ptimization of any kind. If I were to add a space voxelization algorithm to it I could probably do away with 90% of the force vectors in a large particle cloud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmsbzTf79bc
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 5:35am on December 16, 2009
be done easier, but later on the geometry will change and therefore this seems the better option. But coming back to the problem
First, there were some problems concerning the zone, although it seems solved still the “runenergysimulation” gives the following warning:
1. The simulation has not run correctly because of this severe error:
** Severe ** UpdateZoneSizing: Cooling supply air temperature (calculated) within 2C of zone temperature
Do one of you know what went wrong? It probably will solve most of it.
Second, “set Zone Thresholds” gives the following warning:
1. Solution exception:global name 'maxHumidity_' is not defined
However, the component is missing the max humidity input on the list, has this to do something with the error?
All the components are up to date.
I hope it will be an easy fix.
Gr Lars
“set Zone Thresholds” runtime error
{0;0;0}0. Runtime error (UnboundNameException): global name 'maxHumidity_' is not defined1. Traceback: line 80, in checkTheInputs, "<string>" line 282, in script
"runenergysimulation” report
{0;0}0. Current document units is in Meters1. Conversion to Meters will be applied = 1.0002. TypeError('Waarde kan niet null zijn.\r\nParameternaam: source',)3. Failed to copy the object. Returning the original objects...This can cause strange behaviour!4. [1 of 8] Writing simulation parameters...5. [2 of 8] No context surfaces...6. [3 of 8] Writing geometry...7. [4 of 8] Writing Electric Load Center - Generator specifications ...8. [5 of 8] Writing materials and constructions...9. [6 of 8] Writing schedules...10. [7 of 8] Writing loads and ideal air system...11. [8 of 8] Writing outputs...12. ...... idf file is successfully written to : c:\ladybug\unnamed\EnergyPlus\unnamed.idf13. 14. Analysis is running!...15. c:\ladybug\unnamed\EnergyPlus\eplusout.csv16. ......
Done! Read below for errors and warnings:
17. 18. Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.3.0-6d97d074ea, YMD=2016.03.02 20:55,IDD_Version 8.3.019. 20. ** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.21. 22. ************* Beginning Zone Sizing Calculations23. 24. ** Warning ** GetInternalHeatGains: People="CLASSROOMOFFICEPEOPLE", Activity Level Schedule Name values25. 26. ** ~~~ ** fall outside typical range [70,1000] W/person for Thermal Comfort Reporting.27. 28. ** ~~~ ** Odd comfort values may result; Schedule="SCHOCCUPANCYSCHEDULE".29. 30. ** ~~~ ** Entered min/max range=[0.0,1.0] W/person.31. 32. ** Warning ** Calculated design heating load for zone=CLASSROOM is zero.33. 34. ** ~~~ ** Check Sizing:Zone and ZoneControl:Thermostat inputs.35. 36. ** Severe ** UpdateZoneSizing: Cooling supply air temperature (calculated) within 2C of zone temperature37. 38. ** ~~~ ** ...check zone thermostat set point and design supply air temperatures39. 40. ** ~~~ ** ...zone name = CLASSROOM41. 42. ** ~~~ ** ...design sensible cooling load = 25499.10 W43. 44. ** ~~~ ** ...thermostat set point temp = 0.000 C45. 46. ** ~~~ ** ...zone temperature = 15.334 C47. 48. ** ~~~ ** ...supply air temperature = 15.000 C49. 50. ** ~~~ ** ...temperature difference = -0.33433 C51. 52. ** ~~~ ** ...calculated volume flow rate = 197273.21341 m3/s53. 54. ** ~~~ ** ...calculated mass flow rate = 237634.19357 kg/s55. 56. ** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a plant sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Plant object input. SimulationControl Plant Sizing option ignored.57. 58. ************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity59. 60. ************* All Branches passed integrity testing61. 62. ************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity63. 64. ************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing65. 66. ************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity67. 68. ************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing69. 70. ************* No node connection errors were found.71. 72. ************* Beginning Simulation73. 74. ************* Simulation Error Summary *************75. 76. ** Warning ** The following Report Variables were requested but not generated77. 78. ** ~~~ ** because IDF did not contain these elements or misspelled variable name -- check .rdd file79. 80. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly81. 82. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly83. 84. ************* Key=*, VarName=CHILLER ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly85. 86. ************* Key=*, VarName=BOILER HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly87. 88. ************* Key=*, VarName=FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly89. 90. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE VENTILATION FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly91. 92. ************* Key=*, VarName=EARTH TUBE FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly93. 94. ************* Key=*, VarName=PUMP ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly95. 96. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE VENTILATION TOTAL HEAT LOSS ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly97. 98. ************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE VENTILATION TOTAL HEAT GAIN ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly99. 100. ************* Key=*, VarName=EARTH TUBE ZONE SENSIBLE COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly101. 102. ************* Key=*, VarName=EARTH TUBE ZONE SENSIBLE HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly103. 104. ************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.105. 106. ************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 3 Warning; 1 Severe Errors.107. 108. ************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 5 Warning; 1 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 4.65sec109.…
And (b=y) And (c=x), "A4",If(a=x) And (b=y) And (c=y), "A3",If((a=y) And (b=x) And (c=y), "B1",If((a=y) And (b=y) And (c=x), "B3",If((a=y) And (b=y) And (c=y), "B2","Erreur"))))))
…
hreads where Thread I solves object A1 and Thread II solves object A2. As soon as A1 is completed, Thread I can move on to object B1 and as soon as A2 completes, Thread II can move on to object B3 (whichever comes first). When both A1 and A2 are complete, we can spawn a new thread (III) to take care of object B2.
If B2 completes before B3, then Thread III will terminate. If B3 completes before B2, then Thread II terminates. Whichever thread is last will pick up execution of object C3. And so on and so forth.
This sort of threading is actually not guaranteed to help much though, as it is likely that the bottleneck components in the network will still need to be handled by a single thread.
A more efficient solution would be to divvy up the execution per component to multiple threads. If you're trying to compute the Curve Closest Point for 10,000 points and your machine contains 4 cores, then we can assign 2,500 points to the first core, 2,500 points to the second core etc.
This approach will actually work when there's only a few bottleneck components and it also means the order in which components are solved is no longer important.
An even more fine-grained approach to threading would be to make the Curve Closest Point function in the Rhino SDK threaded. There's a lot of looping going on in any given Curve CP computation so the curve could be broken up into loose spans where each span is solved by a different core. Then the partial results get consolidated once all threads finish.
The benefit here is that it would be multi-core for everyone, not just Grasshopper components.
The bad news: Some functions in Rhino are not thread-safe. Meaning that data structures such as NurbsCurves cannot be modified from multiple threads at once as it will compromise their validity. You might well end up with invalid curves and quite possible weird crashes. In very bad cases it might even be that a specific function in our SDK can only be running once, so even if you were to duplicate the curve it would still not work.
Until our SDK is thread-safe there can be no global threading in Grasshopper. I don't know where we're headed with this, but I do know that we've started using some threaded algorithms in the display as of Rhino5, so it seems we're at least getting our feet wet.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Seattle, WA…
Added by David Rutten at 5:47pm on November 17, 2010
s, each made from two Nurbs curves, each with different surface properties.
Curves A1 and A2 have 2 control points:
startpoint and endpoint
Curves B1 and B2 on the other hand were drawn with 6 control points each.
What's more, those point's aren't equally distanced from one another.
The lofts inherit the position of control points of the profile curves.
The distribution of control points in the loft direction is uniform.
So no suprise here:
You can think of Nurbs curves as rubber bands and of Nurbs surfaces as rubber sheets. The areas with less control points would correspond to streched rubber.
Now lets imagine you take an A4 piece of rubber, lay in on a table and draw equally distanced lines on it. When you strech it ununiformally - the distances won't stay equal anymore.
Returning to your first post:
The Divide Surface component operates on u,v values which you can imagine as dimensions of the rubber sheet in relaxed state.
So the result you got was indeed an equaly divided surface, only in the so called "parameter space" of the surface, which doesn't always correspond to the xyz space.
There are methods to divide curves and surfaces in equal distances in the way you want it. For starters check out the Evaluate Lenght component.
I think that's enough teory for today. Have fun!
JJ…
e able to loft them correctly. picked a point on the curve, decomposed points, selected x-output. but how to arrange the curves now from -n to +n?
cause my list looks like: -90,-80,-70,10,20,30,-60,-50,-40,40...
im so sorry but i have no idea, and unfortunately no time :(
thx in advance
michael…
ould be very happy!
It works with "straight" loft option, but I need it as a smooth loft.
In the GH file you will also see similar lines that can be lofted.... I dont know why.
Thank you very much!
Jakob…
other notation... where x, y and z are variables, and a,b,c... are constants but sliders, open for dynamic change. + Defining its interval.
- Another minor question; the intcrv box, it is by default a polynomial interpolation? In general, where can you get information on the underlying math behind the boxes?
- Is it possible to define the intervals on the sliders based on other sliders or inputs?
Many questions, but I have been trying to figure this out for quite some time now. I am truly grateful for all help on this matter! :) Maybe they will be of help to other engineers or architects out there...
…
el/aluminum or SS if you are rich). For aluminum and on-site welding you'll need Argon. OK welding destroys galvanic protection ... but who's counting? (besides nothing lasts for ever, he he).
The skin ... well there's no water tightness requirements thus weld (or spot) linear, say, 5/30mm steel "Bright Flats" either across the "top" of a given tube or both sides.
http://steelandtube.co.nz/product/ste/engineering-steels/bright-bar...
http://www.gspsteelprofiles.com/catalogPages/coldDrawingSteel.php?CategoryID=81&ItemID=1431
These 5/30 linear things make us the "niche" (per panel) for the transparent/opaque stuff: Avoid glass in this occasion: use 5/6/8 mm massif polycarbonate that is flexible and can tolerate non planarity rather well (more than probable if the welding is done on site). Keep in mind the sheet size (see link) in order to avoid waste material. Use some fancy Allen/Torx screws visible from behind (WOW) and that's all: case closed.
http://www.plastix.com.au/images/polycarbonate.pdf
http://www.plastics.bayer.com/en/Products/Makrolon.aspx
http://www.glazinginnovations.co.uk/technical-structural-glazing.php
http://www.palram.com/Architecture
http://www.trespa.com/
best, Peter …
ASTER than iterating through a larger list of Breps to get the same result. Simply because there are far fewer 'SUnion' operations - even though the unions are more complex (and slower) in phase two.
Same code but organized a little better, with separate X & Y controls so the grids in both phases don't have to be square. This is 3 X 3 in phase one and again in phase two; 81 "points" in ~17 seconds. That compares to 49 seconds using a single 'suLoop' or standard 'SUnion' (they are the same, though 'suLoop' appears able to handle a far larger number of Breps).
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 10:49am on March 23, 2017