the geometries in a component ("set multiple 'geometries'"). If you have 100 curves and would like to add(/remove) 1, you need to select 101(/99) curves in Rhino, it could be annoying.
2) you use the "manage 'geometry' collection" with the Object ID but I don't like this way.
3) you create a new component with the new geometries and you merge the two components.
My point is that it would be useful to add/remove geometries like you set them by picking them up in Rhino, the current collection being selected automatically.…
st sampled into data trees (if not we must "add" them "manually" == code: get this item from Rhino and put it there) into collections.
2. Then we must perform some kind of selection(s) on a per individual item basis and THAT is in 99% of cases "manual" (== code) or on a per "global basis" (hard or soft clusters et all == code). If clusters are hierarchical and some kind of dendrogram is required ... this obviously means ... er ... more code.
3. Doing the 2 we use some kind of input by means of sliders (say pairs of 2: for branches and items) and therefor MAY their values cause slider control issues (== code). For instance IF this slider yields a x event > do this and that to some other sliders.
4. Then perform the "histogram" required and obviously treat this as just a variant (i.e. a possible solution out of a given collection witch is variable) meaning ways to "store" this into parameter(s) (as persistent data). This also requires code.
In a nutshell (and oversimplified): given a collection of "shapes" pick some make the histogram, store the result (or do something with that and store the outcome as well) recall some other for any reason, modify it, stored it ... and then repeat until the end of time (or worst: until you are out of espresso).
As I said: NOT a task for a novice AND NOT a task for someone not familiar with code matters (But I guess that you qualify in both areas, he he).
I do this type of things day in day out (but for real-life AEC purposes) therefor I could make a "simple demo" (add some "" more) but ... well ... you are warned, he he
But in case that you take the wrong decision (you are warned) we must use Skype a bit.…
basis" problem ... all of a sudden - quite recently - a girl posted the MITESIGF (Most Important Thread Even Seen In Grasshopper Forums). She doesn't even realized that: she's novice:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/array-1
4. Why this MITESIGF is MITESIGF? For 2 reasons:
4.a: Wooden pairs (Beams) Profile Curves (belonging in some tree) MUST allow individual control on a per "item basis" (OK, that's obvious) - see Images posted in the thread. No attractor (or any other "global" policy) can cut the mustard here (to tell you the truth this happens in 99% of pure engineering cases, but they appear very rarely in GH Forums - if at all, mind). If the profile curves are defined with 5 points (or 9 for the double thing) we need "on-the-fly" control over this Array (like the radii in your Sphere Manipulator) :
4.b: Critical Bottom-to-Top issues arise: Create a "global" topology (call it "parent") - the beams - and then place real-life "components" (call them "childs") that affect (most probably) the "parent". OK, that's impossible to do with GH/Rhino (peace of cake with CATIA/Microstation) but you can "approximate" things up to a point. Alternatively: you can "trigger" some interest from GH/Rhino developers if they have any AEC market(s) in mind.
Topic 4.a requires the master-to-slave slider thingy (iterate over branches (index slider:master) > reset the 5 values (value slider:slave) > modify them on the fly > save > increase/decrease branch > ...).
Other than that my definitions are far more challenging than this simple case ... but ... anyway ... long is the path (and hilly).
more soon.
best, The Troll
…
oking for a project Architect meaning an individual who knows top to bottom the whole route:
1. 1% is the conceptual/"sketch" design phase be that smart or traditional (in fact is less than that since everybody does "wild" things the one way of the other these days: finally it doesn't make any difference, just another twisted thing among other twisted things)
2. 99% is the shop drawings + specs + quantifications + tech descriptions.
3. 1345% is the ability to deliver something that is not laughable (and avoid the design construct alternative, the end of days that is).
BTW: making a Boeing 777 (the very first thing made without "papers" around) isn't convincing enough for mastering "work flows"?
…
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.…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…
d" floor side).
Rails are obviously defined with slope adjustments at start/end: Imagine a rail ramp curve made via, say, 20 control points: at start p0 is not moved, p1 is moved half the step .... p19 is moved half the step*17 and p20 is moved the full distance. Thus we have what is called "slope adjustment" in our trade.
a myriad of options controls where the spaghetti starts (curve.PoitAt(userControllableT)) what is the continuity mode (sequential or steady[shown]) and what type of profile is used for the sweep.
…
.5,-3.0; 2.1,-6.7;0.35: 2: 7.2,-8.1; 6.2,-7.0; 5.7,-2.3;0.5: 0: 1.5,3.5; 2.3,-0.4; 2.6,-1.2;0.5: 1: 5.6,-3.1; 5.2,-1.5; 6.3,-6.0;0.5: 2: -3.4,6.4; -3.0,5.5; -2.9,7.6;The first number of each line is the z value. Each z value is used multiple times with a list of x,y values. That second number is the index of the list of points for the z value, and the following ordered pairs are the x,y values.
I attached my script, which outputs each line of data as a branch containing the points on that line (paired with the z value at the start of the line). The paths output are {0;0;#} where # ranges from 0 to 799. I'd like to collect all the lines with the same z values into one branch, however, resulting in something like {0;$;#} where $ ranges from 0 to 7 (the number of different z values) and # ranges from 0 to 99 (the number of lists of points associated with each z value), rather than having them all compressed into one list.
I'm reading the input line by line, but if I read it all at once, I could create a loop that examines each line's z value and stores the line into a list specific to that z value, then output all those lists of lists as a list/DataTree? Is that what you are suggesting, David Stasiuk? …
Added by Mark Bank at 2:55pm on September 27, 2012
ve an adequately low value for vibration. Script all runs fine and matches expected results for a few test cases. Phew. Note that in excel form this calculation runs over 6000 cells of look up's and arrays, it's not a trivial calc that can practically be rearranged to make it work back from an acceptable value.
But in my results I have 99 sets of vibration-acceptable outcomes, which I'd now like to examine to see which one uses the least material in its particular combination of beam thicknesses, slab thicknesses and other stuff to find the overall most efficient system. The plan at the moment is to copy the solver Record over into Excel, extract the %'s for the different variables and post-process the info to sort the acceptable outcomes by weight.
It feels like there must be a better way that avoids taking the data out and having a gap in the parametric thinking. Is there a way to ask Galapagos to give me all (or at least, loads of) combinations for which R < 8 and then test those for the minimum weight? Can I automatically take the winning results from fitness test 1 out into an array of data that feeds into a second fitness test in the same grasshopper space? …