dro). The quality of the driver is also critical: hard to imagine NVidia working overnight to fix "some" driver bugs due to requests from gamers. Game cards are notoriously bad in dual monitor configurations.
3. A zillion of cores (triumph of marketing VS common sense) divided by the given clock rate ... gives you just ONE poor old core (Rhino/gh are single-threaded apps) that tries to do the job.
4. Single Xeon E5 2xxx V3 (the higher the clock the LESS the cores = better) would be my recommendation. ECC fast memory is also a must.
PS: Find a friend who operates a "loaded" H/P Z840 and test your defs.
…
Get plenty of RAM. Windows 32-bit can assign 2MB of Ram per process, so if you have lots of RAM, you can run Rhino+Grasshopper in memory all the way. I'd say get at least 4GB, and preferably 8GB. If you have a 64-bit machine, then it pays off to go even higher than that.
2) Get fast RAM. Memory access is the main bottleneck in many applications, so the faster the RAM the faster most apps will work.
3) Get a fast processor, rather than lots of slow processors. Only a few apps out there can truly use Multi-Threading (Rhino and Grasshopper cannot). These days, CPU manufacturers try and dress up multi-core CPUs as the next best thing. It is not. It is a lie. Until software can truly run on multiple cores there is no benefit to this. If rendering is a big part of your job, then it does pay off to have a multi-core machine though.
4) Get a good graphics card. I've always preferred NVidia over ATI, but there are many good ATI cards as well. You can go for a gaming card (they're cheaper), but note that these are optimised for drawing triangles. If you get a professional card, it will draw lines and curves much faster.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Robert McNeel & Associates…
on) ... the only way to do something meaningful/realistic is to follow Bentley System's way: they had 3 rendering engines (all highly problematic and archaic), a bunch of highly paid "gurus" to "develop" the dead fish and an export to Maxwell capability as well (Maxwell is very slow and has no chance VS Nexus, see below). PS: "Gurus" had no idea about Quest3D and the likes.
At the time, I was near to some permanent ban (he he) from all Bentley Forums due to my acid writings about how stupid these methods were. In fact I openly proposed to Bentley (to Ray Bentley to be exact) to fire all "gurus" involved ... and follow the outsource path.
Finally Ray (he's very smart) did the right thing: after an agreement with Luxology ... now Microstation (the core product) uses the Nexus engine (as found in Modo). This means that the Nexus is fully integrated across the whole vertical suite of BIM AEC Bentley apps the likes of AECOSim (that includes Generative Components as well).
And as everyone knows THIS is the real McCoy (US movie industry is behind that thing).
Additionally Modo has the best GUI known to mankind (US movie ... blah blah) and astonishingly innovative thinking (US movie ... blah blah).
…
ents instead of code ... it could yield a nightmare of components (and a myriad of parameters). For real-life designs I would never attempt to do this without code.
2. A certain experience with Kangaroo (or some min surf other thing since using K on these ... well may be the killing a mosquito with a bazooka thing). That said I'm a great admirer of Daniel's work. But on the other hand why not?
3. A "certain" experience with trusses/space frames.
4. A "certain" experience with instance definitions (that's not doable with GH components).
5. Years of experience with parametric feature driven MCAD apps - Image35 (NX/CATIA) for designing the real-life parts (that have NOTHING to do with "abstract" concepts).
In total I would say that a similar "app" with code (excluding the min surf/mesh thing) would require 6-10 full days of work (or even more).
BTW: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/top...…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…
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.…
y, he he) on that market segment (trusses and the likes) ... well ... you can't do anything in real-life without code. Too many reasons to list them here (indicative: connectivity Trees, member clash detection, instance definitions, managing solution variations talking to MCAD apps that do the parts in real-life ... blah, blah). If this is just an abstract exercise ... forget all the above.
3. Using a // (to the ground) "inner" surface (the 2 edges, that is) is tricky because without code you can't be sure where the whole procedure failed (a red component means nothing).
4. The weird big "component" provides ways to do things with surfaces (most notably: rebuild) that are not available as native components. Rebuild is critical when dividing surfaces
have fun, best, Lord of Darkness…
the contours they show are all generated from 3 arc second SRTM files, even if in the United States where higher resolution data is available from 1 arc second. Also the contours are likely 2D in their map since. Granted, their contours may look nicer, but I think it's just because they're processing the HGT file with the GDAL Contour app to generate a Shapefile.
That being said, starting last year the USGS started releasing 1 arc second SRTM data for the rest of the world outside of the US. It's not the friendliest website, but I've been accessing it from here (be warned it will probably take a few minutes to load). You could download the appropriate tile and use the SRTM Topo component and get better looking resolution than you've seen with the 3 arc second data.
There's also the possibility you could do the same thing OSM is doing, but with the higher resolution data. Download the GDAL library and run the gdal_contour.exe file on the 1 arc second HGT file and you'll get a shapefile with all the contours. Elk doesn't directly work with shape files, but you could use Meerkat GIS to import the shapefile. I've only done a few quick tests, but I've had trouble with the scaling with this method, both using Meerkat and using Autodesk's Map3d to read the shapefile, so perhaps it's my inexperience with gdal_contour. It also looks like it's making the 1°x1° tile's square instead of scaling the X values as it goes farther from the equator. Nothing that's insurmountable, but still you should watch out for it.
Regards,
-Tim
…
r this or that etc etc).
3. I would strongly advise to use some decent feature/dimension driven CAD app in order to create families of concrete deck/beam(s) profiles "manually" (the good old way PLUS recording history and using parameters for the steps taken). Find a friend who knows, say, AECOSim and ask for a small demo on that matter (specifically ask what DDD is [Dimension Driven Design]). Then you can have these in Rhino/GH, define some topology, do the "solid" and if 1M of decks/beams are required rather use instance definitions and plane to plane transformations (that's what the Orient component does) instead of creating 1M clone objects.…
discussions during this period.
The major topics discussed for GH2 during this period will be:
Documentation/Help
GHA/Cluster/VB/C# App-Store
Localization (i.e. languages other than English)
Constraint Engine implementation
Improved VB/C#/Python development tools
Multi-threading the solver
Building a Mac version
If you feel something important was left out, please let us know here. Note that incremental improvements and bug-fixes are not worth discussion as we'll try and get around to them no matter what. Topics on this list have to fit the "Are we going to try and do X?" format.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on October 11, 2013