see the attached files).
2) the "SimControls" command does not work anymore, as it does not change the simulation controls according to my true-false sequence (see the attached files).
Thank you so so much for your work, which is really useful... if you come to Italy sometimes, you know you have a beer paid from us ;)
Letizia…
ircle and segmentationwithout the squares but with the shape above.This form is repeated once in two as on your video,but can be deformed in its curvesWe may need to have 2 referen curves one at 0° and an other at 180° to create the modulation ? I dont know how to link curves to this program ... I am just able to create this structure by line(in parallel) with that code :TEST%201.3dmCIRCLE%20TEST.ghDid you have any ideas ? Thank you in advance for your reply !Have a nice day!Clément…
h is attached below. it`s an arch, let`s say out of bricks with loads, represented with point loads which are taken from user-defined surfaces (to represent self-wight e.g).
goal of the study is to find a supporting arch which is inside the arch then (provided the strength of the bricks is high enough) the arch is ok -otherwise one have to change the geometry of the arch (make it thicker, or change the rise of the crown).
therefore i used kangaroo in combination with galapagos to find a catenary which fulfill the boundary conditions. it works very well. so the solution galapagos found is very satisfying.
it`s simple to prove the resulting forces in the arch if one knows the rise of the arch.
according to the formula N~ q*l^2/(8*f)
with q= 21 kn/m, l= 10.00 m and f= 0.965
one get N= 272 kn, which is very near on the solution which kangaroo founds in the middle of the arch (271 kn). due to the point loads this force have to get slightly higher the nearer one comes to the anchor points. this works perfect too.
but there is one irritating thing.
at the end of the catenary, near the anchor points, kangaroo gets two very different arch-forces. 281 kn in the next to last part. and 581 kn in the very last part. this is not possible and i am sure that the value of 581 kn is wrong. i calculated the example with a commercial fea-program too. it validates the kangaroo results except the first and the last one.
i think there is a problem with the calculated end length of the first (and last) element. they are twice too long as they have to be. or do i something wrong?
thank you for any reply and again for your work.
best peter
…
Added by pb to Kangaroo at 10:25am on October 22, 2011
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…
main attention is set on easy to handle interface , which should be used at a early stage of conceptual design to respond to external and internal influences in a intelligent and sustainable way.
Participants will use the software Grasshopper as a parametric modeling plug-in for Rhino. The usage of this graphical algorithm editor tightly integrated with Rhino’s 3-D modeling tools open up the possibility to construct highly parametrical complex models. To generate this complexity we will use live linkages to several programs listed below:
• Autodesk Ecotect Analysis and Radiance via GECO
• Processing, Excel or Open Office via gHowl
• FEA software GSA via SSI
In this 3 intense days, the participants should learn the workflow of the plug-ins with the help of examples and get an overview of the different software’s, there possibilities for evaluating the performance of a design or the usage of additional tools to be not chained to a single system .
(e.g. parametrical accentuation, parametrical formation, parametrical reaction)
TIME AND LOCATION
27th – 29th September 2010Leopold-Franzens university innsbruck/austria
Technik Campus | ICT - building
Technikerstraße 21a
A - 6020 Innsbruck | Austria
47°15’50.71”N 11°20’43.45”E
detailed program as pdf-version
FOR WHOM
All levels are welcome (students & professionals)
The only requirement is knowledge of Rhino and Basic Grasshopper.
You will need a level which corresponds to the Grasshopper Primer course outline.
FEES
21 hours
professionals: 395€
students (bachelor/master): 250€.
REGISTRATION
please send a email to to.from.uto@gmail.com attached with following information :
Last Name
First Name
Date of Birth
Nationality
Email Address
Current Address
Profession or proof of student status
After submitting you will receive an email with a PayPal link to complete registration.…
y. Form in architecture stands for its spatial (architectural) quality and simultaneously for its structural potential. Its architectural quality is the result of all respected parameters, its structural efficiency is directly correlated to its geometry which again can be perceived with our visual sense.
Form also reflects its principles and rules that are set up or found its creation.
So Form and Rule can be seen as an interrelating and/or correlating system. The principles or rules that are set up or found in order to create form and space can be described as predefined or postdefined. At the same time we maybe face the classical “The chicken or the egg causality dilemma”. What was first the Form or its describing rules?
The different approaches to “Form” which can be of physical, geometrical, material, aesthetical, social, … nature can be of deep interest for all space creating disciplines, like architecture or engineering.
The aim of the lecture series, discussion and workshops is to recognize, better understand and develop the mostly separately examined aspects in the creation of forms as a complex holistic system. In this regard an inter- and transdisciplinary exchange can be seen as an important step in this direction and open new perspectives and possibilities for all involved disciplines.
Speakers
Arnold Walz, Design to Production, Germany Annette Steinsiek, Forschungsinstitut Brenner-Archiv, LFU Innsbruck, Austria Christoph Gengnagel , UdK Berlin, Germany Holger Alpermann, UdK Berlin, Germany Hans-Peter Schröcker, Unit Geometry and CAD, LFU Innsbruck, Austria Markus Hudert, IBOIS at the EPFL in Lausanne Martin Trautz, RWTH Aachen, Germany Norbert Palz, UdK Berlin, Germany Toni Kotnik, ETH Zürich, Suisse Ursula A. Schneider, Forschungsinstitut Brenner-Archiv, LFU Innsbruck, Austria Yves Klett, ifb, university stuttgart, Germany Daniel Piker, Kangaroo, United Kingdom
…