http://www.pilkington.com/) dominates the planar market. Charges "around" 1K Euros per m2 for a "plain" system. Personally in bespoke projects I design my own stuff but due to economies of scale ... they cost a bit more (but they look far more sexier, he he) . On the other hand only in a bespoke project I could dare to suggest such a solution (for a large scale building we are talking lots and lots of dollars).
3. Several scales below (aesthetics) you can find static alu systems (either structural or semi-structural):
Or hinged systems (either structural or semi-structural) capable to adapt in contemporary double curvature facades/roofs/envelopes/cats/dogs etc etc ... pioneered worldwide many years ago by my best friend Stefanos Tampakakis (everybody in UAE knows that genius man: http://www.alustet.gr/company.html):
4. With the exception of some paranoid things that Guru Stefanos does for Zaha these days we are talking about planar "facets" (obviously a triangle is such a planar facet). The current trend is: the more edges the better (humans excel in vanity matters). But achieving planarity in, say, quads (like yours) it adds another "restriction" on what you are doing. Until recently Evolute Tools Pro was the only answer. But right now ... well let's say that in short time you'll be greatly surprised by some WOW things in this Noble Forum, he he.
5. MERO (and obviously custom systems) can adapt (at almost no extra charge) in anything imaginable. But in a bespoke building ... well.. you know ultra rich people: they don't want MERO anymore since "everybody" does MERO solutions. Vanity, what else?
6. Smart Glass would become a must in the years to come: Eco-Architecture MUST dominate everything you do. On the other hand spending millions to do some extra WOW stuff (Vanity) ... it doesn't look to me very Eco-Friendly/Whatever ... but let's pretend so, he he.
7. I'm Architect but a bit different from the norm: for instance I smoke cigars (highly politically incorrect stuff) I always talk openly (ditto) and I ride lethal bikes (ditto).
may the Force (as always the Dark Option) be with you: go out there and kill them all.
best, Peter
…
n fact) according a vast variety of "modes" PLUS the required clash detection (ALWAYS via trigonometry). In plain English: outline any collection of Breps and "apply" a truss that is topologically sound (planarization in case of quads etc is an added constrain). PLUS outline/solve what comes "next" after that truss (like the planar glazing "add-on" brackets of yours [ the ones that need redesign, he he], or some roofing/facade skin system [secondary supports, corrugated sheet metal, insulation, final cladding, dogs and cats])
2. Imaging doing this in real life (nothing to do with "abstract" formations of "lines" or "shapes" or whatever). This means primarily adopting a BIM umbrella: in plain English AECOSim, Revit or Allplan (I'm a Bentley man so I use AECOSim + Generative Components). This also means using "in-parallel" a top MCAD app for 1:1 details, FEA/FIM and the vast paraphernalia required for real-life studies destined for real-life projects (made with real-life money by real-life people). My choice: CATIA/Siemens NX.
3. What to send to Microstation (if not using Generative Components, that is) and/or CATIA? In what "state"? To do what exactly? For instance even if you could design this feature driven tensile membrane anchor custom node in Rhino (you can't) it could be 100% useless in CATIA:
4. Imaging masterminding ways to send them nested instance definitions of ... er ... a coordinate system (all what you need). In plain English: since is utterly pointless to send them nested blocks that can't been parametrically controlled (variations/modifications/PLM management/BOM/specs etc etc)... send them simply the "instructions" to place coordinate systems of components that ARE parametrically designed within Microstation and/or CATIA (classic feature driven design approach blah blah). So GH solves topology et all (working on data imported via, say, Excel sheets related with sizes of components etc etc) and sends to Microstation simply this (a myriad of "this" actually):
I do hope that the gist of the "method" (the ONLY way to invite GH to the party) is clear.
best, Peter…
requires four weather data inputs: air temperature (_dryBulbTemperature), relative humidity (relativeHumidity_), wind speed at 1.1 meters from the ground (windSpeed_) and mean radiant temperature (meanRadiantTemperature_).You can add values to the first three inputs from the Ladybug "Import Epw" component. For the last (meanRadiantTemperature_), you can add it from Ladybug's "Outdoor Solar Adjusted Temperature Calculator" component, or let "Thermal Comfort Index" component to calculate it. Both use different methods to calculate the final values.
I attached an example file below with second option.For more precise calculations you can use Honeybee and Chris' microclimate maps.An icing on the cake for the end: one of Ladybug developers yesterday released a set of Ladybug components for modelling in ENVI-met application. ENVI-met is cutting-edge microclimate software, which can be downloaded for free. It opens a number of advanced new analysis in outdoor domain, which couldn't have been done with the current Ladybug+Honeybee tools. So you can perform the simulation in ENVI-met 4 free software, and then add mean radiant temperature values from ENVI-met simulation to "Thermal Comfort Indices" component. Here is an example file.If you would like to go with the last approach, then the best would be to post a question about it in this topic.
1) You can make a polygonized tree.I haven't subtracted the trunk from the crown, but I guess it makes sense that it can be done.2) In most solar related simulations, a default albedo value of 0.2 is used. This corresponds to average albedo value taken from materials surrounding the urban or countryside location (concrete, grass, gravel, sand, asphalt...). However the presence of snow can significantly magnify the average albedo value several times. "Sunpath shading" components albedo_ input has an ability to calculate albedo due to presence of snow, if nothing is added to it (to albedo_ input). As you are performing the analysis of PET in a horizontal plane, it will not affect your calculations.3) Most thermal comfort indices will require performing analysis at 1.1 meters above the ground. This is considered to be height of standing person's gravity center.The same goes for PET index. So you are correct: you should place the analysis grid at 1.1 meters above the ground before adding it to the "Sunpath Shading" component.It is worth mentioning that "Thermal Comfort Indices" component used in this topic's PET_on_Grid2.gh and PET_on_Grid3.gh files is from last year, and much slower than the newest one (VER 0.0.64 MAR 18 2017) used in the example attached below. Just a remainder if you have been using older version of this component.Let me know if I misunderstood some of your questions, or if I missed to answer some of them.
EDIT: sorry for posting a double reply. When I posted it the first time, I only got links visible, with no text. Something has been wrong with grasshopper ning forum for the last couple of months.…
iece could be easily cut using the "plan" curve, the wall need extra attention and manual work to prepare.
This script attempts to automate the preparation of lasercutting curves with some control:
1) Height: The parameter is set using the "Name" property of the Rhino "plan" curve object. Number of storeys (e.g. 5) is to be entered in that field and the script will read it after you press F5 (recompute) in grasshopper. If the block models are not multiples of standardised storey height, you could set "Storey height" in grasshopper to 1 and set exact height to individual "plan" curves in Rhino.
(Special mention: This part of script including reading "Name" property in Rhino and auto-correcting curve direction is attributed to Victor Leung's Laser Cutting Tool for Block Models)
2) Mode of wrapping: The wall could either be "sitting" on the bottom plate and being completely covered by the top plate, or wrapping outside both the bottom and top plate. In either case, material thickness is taken into consideration and the finished model will remain the same size.
3) Extra height option: In preparing flat roof models, one may like to add extra height for parapet wall to make the model more appealing.
4) Easy picking up: Each individual piece has some uncut part (red lines for engrave) to hold itself in place after cutting. There is no need to use masking tape to stick. Individual pieces could be taken out when you are ready to use.
There are also known issues to this script:
1) At internal corners, the adjacent wall will be longer (in wrapping outside mode) or shorter (in sitting inside mode). You have to manual cut at this point.
2) It could not work with only one input curve. (Although it may be a stupid bug,) A dummy rectangle nearby could be created to make it work.
Enjoy,
Sa
Lasercutting Tool for Block Models (Fold and Wrap) by Sa Ng is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/laser-cutting-tool-for-block-models.
…
hope this number will grow in future. Currently available features are:
1) Creation of 2d or 3d context for any kind of building related analysis: automatically generate the 2d/3d surrounding buildings for the location where you would like to perform visibility, solar radiation, cfd or any other type of analysis. You need some other plugin for the last three, like Ladybug. It only creates the context=surroundings! The "automatic generation" process also includes creation of the local topography (terrain) along with buildings.
2) Identification of certain 2d or 3d elements in the created context. For example: selection of all hotels, parks, hospitals, restaurants, residential buildings etc.
3) Performing direct terrain analysis (hillshading, slope, ruggedness, roughness, water flow...)
4) Creation of terrain shading masks and horizon files for further solar and photovoltaics analysis.
Gismo will be very grateful if he could get any suggestions, improvements, bug reports and testing in the following period. In case you are willing to provide any of these, the requirements, installation steps and .gh example files can be found here, here and here.
Thank you in advance !!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 9:10am on January 29, 2017
he example file to this file so you can give it a try with any version of Honeybee that you're already using. The only requirement is to have OpenStudio installed as the component is using OpenStudio libraries to parse gbXML files. If you're using the latest version available on github the component is also available under WIP tab.
Why?
The main purpose of developing this component is to save time and effort for importing Revit models for energy and daylight analysis. It bothers me to see a lot of smart people spend a lot of time to just come up with solutions just to get the geometry from Revit to Honeybee for analysis. This component is not solving all the issue but is a first step forward. In an ideal world, the future version of Honeybee, which works both under DynamoBIM and Grasshopper should address this issue but that can take some time to be fully ready!
How?
To use this component you need to Export your Revit model as gbXML and then use the file path to load the file into Grasshopper. There are several resources available online on how to prepare the analytical model in Revit and export the gbXML file. Here is an image for importing the Revit 2017 sample model using the default settings. As you can see the model will be just as good as what your original gbXML file from Revit is.
What can be improved?
Well, there are several items that can be improved and they are mostly not on us. To get it started I add what I think are the 3 main shortcomings and my thoughts on how they can be addressed in the future. Feel free to add what you think needs to be added to this list in the comments section.
1. Revit analytical models and as the results gbXML files, by design, are not intended to be clean. Watch this presentation from the Autodesk University to see the logic behind this approach which in short is it doesn't matter for a large scale early stage energy model. Well, This will be quite a problem for studies that you can do with Honeybee. Included but not limited to daylight and comfort analysis.
The best solution that I can think of, until Autodesk fixes their exporter, is to use Revit Rooms and Spaces and generate a clean model from the scratch. We have already tried this approach in Revit but since the Revit API doesn't provide access to Room openings we had a very hard time to get it to work.
That's why that I opened an idea on Revit ideas to get over this issue. With your support we already have 81 votes, but it hasn't been enough to make them to consider the idea for an official review. If you haven't voted already and you think this will be a helpful feature take a moment and vote so we can have it implemented at some point in the future.
2. There is no way (that I know) to export only part of the model. The way export gbXML is set up in Revit is to export the whole model once together. As a result, if you have a huge model with 100 rooms and you want to get one of the rooms into Honeybee using this component you have to export the whole model, which can take some time, and then import them all back into Grasshopper. To partially address this issue I added an input to the component that allows you input a list of names for rooms that you're interested to be loaded into Grasshopper. You can use the name of the room/space in Revit as an input for the component.
3. The component doesn't import adjacencies, loads, schedules and HVAC systems. I wasn't able to export a gbXML file from Revit with any of this data except for the adjacency, but even if you can do that, the component currently can only import geometries and constructions. I hope we get access to 1 and so we don't have to use the xml file approach at all, but if that takes a very long time then we will add these features to the component.
Happy 2017!
Mostapha…
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?…
hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…
eather data so it cannot be easily compared to Archsim. My account of the differences between Honeybee and Archsim will be far from complete but here are the key ones that I am aware of:
1) This difference is a bit of a superficial one but points to a deeper thinking about how the software should be used. Honeybee has many more components than Archsim, which means that Honeybee has a steeper learning curve than Archsim and will take longer to master. Along with this, you may also encounter a general mentality in the Honeybee community that "you should not be running a certain type of simulation unless you know how it works" whereas I know that Archsim is a bit more amenable to making things fast and easy to set up even when you are not sure what is going on under the hood. However, as a result of the large number of components in Honeybee, it is more open-ended, customizable, and includes more freedom in terms of cases that you can run and the parameters of the energy simulation that you can change than Archsim. You will also notice that, while there is a general ethos in the Honeybee community that you should not be running certain simulations unless you know what you are doing, we try to provide you with many resources to educate yourself if you are motivated. For example, we have long component descriptions that we assemble into documentation books like this (https://www.gitbook.com/book/mostapharoudsari/honeybee-primer/details), hours of video tutorial playlist like this one (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_), and many GH example files on a github-based file sharing system (https://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/index.html). Not to mention a community of people who would respond to discussions like this one.
2) Archsim as a standalone application will soon be no more and will be instead distributed with the DIVA daylight analysis tool (http://diva4rhino.com/). While I am unclear on the exact trajectory of DIVA, it currently has a price tag attached to it and so I would assume that the future of Archsim will also carry this price tag. On the other hand, Honeybee and any derivative software will forever be free and open source under the GPL licence (https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/blob/master/License_Honeybee_GPL.txt).
3) This third point is a bit of a reiteration of the last one but Honeybee is open source, meaning that, if you need a feature of EnergyPlus that is not yet implemented on either interface, you can usually add it in yourself with a few lines of python code in Honeybee. This type of workflow is not possible with Archsim since it is closed source and requires you to use EnergyPlus's text editor interface after Archsim has exported an IDF in order to implement any additional EnerygPlus features.
4) The libraries and templates for Honeybee come from OpenStudio - the open source interface for EnergyPlus (https://www.openstudio.net/), which is supported by the US Department of Energy (just like EnergyPlus). Since Honeybee is open source, it is able to make use of the large database of building type schedules/loads and constructions that have been assembled by the OpenStudio team over the last several years as well as OpenStudio's SDK. I can also say that almost all of the development efforts of the Honeybee team are now focused now on integrating efforts with OpenStudio, including an exporter from Honeybee to OpenStudio that should be fully functional for the next stable release. I am not certain of the current extent of Archsim's libraries but, last I had checked, the creator was pulling them from his own experience and, as such, only had a few libraries to choose from. For all of my knowledge, through, this may be changing with the integration of Archsim with DIVA.
Let me know if this is helpful and, if anyone has more up-to-date knowledge on Archsim than I, please post there.
-Chris…
n the z axis I can not, here's the problem, because the movement is not only on the z axis, I can't do a serie with this vector. I tried to do it by differents columns or rows but its impossible for me.
2. Another problem. How I can fill a surface like this with tetrahedrons? What about change the size of this tetrahedrons? Is it possible like a fractal? :Si'm still working...
Thank you!
Finally I have completed the cloud!! I am a little bit fool. With the help of some sketches it was not so difficult! :).
I found the movement pattern of my tetrahedrons
Then I found the points inside my surface!
But now I cant create lines between points like in the begining of the process, with the pattern with points 1, 2, 3, 4. What I have to do?
??????????
Bye!!!…