he plug-in supports intuitive design of paneling concepts as well as rationalize complex geometry into a format suitable for analysis and fabrication. The plug-in is closely integrated with Rhino 7 and is widely used for architectural and other building designers.
Download
The new PanelingTools for the new Rhino 7.2 is now available. You can access Rhino 7 evaluation and upgrades from here…
Documentation
For documentation and examples, please check:
PanelingTools Manual for detailed description of commands and options.
PanelingTools for Grasshopper Manual includes tutorials and description of PT-GH components.
Paneling Scripting page has a listing of paneling methods for RhinoScript.
Paneling Tutorials page has links to video tutorials.
Paneling Short Clips page has short video tutorials that covers the core functionality of PanelingTools.
Paneling Gallery page has users projects with PanelingTools.
Videos
**NEW** PanelingTools Webinar Course - December 2014 learn how Paneling tools works and how best to integrate it into your design process.
Paneling Tools Webinar - February 11, 2011
Paneling Tools Webinar on Vimeo
Feedback
Please tell us what you think and how you are using PanelingTools to help shape future development.
Join the PanelingTools Group in Rhino Forum and post photos, news and discussions. Make sure to tag with keyword “PanelingTools”.
For questions and feedback, contact the developer.
Source: McNeel Wiki
Keshia C. Stich
Grid Paneling Group
…
t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
Ruby, [9] R, [10] PHP ,[11] MATLAB [12]
Maybe it can find it's way into GH somehow..
when using the default GH random number generator i mostly use much higher seed values.…
Added by Robert Vier at 10:08am on December 27, 2012
ment is always at parameter 0 and last element at parameter 1, so if my parameters "t" are: (0, 0, 1, 1, 1)
my output list will be simply: (6, 6, 10, 10, 10)
but if I send a series of parameters like: (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1)
the output will be: (6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
a linear interpolation between 6 and 10.
With more than 2 values in "D", the type of interpolation can change the output, see this:
and for block (blue) and cubic (magenta/pink) type the results would be like this:
Note that I just built points with a sequence of number in X and interpolated datas to Y (see again definition) to have a graphical support for this "explanation".
"Interp" component give as output the same type of objects as you give as input, number>number, integer>integer, even directly point>point (!) and so on...
(P.S. as can you see, I've prepass values to a "number" component before the "D" of "Interp" component; this because "Interp" component doesn't automatically convert text to number.)
Hope my english dont hurt you :P
bye
maje…
o an index, but then you'd end up with consecutive value ranges for the slider that all map to the same index, which I think is actually worse than your current setup. One major benefit of integer sliders is that the number of unique values you can get is usually far less than with floating point sliders.
There is an alternative way to set this up, but I don't know if it's better or worse or indifferent. Instead of definitely using the a and b values, and min/maxing the c and d values to be within some valid domain, you could pit a and c against each other, using those two integers to come up with a' and c'. So for example if {m=10, a=6, c=4}, you'd modify c to be 6+1. Any value of c between 0 and 7 thus yields the same outcome. Instead, you could define a' and c' to be something like a' = Min(a, 0.5*(a+c)), and c' = Max(c, 0.5*(a+c)). This way c will still have a different effect if it's lower than a, by depressing both the a' and c' values. It does sound quite complicated to get right though, I'm not sure I'd bother.
Galapagos doesn't deal with dynamic sliders. It creates genome constraints from the slider properties at the start of the process, and it remembers exactly how many different unique states each slider can be in. Genes then get assigned integers that index each of these unique states.…
o: http://github.com/HeinzBenjamin/FlexCLI/issues
Download
You can find FlexHopper here:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/flexhopper
and here:
https://github.com/HeinzBenjamin/FlexCLI
Info
FlexHopper offers physics computation in Grasshopper. It is GPU-based and therefor very fast. Currently supported modes of simulation are: free particles, fluids, rigid bodies, soft bodies, tensile structures and cloth, custom constraints.
FlexHopper is a Grasshopper plugin built on top of FlexCLI - Flex Common Language Interface. FlexCLI is built against NVidia Flex release 1.1.0. NVidia Flex is patented property of NVidia. FlexCLI and FlexHopper are openly accessible under the GNU License through my Github account. (Link above)
For more information on NVidia Flex go here: https://developer.nvidia.com/flex and https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-flex-110-released
FlexCLI runs on x64 architectures only. It was built against .Net 4.5.2
FlexHopper was tested with Rhino5 64bit and Grasshopper 0.9.0076 WIP
Requirements
Windows 7, 8, 8.1 or 10 64bit
NVidia or AMD Graphics Card
NVIDIA: GeForce Game Ready Driver 372.90 or above
AMD: Radeon Software Version 16.9.1 or above…
as one element.
Thank you
Comment by karamba on October 7, 2014 at 11:27pm
Hello Patricio, divide the beams in such a way that each boundary vertex of the shell becomes an endpoint of a beam segment.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 8, 2014 at 8:30amDelete Comment
Hi Clemens,
I did what you suggested but now assemble element doesn´t work properly. Could you please tell me how to fix it? Thanks in advance, Patricio
8-10-14losa%20cadena.gh
Comment by karamba on October 8, 2014 at 11:59am
Hi Patricio, if you flatten the 'Elem'-input at the 'Assemble'-component the definition works. The triangular shell elements have linear displacement interpolations whereas the beam deflections are exact. In order to get correct results you should refine the shell mesh.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 9, 2014 at 8:35amDelete Comment
Hello, succeeds in creating the mesh to the slab, and built the beam segment, but when I see the deformations are not expected because the beam is deformed as the slab.
Thanks for the help
PS: maybe I'm using the program for a type of structure that is not the most appropriate, as I saw in the examples of other structures. But this type of structure is that students taught
best regards
Patricio
9-10-14%20Example%201.gh
Comment by karamba on October 9, 2014 at 10:46am
You could use the 'Mesh Edges'-component to retrieve the naked edges and turn them into beams - see attached file:91014Example1_cp.gh
Best regards,
Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 15, 2014 at 3:41pmDelete Comment
Dear clemens
I was doing a rough estimate of the deformation, and I can not achieve the same result with Karamba. When I make a rough estimate of the result with Karamba beams and mine are very similar, I think the problem is when I connect the shell, because there are no similar results.
I sent the GH file, and an image of the calculation
The structure is concrete The result I get is 0.58cm
thank youPatricio
15-10-14%20Example.gh
Comment by karamba yesterday
Dear Patricio,
try to increase the number of shell elements. As mentioned in the manual they are linear elements. A mesh that is too coarse leads to a response which is stiffer than the real structure.
Best,
Clemens
…
noceros 3D, en caso de aprobar satisfactoriamente el examen, se les otorga un reconocimiento avalado por el CMJ y la Secretaría del Trabajo. Este workshop va dirigido principalmente a estudiantes de arquitectura; sin embargo, ya que la parametrización es una herramienta que abarca diferentes ámbitos del diseño, se pueden integrar estudiantes de diseño industrial, artistas o estudiantes que tengan relación con lo gráfico y lo formal. Al finalizar el curso, los asistentes serán capaces de manejar Rhinoceros y Grasshopper en un nivel medio, con el objetivo de que el alumno pueda continuar aprendiendo con alguno de nuestros workshops subsiguientes o de manera autodidacta.
Las personas inscritas deben tener conocimientos básicos de geometría y de preferencia utilizar algún programa de dibujo en 2D o modelación en 3d. Rhino.GetMe Rigid // Enfocado a construir un objeto de diseño parametrizado a cualquier escala, el workshop se divide en tres módulos: Módulo 1 // Rhinoceros 3D // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 2 //Grasshopper // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 3 // Ejercicios prácticos /Tres sesiones de diez horas c/u. Es necesario traer el equipo necesario para trabajar, se cuenta con equipos en caso de que algún alumno no cuente con laptop pero son limitados, por favor avísanos a la brevedad si lo requieres. Se les recomienda que traigan dispositivos de almacenamiento en caso de que necesitemos compartir información.
El costo del Workshop es de $6500.00 para profesionales y $5000 pesos para estudiantes.
Pre-venta únicamente para estudiantes, hasta el día viernes 29 de junio, con un costo de $3500.00 pesos.
El cupo del evento es limitado puedes apartar tu lugar y terminar de liquidar antes del 29 de junio en pre-venta, antes del 6 de junio en admisión general.
Para hacer tu registro al workshop por favor envía un correo a workshop@transformalab.com incluyendo:
Nombre
Universidad u oficina de procedencia
Teléfono móvil
En el caso de estudiantes por favor incluyan una copia escaneada de su Constancia de Estudios para hacer válido su descuento.
Una vez recibida su información se les enviará un correo con la información necesaria para realizar su pago mediante depósito bancario, y posteriormente un mail de confirmación de su participación en el Workshop.
www.transformalab.com…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…