nal vector.(see pic 1)
Second: Holding an abstract mesh or surface with a 3D grid structure. Basically creating 90 degree vectors on an uneven surface coming out of the object, sort of like a cactus with a grid pattern. (see Pic 2)
Third: I think #1 answers this issue: when the lines hitting the rough surface go in two different grid directions, their intersecting points are too close together. Structurally these points can be united and the vectors would be reduced. Manually deleting these lines after being baked is currently the only option. It would be so cool if there was a mathematical arrangement that would connect points that are within a certain distance to one another. (see pic 3)
…
. since there are going to be multiple units facing different directions, each unit will be calculated differently based of their respective plane.
The following screenshots can explain the situation a little better
So Lets say the vector is pointing from the operating unit to the position of the sun, an the plane underneath is where I would like to measure the angle from
this second picture shows how each unit should function, so the measured angle doesn't exceed 90 degrees. what I did is zeroed the z value for the sun position to get a project vector. The problem with this solution is that it only works for XY planes, where I need to have a lot of planes that are specific for each unit and its orientation.
Help would be much appreciated…
problem is that the values of the isocurves are plotted not always in the same way: sometime parallel to the curves, sometime perpendicular.
In the following case, for example, i would like to turn the values of 90°(to get them parallel to the curves).
in order to have something like this:
How can i do that (without baking them)??
Thanks in advance
Claudia…
even (0, 2, 4) then that means the point either never hit it, or went in and out again, meaning it's outside. If it hits an odd number of times, then it must have come from within originally.
The method implements this approach using the mesh bounding box, and then striking a polyline from your test point along a vector that is defined by the upper right corner of the bounding box + a vector of (100,100,100). In the case of your failing points, this is a result of their striking an edge very precisely, which gets counted as 2 hits instead of 1 (as it should be getting captured) and passing false:
Your best bet is probably to roll your own implementation, that tests for multiple vectors:
private void RunScript(List<Point3d> P, Mesh M, ref object A, ref object B, ref object C) {
BoundingBox bb = M.GetBoundingBox(false);
List<bool> inside = new List<bool>();
for (int i = 0; i < P.Count; i++) {
Polyline a = new Polyline(); Polyline b = new Polyline();
a.Add(P[i]); b.Add(P[i]);
a.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 100, 100)); b.Add(bb.Max + new Vector3d(100, 150, 150));
int[] fa; int[] fb;
Point3d[] xa = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(a), out fa); Point3d[] xb = Rhino.Geometry.Intersect.Intersection.MeshPolyline(M, new PolylineCurve(b), out fb);
inside.Add(xa.Length % 2 == 1 || xb.Length % 2 == 1);
checkA.AddRange(xa, new GH_Path(i)); checkB.AddRange(xb, new GH_Path(i));
}
A = inside;
}
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 10:20am on October 10, 2017
izes like 0.6m, 0.8m, 0.9m and 1.2m are the most "common": In cases where mechanical floors are a must (hospitals for instance) a 2.4/2.4 is quite handy (habitable/mechanical per floor). You can try 1.8/2.7 as well (floor/habitable) since 1.8 floor thickness can host HVAC and some decent W truss size. Also 1.6/2.4 (floor/habitable) is used in small buildings. NOTE: see next.
3. Don't forget to include corrugated metal height + concrete screed height + raised floors height: for the latter, say, something like 0.3m (modules + adjustable mounts + free space for electric stuff [boxes etc]).
4. As regards exteriors, Laurent Buzon is a close friend of mine. Contact him directly on my behalf:
http://www.buzonuk.com/
http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sourc...
5. LBS Structural ability and "monolithic" floor behavior (humans don't like vibrating habitable spaces) ARE not the same animal.…
ybee_EnergyPlus Window Shade Generator" component.
3. SolveAdj component has the input to set BC for interior surfaces.
If you want to set them to adiabatic then you can use setToAdiabatic components.
4. For natural ventilation Chris has provided extensive answers including this one.
If the component doesn't work then you need to download the files manually from github and replace the userObjects with the old ones. You have to do it separately for Ladybug and Honeybee which can be painful. Is there anyway to change the firewall settings?
…
till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
ional form into a new innovated one respecting each one identity, focusing on customized and multifunctional units using adaptive design strategy.A competitive workshop for participants to have the ability to win a competition, how to deal with its requirements and submission specifications also how to work in a group at a deadline submission under pressure and reaching the maximum level of qualifications.The workshop will provide the participants with a knowledge through lectures talking about imagination thinking, design strategies, presentation new techniques and others reflecting these knowledge into a real project using parametric tooling techniques with presentation skills to facilitate participants to do their design.For Detailed Program: niitstudio.com/Recode.pdfEligibility:- Current architecture, interior and product design students or professionals.- Basic knowledge of Photoshop and 3D modelling.- Bringing own laptop.Software- Rhino: Nurbs / Modeling / T-Spline.- Grasshopper: Forming / List arrangement / Simulations .- Photoshop: Photomontage / Post production / layout composition.TutorsNIITStudio Design TeamDuration7 Days / 56 hoursFeesProfessionals: 1500 LEStudents: 1200 LENiiters*: 900 LE//Limited SeatsRegistration : http://goo.gl/forms/NECYhniZzWWebsite : www.NIITStudio.comE-mail : info@niitstudio.comMob: +2 010 027 254 57 | +2 012 825 225 44Niiters*: Previous participants of NIITStudio's workshops…
o that when i go to do renders i will get accurate distancing of mountains and the city in the distance, and the contours of the surrounding areas,
I have successfully imported into elk the relevant OSM and .tif data and can .
I am doing surface evaluation so i can look at the elevations and scale the topo surface to the osm data accurately. After this i will remap the curves [roads rivers etc] to the topography.
I have tried this on various computers, all with new i7s / i5s / xeons, all with about 32 gb ram. I can load and pan / view the roads and topography data without any problem. When i do a surface evaluation it takes about 15 mins to appear, and that is with only 10~ UV divisions on the topo surface. I have tried to turn everything off and turn things on as i need them, but still it wont load.
If i was to bake the topography into rhin [900 km2] and re reference the surface would it speed things up? Does grasshopper work faster if the information is exclusivley in grasshopper, or shared with rhino?
Or is there any other option, like convert it to mesh?
Or perhaps i am doing a surface evaluation the wrong way.
Any suggestions would help, i am only a second year student and they do not teach grasshopper here in this uni, i am teaching it to myself! :)
Ill upload the definition, the tif and map files are here in google-drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-_OpLCeWqDSN2NmTWRIWDhzbzQ?usp=sharing
Note that i had as a last ditch attempt, tried to 'scale' down the all the geometry by 10 to see if it was simply the 'size' of the tiles in memory, so
…