the daylighting and energy sim with Nat Vent create many complex questions.
Daylighting :
1. Adding shading to energy AND daylight simulation: Can I add HBconext to Honeybee_run daylight simulation HBobject input ?
Looking at the results it seems like daylight simulation doesn't recognize HBcontext, or maybe the difference is minute. Am I doing this correctly? Is there a possible error due to redundancy ? (meaning I am introducing the HBcontext twice, one time to the Honeybee_run daylight simulation AND energy simulation)
2. One of the component, Honeybee_Read annual result 1 keeps failing and says that ''1. Solution exception:index out of range: 0." I read here input needs to be internalize data but maybe there is a better solution?
Shading :
I want to study life cycle perspective of
A) Optimal ratio of fixed vs dynamic louvers for economic implementation,
B) Assess whether it makes more sense for the dynamic louvers to functions as light shelvs or the fixed ones for economic reasons
C) Simulate dynamic/fixed hybrid louver system schedule, and show it in a manner similiar to lighting schedule.
For this I would need to simulate the effect of dynamic and-or fixed shades in reducing annual lighting cost while reducing cumulative heat gain.
3_How to introduce Dynamic shading schedule for custom shades? Is this done with EPtranschedule input of the HB EP context component? I would like to keep the louvers branched so that it is possible to assign different modes i.e. fixed or dynamic
Light Shelf:
4_Is the lighting schedule effected by light shelves introduced in the annual daylighting simulation?
5_Does energy simulation take account of additional heat gain from light shelvs ?
6_When I use Honeybee_createHBSrfs with Honeybee_radiance Mirror material, it crashes rhino. The geometry input is not branched. Any report similar crashes?
Nat Vent:
I want to design to combine passivhaus principles with Natural ventilation.
My goal to simulate the energy performance of passivhaus house like building system with Bouyancy driven Nat Vent design which maximizing the percentage of the year Nat Vent takes care of ventilation and cooling, and in cloud days heat exchanger with fans kicks in.
using a trombe roof that heats air and using a vertical shaft that recirculate air, want to minimize the use of fans, Ducts, Heating etc. and I want to use the HB Set_Air flow component to evaluate such system if I can.
while I have heard that bouncy driven system may only be reserved for tall buildings, I still would to simulate the effectiveness for mid rizes and podium- types. I am skeptical whether there will be enough pressure difference for effective ventilation of 1.5ms so I would like to test.
How to set up models to evaluate bouyancy driven ventilation :
7 About HB Set_Air Flow, with Natural ventilation, If I use the HB Set_air the honeyzone output is null. I am not sure why, no error messages.
8_ When using the HB Set Air component to include Nat Vent with bouyancy,
does the result of reduced temperature to take effect into the cooling/equipment/ventilation schedule of the Honeybee_set Energy plus zone schedules?
Additionally I want to incorporate Nat vent analysis with the light shelf, since both would effect indoor temperature.
A wish list: as if it were all this has been not.
9_I wish there is something like a deconstruct honeybee zone component that basically breaks down all the options (mechanically ventilated or not) that is associated with the honeybee zones so that it is easy to document all the properties in text.…
via MIDI controllers.
my idea is to link PureData to GH via UDP. why pure data? cause' i can relate data like GH to generate numeric relations (and link it to audio generation)
so far i got PD and Processing to talk, but i can't get to grasshopper.
i use this definitions to make pd and processing to talk http://ubaa.net/shared/processing/udp/ and this GHX to get the data to GH http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/attachment/download?id=2985220%3...
i got this data from this post but the GH definition doesn't work for me. i have tried LAN definitions and "the engine" as well but they both freeze, even if i send data thru processing or PD.
i have a lot of questions at this time
1.- why processing tells me that i am getting the data from diferent ports, while i'm using 6000?
2.- why in the UDP definition i get no data out, even if it should say something like "waiting fordata/port/etc.." that's defined in the C# capsule
3.- is there a direct way to get midi data (key and CC) to GH
i also tried to use firefly to get the data via COM port. i know you can do this trick in processing but i just don't know how.
well. if anyone could help me i would share the results here (since it's a magister, results shoud be very interesting)
UDP has allways been a unsolved issue on other posts. maybe we could work it out ;)
Thanks…
Added by jota aldunce at 8:43am on September 28, 2010
sando las nuevas tecnologías de la información en la arquitectura para la gestión del conocimiento de sistemas que desarrollen estructuras sustentables, desde los procesos de diseño generativos o algorítmicos. Donde se contempla la P.O.O. (programación orientada a objetos) como nuevo lenguaje de expresión para el arquitecto-diseñador en el siglo XXI.Los talleres están pensados para sigan un hilo conductual en el que al mismo tiempo que se enseña se investiga y experimenta. Por primera vez se contará con diversos miembros de SEED como docentes de forma presencial y por video conferencia, logrando de esta forma acercar a los especialistas que se encuentran en Europa a los asistentes de los talleres sin encarecer los costos.+info:http://www.studioseed.net/ adn-methodology/
Los talleres están dirigidos a personas que tengan o quieran conseguir un perfil alto de innovación, creatividad, flexibilidad: profesionales con actividades de dirección, gerencia, proyectistas, investigadores, así como a estudiantes a partir de 5to semestre en adelante. Cada taller abarca perfiles diversos de profesionales, mientras unos están más orientados a directivos y gerencias, otros más a proyectistas.
LOS TALLERES:FAB DIG I / ITESM – CEM / Estado de México / 20 hrs / 8 – 11 al de diciembre 2011 (En este taller no se aplican descuentos ni becas)PARAMETRIC GREEN HOUSING / Colegio de Arquitectos del estado de Jalisco (Por confirmar Sede) / Guadalajara / 20h + 5h proyecto / 30 enero 2012 al 4 de diciembre 2012FAB DIG II / ITESM – CEM / Estado de México / 30h + 5h proyecto / 8 a 12 febrero 2012TERCERA REVOLUCIÓN INDUSTRIAL: TIC`s + SOSTENIBILIDAD. Procesos y paradigmas emergentes / Querétaro / 20 hrs / 15 al 18 de febrero 2012INTRODUCCIÓN AL DISEÑO GENERATIVO / UAM-azc / DF / 8hrs / 13, 14 de enero (Costo representativo $650, máximo 40 personas, mínimo 15 personas)INTRODUCCIÓN A: SCRIPTING CON GRASSHOPPER ( Python) Y PLUGINS / Estudio SEED México / Estado de México / 30 hrs / 23, 24, 25 febrero y 1,2, 3 de marzo 2012…
Added by SEED studio at 3:30am on November 24, 2011
ding is not for the faint of heart and is quite a significant understanding. However, I don't know what your dealing with, so that may be the way to go about it.
Your component if its "finished" has to supply some sort of results that are then used downstream. AFAIK there isn't a way to "prevent" down stream components from calculating until your finished. They have to get some sort of information or else they'll just be waiting. Considering how the results of those components are likely to be invalid until the information gets calculated, it may be better off supplying them with nulls until you have some actual information to give them.
Anyway, I think that you should think very closely about the structure of your routine, and specifically how it will interact and update itself. The way I'm thinking about it now is that there really isn't anything that's done in the "solve instance" function if you will. Essentially the "solve instance" function would either A) start the reading of the file if no data is found, or B) output some data if it is found. This is an extreme undersimplification, but the simpler you keep this the more likely this will work. Here are a few more "details", i guess, of how I could see this potentially working...
Thread A - Initial call to Solve Instance function
+ Check and see if there are any results that exist from reading your file - at this point there shouldn't be. These results should be stored in some sort of class variable that is accessible to both threads. It might also be a good idea to have some boolean flag that will also be accessible that represents whether your reading/writing those variables.
+ Fire a function in another thread that begins the read process. Note that you'll likely have to do this through a delegate and an invoke call, but I'm not 100% sure
+ Fill in some null values for the variables you must supply
+ Output the nulls, thus finishing the Solve Instance function
Thread B - File Read Function running in separate thread
+ Open up the file. Note that its probably a good idea just to pass the file path (as a string) between the different threads. Leave the creation of the file/text stream to the one thread that's using it.
+ Perform all the necessary reading from the file
+ Copy all your data to the variables that are accessible to both threads.
+ Expire either the solution on either the component in question or (at last resort) the whole canvas. I know expiring the whole canvas is defenitely possible, but it should be possible to just expire the one component that's doing the reading.
Thread A - "Second" call to Solve Instance after being manually expired
+ Check and see if there are any results that exist from reading your file, which there now should be.
+ Output those shared results
+ Clear the last results (or cache them in some way) so that the next time the Solve Instance function is fired, you don't find any results and reread the file.
I think there are a few variations to this that could happen too, including having a separate function for reading and writing through the data that's called using its own delegate/invoke call to make sure that its extra safe.
If you haven't already, you should really look into event driven programming, delegates, and asyncronous messaging. These are going to be the 3 things that you'll need to have a decent hold on to make sure this things works. Just to let you know, debugging these things can be a bitch.…
ght on why this is, and some ideas I have for how to improve things going forward.
MeshMachine grew out of some scripts I started developing over 3 years ago (described here), originally just with the aim of achieving approximately equal edge lengths on a smooth closed triangulated mesh.
As time went on, I kept adding things, such as ways of keeping boundaries and sharp edges fixed, different ways of controlling edge lengths that vary across the surface, and different ways of pulling to surfaces.
I was also still experimenting with different rules for the core remeshing operations, such as valence driven vs angle driven edge flips.
All of these things meant many variables in the script. I wanted to share the work so others could play with it, but not really knowing exactly what people might use it for made it difficult to simplify the interface, so I just exposed most of these variables I was using (actually there were originally even more, but I felt a component with 20+ inputs was excessive, and combined some of them and fixed others to default values).
I've never been happy with that component, but some people want a component that you can just feed a surface and get a mesh with 'nice' triangles, without too much fuss or needing to know anything about how it works, while other people want to be able to vary the density based on proximity to the border, and curvature, and attractor points and see the intermediate results, and model minimal surfaces without pulling to any underlying surface, and...
Since then I did the rewrite from Kangaroo to Kangaroo2, and through that process, and associated conversations with Steve Baer, David Rutten and Will Pearson, my ideas about how to structure libraries and make cleaner more flexible Grasshopper components changed. Much of this centres around using interfaces (in the specific programming sense, not to be confused with UI), because they allow separating code into multiple components, while still allowing to edit parts of it within Grasshopper, and other parts in a proper IDE (because I find the GH code editor is not conducive to writing large amounts of well structured object oriented code).
Towards the end of last year, Dave Stasiuk and Anders Deleuran invited me and Will Pearson over to CITA for a few days of mesh and physics coding and beer drinking. During this time I made the first steps to restructuring MeshMachine to be more modular and interface based like Kangaroo2, instead of one giant script. One of the main motivations for doing this was to make it easier to combine the K2 physics library with the remeshing. However, at the time I hadn't yet released K2, so it didn't make sense to post examples that used those libraries. After the launch of K2, this restructured MeshMachine development has been a bit on the back-burner, but this discussion and Dave Stasiuk's work with Cocoon is inspiring me to pick it up again.
Seeing how you are combining the Cocoon and MeshMachine, and how Dave is also using interfaces in his recent work suggests to me it might be possible to integrate them more smoothly...
…
ight be able to provide more insight). Whenever you run a new simulation in Radiance, it is not always necessary to re-write all of the initial simulation files from scratch. These initial simulation files include both a .rad geometry file as well as a separate .pts file that contains the test point locations. If all that you are changing in a given parametric run is the locations of the test points (like your case), it is not necessary to re-write (or reinterpret) the entire .rad geometry file. My guess is that there is some type of check for this built into either code Mostapha wrote or radiance functions that Mostapha is calling. As such, it seems that the rad geometry file is not being re-written (or re-interpreted by radiance) completely when all that you change is the test points and this actually seems to be saving you an extra 10 seconds each time that you run the component without changing the materials or the building geometry. Other times (like when you plug in custom radParameters), it seems that it re-writes (or re-interprets) the .rad geometry file from scratch since this file is probably affected by customized rad parameters.
So far, if this explanation is holding, it seems like there would be no concern on your end but I also recognize that the difference between these long and short simulations is giving you radiation results that are ever so slightly different from each other (by my estimates, they differ by about 0.2%). Compared to the other types of assumptions that the radiance model is making, though, these are mere rounding errors that probably originate from the number of decimal places in the vertices of the rad geometry file. Rather than worrying about whether your simulations are giving you the right rounding errors to give you matching results, I would encourage you to instead contemplate how much your radiance results are matching reality given all of the assumptions that you are making about the climate (with the epw file for a "typical" year) and with the number of light bounces in the radiance simulation. To give you an example, I ran your model with a higher quality of simulation type (3 ambient bounces) and this gives you results that differ by 1.1% from the original simulation that you were running with only 2 ambient bounces (this is practically an order of magnitude larger than 0.2%).
To address your unease I will say that, for a long time, I also felt uneasy any time that I encountered something that seemed unpredictable in software that I was using. Once I started coding my own stuff, though, I realized quickly that unpredictable behavior is an unavoidable aspect of all software. There is always a tradeoff between accurate results and the time it takes to get them, which produces a multitude of possible ways to arrive at a solution. Add into this complex situation the fact that you might have an almost infinite number of possible inputs to a given set of code.
Because of the unpredictable multitude of cases, there is no application that is completely free from limitations and assumptions. In this light, what ends up being more important than the actual calculation method used is the social infrastructure that is in place to help understand what is being run under the hood, hence why both Radiance and Honeybee are open source and why we try to build a robust community of support through forums like this one!
-Chris…
ly 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication)
The third edition of digitalMed Workshop is structured as a design laboratory. Participants will learn the challenging process of producing ideas, projects and research analysis that are to be developed through specific software and concepts that emerge through the use of mapping, parametric design and digital fabrication.
The workshop will take place in the city of Salerno (Italy) and it will last 11 days structured into 3 intensive weekends: July 13-14-15 (mapping); July 19-20-21-22 (parametric design); July 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication).
Goals and Objectives:
We aim to make clear the theoretical and technical knowledge in the approach to parametric and generative design and digital fabrication. (From collection and data management, to the manner in which these inform the geometries, to the fabrication of prototypes.)
Participants will also have the opportunity to practice the new knowledge gained in the design laboratory through project work.
Project Theme:
"Urban Field" Identify, study and analyze the system of public spaces in the urban area of the city of Salerno.
Connection, mutation, generation and evolution are the themes to be followed in project work.
Brief Description of Topics:
- Mapping. Our reality, in all its forms, has studied through concepts of the theory of Complex Systems. The techniques that will be used to study events and places of reality, will work for the management, manipulation and visualization of data and information. These will form the basis for project management and driven geometry, conducted during the second phase of the workshop.
- Parametric Design. Introduction to Rhino* and Grasshopper. Specifically, we will explain the concepts with which to work with the software of parametric design and how they function. Through these tools, we will arrive at the definition of systems of mathematical and / or geometrical relationships that are able to generate and govern patterns, shapes and objects that will inform the final design.
- Digital Fabrication. In this phase, participants of the workshop are organized into working groups. Participants have access to materials and conceptual apparatus that will take them directly to the fabrication of the geometries of the project, with the use of software CAD / CAM interface and the use of machines for the digital fabrication.
The DigitalMed workshop is organized by Nomad AREA (Academy of Research & Training in topics of Contemporary Architecture), in collaboration with the City of Salerno, the Order of Architects Province of Salerno and the National Institute of Architecture In / Arch - Campania.
Interested parties may download the Notice of Competition at the address www.digitalmedworkshop.com and fill the pre-registration no later than July 10th 2012.
PRESS OFFICE
Dr. Francesca Luciano
328 61 20 830
fra_luciano@libero.it
For information or subscriptions:
e-mail: info@digitalmedworkshop.com - tel: 089 463126 - 3391542980 …
Accidentally that was very close to some project that I have in mind (using solely C# and not components). On first sight I thought that that could be very easy ... only to discover that's not.
This definition is an over simplified version of the other mentioned (only a C# is maintained that does "preparation" work and some sort of naive "topology" checks: the yellow spheres are used as visual aids to the incompatible struts/R values combos).
You can control the 3 options available from that portion:
In a nutshell ... the Exo W behaves with an odd way (at least in my opinion). In order to get the gist of the issue stick to that portion of the def and forget the rest:
This portion of the def attempts to create an usual Exo mesh using a Line list (cleaned and user controlled as regard the min length) derived from exploded mini voronoi (i.e. brep edges). OK, I can understand the red Exo since due to the nature of voronoi breps there's more than possible the presence of small "struts" that may yield non manifold topologies.
But ... the thing is that Exo W is also red in the other mode (non Voronoi) where struts are quite big and no potential "engulfed" situations may occur:
And when the 2d Gate mode is set to Envelope ... there's cases (R values) where Exo W works as expected and cases that it doesn't.
Anyway ... if anyone has any bright idea, drop a world
best, Peter
…
project below- should I be learning Grasshopper & Rhino or just Rhino first?
I'm trying to panel modules with low tolerances- I've prototyped regular shapes like geodesics and am now looking to experiment with irregular shapes with lots of different panel shapes.
I understand some things are best done through Grasshopper when using Paneling Tools- I'm trying to figure out if I can do what I want to achive with PT alone or should do it through Grasshopper (or some other route).
I’m on the MAC WIP - The module was built in Sketchup - all the components seem to be in order as blocks though am having problems running the ptpanel3dcustom command - thinking maybe a bug in the WIP or something wrong with my input or that I imported the sketchup file the wrong way. (I dropped it in the window) - If the 3D command is run it doesn’t do anything - if 2D (ptpanelgridcustom) it crashes.
The tileing pattern - the green rectangle is a refrence. each tile contains 4 blocks with 3 more nested in each.
How the module tiles.
The other thing I'm trying to do is specify that most of the lines in the panels don’t bend/curve when they are paneled (or something like Cage Edited). For my purposes the length & angles can change while the lines must remain straight.
These images show a test tile to be panneled on a ellipsoid. When the tile is mapped to the grid the lines curve, this is an extreme example but notice allot of tiles far from the hemespheres are also bent slightly.
These two questions have me stumped the most for now. What should I look into get a better handle on these problem areas? Maybe I should try recreating the work on a windows machine? or perhaps I should get started with Grasshopper?
Thanks for reading.
Lu…