ough the curve i use. as you can see in the image, i managed to make my chain units grow in one direction. I aim to finish with a definition which allows me to alter the growth rate according to attractors; points or curves. I have more than one question, so i will list them, and any ideas or help will be appreciated :)
now let me be more specific;
1(UNEVEN SCALING DEPENDING ON ATTRACTORS) - i can apply existing attractor based definitions (somehow) in other discussions, but the continuity of the chain breaks that way; they will be scaled depending to the attractors but i need to fix the chain manually. So my first problem is to find a method for gradual increasing and decreasing of chain units in multiple points on my curve. in the upside image, it is ok in growing on direction, but i want to achieve a result like in the image below.
2(CHAIN CREATION METHOD)-How i achieve these chains requires a manual input; either i must decide the total number of chain parts along the curve, or i specify the lengths etc. i tried to make an automation which calculates the distance between the two ends of a chain piece, and reduces some amount of it (in order to link two pieces of chain, the movement length amount should be less than the length of one chain piece for not to overlap in ends).
but when i do it, the first copy is moved the exact spot that i want from initial piece, but the rest are overlapping on end points, because my definition needs to re-calculate for each item that is going to be copied, but i found no way to fix it.
I have an idea about a definition which checks for intersections of breps and moves the intersecting items till they don't anymore, but in a wavy curve in all x,y,z dimensions; i am not able to automatize each movement direction for each piece of chain.
what i want to achieve is just creating a definition which only required inputs are a curve to define the path of the chain, and a brep that will replicate through the curve. (and if i would be able to add the uneven scaling feature from question 1, the other input should be attractors)
3(BONUS:ORIENTATION)-in this case of orienting the brep along a curve, there is a problem, because all frames are in the same orientation and it is not a realistic way of a chain to stay like that as in the image below;
as you can see, all chain parts are directed to same orientation. what i want to achieve is like in the image below, but i am not able to scale my chain parts like in question 1 and orient them as they should be in the same time, so i'm stuck here too.
I tried to explain everything in my mind in details to be as specific as possible, hope that this long post won't intimidate you. :) I added my study files. scaling chain ones are for question_1, the messed up definition for question 2 is also included. There are no specific definition files for question 3, all my oriented files have that problem.
thanks for any ideas, any help and for any efforts that you will make to enlighten me. …
umbers behave differently from the reals, in that when they are squared they give a negative result. They are written as multiples of the imaginary unit i, which is defined so that:
i*i=-1
Complex numbers are numbers which have two parts (hence the name complex) - a real part and an imaginary part.
For example:
3+4i,
or more generally:
a+bi, where a and b are some real numbers.
Well that's a definition, but I guess you might be wondering what is the point of them - I've not said anything yet about why they are interesting and useful...
Solving cubic equations was one of their first uses, but I doubt that is what most of you are interested in.
Where they really get fun is when you start looking at them geometrically.
The Argand plane is a setting that allows us to treat complex numbers a bit like vectors.
Each complex number a+bi defines a point relative to an origin (0,0), much the same as a vector with an x and y component.
Like vectors we can add and subtract them to get a new point.
But when we multiply them, unlike vectors, we add the angles (measured anti-clockwise from the positive real axis, also called the argument) and multiply the lengths (or the modulus of each number).
This all follows naturally as a consequence of the definition of i as the square root of minus one.
........
That is just dipping a toe into the great depths.
Complex number math, and in particular complex Analysis (calculus with complex numbers) is a vast subject that I obviously can't cover much of here.
If you are interested in learning more :
The Math department at Cal State Fullerton has some very nice Complex Analysis pages.
Chapters 5 and 6 of the film Dimensions covers complex numbers very visually. You can watch it online here, or read the description here.
Complex numbers on Wikipedia
on MathWorld
Hans Lundmark's complex analysis pages
The book Indra's Pearls is about making certain types of fractals with complex numbers, and includes a good introduction, along with lots of pseudocode.
To really engage with some of the true depth and power of complex numbers I particularly recommend the beautiful Visual Complex Analysis. This was the book that made me love this subject.
I'm really looking forward to seeing more designers make use of complex numbers. I think it is a wonderful tool. It is an advanced branch of mathematics, requiring some serious study to understand, but because of its strong geometric connections, I think relatively accessible to those who tend to think more visually. Now that David has included them in Grasshopper, starting to explore them should be easier than ever.…
Added by Daniel Piker at 4:38am on November 25, 2009
got today. If you were thinking how to spend the extra hour we have some stuff for you that should take around 15 minutes!
Radiance recently released the new version of 4.2.1 and short after that we had several reports about having issues with generating .gif/.tiff files from .hdr images. It turned out to be a bug in Radiance. The great Greg (Ward) and Rob (Guglielmetti) fixed the issue in less than a day and now you can download the new version which works like a charm!
Here is the direct link and here is link to github release page. All you need to do is to download the new version and install it in C:\Radiance. It will replace the current version and you should be good to go.
(WARNING: As you can see, there is no "Program Files" in the installation path! Make sure to modify installation folder.)
OK. It should take you 10 minutes to read up to here and also install the new version of Radiance, but don't stop reading! There is one more thing that you need to do. The new version of gendaymtx in Radiance is also changed and we needed to modify genCumulativeSkyMtx component to handle the changes.
You need to replace the component manually. I will attach the UserObject to this discussion so you can download it and replace it with the current one. This video shows how you can do it in 13 seconds!
Done with installation! Here is some updates about development and resources:
If you are looking to get started with Ladybug here is some good news for you. With help of So Young, videos of the Ladybug workshop from UPenn are ready to watch. I personally think that the videos are slow, so I suggest you to watch it if you are a beginner with Grasshopper and need some videos to follow along while getting used to Grasshopper. If you want to watch shorter videos check Chris's video series for Ladybug and Honeybee here.
Also Chien Si is developing a number of components for advanced HVAC modeling using the OpenStudio component. If you have been waiting to model some real HVAC systems in a parametric environment and want to test it while it is getting developed, here is your chance! Right now he is working on air side systems.
I think my 15 minutes is over! Enjoy the rest of the extra hour and have a good week.
Cheers,
Mostapha…
r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative."What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it."[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Visual Programming.I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
Context sensitivity."There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal this time around is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed.
Components."Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data."Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
Integration."Why isn't it just live geometry?"This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry."Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
Documentation.Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
2D-ness."I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
with the core McNeel team in Seattle for about 2 months tomorrow and I wanted to release this before I left. It's a bit rushed, clusters are definitely not as 'finished' as I'd like them to be, but there should be enough there for some good old customer feedback at least.
Just in case I horked something up, you can still download 0.7.0057 here.
Download 0.8.0001 from the usual location.
First a basic new features and bug list, then the warning section. If you don't read the warning section you forfeit any rights to complain about this new release.
● Added a new Cluster Object. This is very young code, expect big (quite possibly breaking) changes in the future.
● Added auto-panning to Drag Object and Draw Wire interactions.
● Added canvas curl UI for drag+drop options.
● Added default values to the Quad-Face and Tri-Face components.
● Added a Tree Split component for separating out branches.
● Drag+Drop with text content now creates a new Panel.
● Curve data can now convert from a Surface/Brep with a single closed edge loop.
● Added runtime message balloon feedback.
● VB and C# script components now update immediately when typehints are changed.
● VB and C# script components now update immediately when input parameter access is changed.
● MoveForward and MoveBackwards arrange options are now available.
● Added a Grasshopper Version field to the status bar.
● GraphMapper can now adjust intervals, points and vectors in addition to just numbers.
● Parameter disconnection menu items now highlight the connection in question on mouse-over.
○ The menu short-cuts for Find and Move Forward were both Ctrl+F. Find is now F3.
○ Any Undo operation would wreck the Redo stack, this no longer happens.
○ Fixed a bug with automatic tooltip resizing.
○ Fixed an erroneous "app" autocomplete member in the C# and VB script members.
○ Fixed a bug in the CurveCurve intersection SDK code that occured with overlaps.
○ Fixed a bug in the PointList display component with stale point data.
○ Fixed a nasty bug with stale document caches and undo/redo.
○ Custom Preview Meshes would always draw wires regardless of the Grasshopper view setting. This is fixed.
The Aforementioned Warning Section
This pertains mostly to clusters. At present there's no way yet to edit the contents of a cluster. You can make clusters from a selection by clicking on the toolbar cluster button (selected objects remain on the canvas, this will change), or by drag+dropping ghx files onto the canvas and selecting the Cluster Insert mode from behind the curl.
Clusters contents can be opened as new documents via the Cluster object menu, but this code is very icky still. You can edit cluster properties by double clicking on one.
It is entirely possible that clusters will change so much in the near future that old clusters might not read correctly from 0.8.0001 files. Do not use them yet on production work and always make backups.
That's it. Enjoy,
David
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 4:27pm on October 22, 2010
h tubes are redundant so surfaces overlap instead of interpenetrate, so it is not a good system.
Cocoon is the best answer these days unless you can get Exowire/Exoskelton to work. If you want more control over shape, feed your uncapped tubes into Cocoon as meta-surfaces and delete any and all of the inner meshes to just keep the outer single closed one, but this is just duplicate-culled lines used as meta-lines:
Turn down the CS input to 0.005 for this result, from 0.02 used for faster preview. In fact bake the lines and only test Cocoon on a few of them in order to get the result you want before doing the whole thing.
Whole thing at 0.005 cell size takes 5 minutes for Cocoon and 2 minutes for refinement to a smooth and even mesh.
Actually, seems like 0.005 is way too fine, giving a 600MB STL file.
So, 0.01 cell size at less than a minute total:
159MB STL which is still a bit too big for places like Shapeways. Wow. OK then 0.02 cell size, but I have to increase diameter or my two smoothing steps in refine collapse things too much, an in fact I set it to no smoothing, getting more volume and a reasonable 46MB STL file:
Alas, now it's more frail and overly organic rather than mechanical. Increasing diameter just merges it into perforated plates too much. File size is simply an issue with this complexity level, so different 3D printing services will have different file size limits.
Exowire/Exoskeleton would work but your original mesh hasn't been MeshMachine remeshed to be regular, so short segments ruin it. Here is just a corner:
I think that's why more wires fails, at least. Pretty temperamental component.
Switching to MeshMachine is needed, I guess, instead of Cocoon refine, to remesh away so many small triangles along the boring tubes. Crucial for good remeshing was to set Flip to 0 or I failed to get a rough enough mesh.
It's an adaptive mesh so I can retain good detail while roughing out the tubes.
MeshMachine is terribly slow for this whole thing, like 6 minutes, and blows up for this overly rough setting, 20 steps, so less rough, ugh, I'm out of time. I think free Autocad Meshmixer is the way to make a better smaller mesh, after a refined output from Cocoon. MeshMachine is just too slow to tweak and when it blows up, creating massive triangles jutting out, it hangs too when you change settings.
Starting with a Cocoon refined mesh certainly helped Meshmixer. Using triangle budget lets me have full control. Here is 150K triangles instead of 200K:
STL file size down to 40MB. I think Shapeways is 70 or 100MB limit? So it can be even finer. Here is the Cocoon output versus the Meshmixer reduction:
To use Meshmixer, turn on View > Show Wireframe, Command-S to select all and use Edit > Reduce from the palette that appears.
Cocoon can end up making a few inner meshes where things get weird in your uneven original mesh with small holes so fish out the main mesh by adding a List Item node.
The best strategy for Cocoon is indeed to make an overly fine STL so you avoid any need to tweak forever in Grasshopper, but then you can achieve a smaller mesh file size while preserving shape instead of things turning all smearly organic in Grasshopper.…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
ts in extreme aliasing effects that carry into the 3D realm as regular steps along what should be smooth surfaces.
On sleeping on it, I realized I hadn't yet tried fast Unary Force on fine quad meshes from the standard Grasshopper meshing system that includes the meshing options component.
Bingo! It's fast now. Workable. I don't need super fine meshing since I'm not running from aliasing. I can still use rather fine local meshes since Unary Force lets Kangaroo do a simple thing just in the Z direction rather than a full 3D force.
After only a minute or so of Kangaroo initialization that slows the interface, each of a dozen needed cycles takes half a second, FOR THE ENTIRE GRAPHIC.
I just set the timer to 1 second so I can move around the interface, and I double click the Windows taskbar timer shut-off to enjoy the result.
WHILE RUNNING VIA TIMER, IF I CHANGE A SPRING/FORCE SETTING IT SUFFERS NO DELAY AT ALL AND JUST ALTERS THE OUTPUT OVER TIME. I can change Unary Force from 20 to 100 and immediately see the bigger areas balloon like crazy:
It's fast enough overall to play with, yet the individual steps are slow enough that it's fun to watch the hysteresis as it overshoots back from 100 to 20 Unary Force, going concave in the middle of bulges then back to more shallow hills.
A force of 1000 is a bit disturbing, I wonder if I can tamp it down with greater spring strength or will that just give me the same result as before?
Looks like it's the same, just the ratio matters. Makes sense I guess. At one point it blew up though. Hitting the reset button...a minute later it blows up again...and just doesn't like huge numbers, so I don't see an advantage playing with bombs. The high mesh strength is pulling the mesh apart.
With low Unary Force and moderate mesh tension, you get flat tops, as if the overall force on the mesh fighting its anchored edge vertices, is enough to displace it, but the surface itself is too stiff to care about local gravity.
Then you have less flat areas as you increase Unary Force:
Weird, there *is* some sort of absolute effects, rather than just relative, between Unary Force and spring stiffness, since now I'm getting flat tops even in the extreme:
Oh, wait, strike that, I may be seeing but a single step with the timer off, subject to hysteresis. With the timer back on...it can sit there a minute...not locked up but just idling...until you see the Display > Widgets > Profiler time start cycling to near half minute numbers...makes you want to hit the reset button...and indeed that locks the interface for another initialization...and yes, it was merely hysteresis, not an equilibrium result. My former flat tops may have been due to that too, due to my use of the Windows taskbar timer disabler. The lesson is that you can obtain different results by using a long timer setting and just stopping it before it equilibrates.
This script is a keeper, fast and fun after the relatively mild Kangaroo initialization period is over.
The uniform mostly quad meshing is all done in Grasshopper too, from any flat surface with holes, especially from images of shapes that are traced with potrace to give surfaces with holes.
Could I switch to hex meshes from triangular meshes to do the same thing with fewer vertices?
Are there other forces I can add to smooth the bulging? Letting things bulge is not so bad if you then just scale down the result in Z afterwards (though perhaps the same result could be had with lesser force):
Also, can this same thing be done with possibly faster Kangaroo 2?…
Added by Nik Willmore at 10:02pm on February 21, 2016
n common tasks like updating GH definitions, viewing images on the GH canvass, and augmenting existing study-types. Most of the improvements to Honeybee have been in the making for a while and are just getting into the spotlight with this release. Notably, a number of improvements have been made to support large-scale full building energy models, including fixes to memory issues with large models, better components for splitting building masses into zones, and the ability to store HBZones in external files. Additionally, the THERM workflows have gotten a boost and these simulations can now be run directly from the Grasshopper canvass.
As always you can download the new release from Food4Rhino. Make sure to remove the older version of Ladybug and Honeybee before you do so and update your scripts. So, without further adieu, here is the list of the new capabilities added with this release:
LADYBUG
Better Method for Updating Old Grasshopper Files - As many of you have come to realize, Ladybug + Honeybee is updated on a fairly regular basis, with a stable release roughly every 6 months and a github version that never ceases to improve itself on a weekly basis. For this reason, we realize that updating old Grasshopper definitions to use recent components is a challenge for many of us. While we’ve had some methods for this in the past, there were always hiccups, particularly when it came to components that had new inputs/outputs since the previous version. Accordingly, Mostapha has added a new “Ladybug_Update File” component that will automatically update any Grasshopper Definition to be synchronized with the version of Ladybug+Honeybee that is currently in your toolbar (aka. the components in your userobjects folder). If there is a component that has new inputs/outputs since the time you built the definition, it will be automatically circled in red in your GH definition and a newer version of the component will be automatically added right next to this component:
While you still have to do some manual connecting of inputs to the newer component in this case, it should be much faster than our older methods and will hopefully help your old definitions survive long into the future!
EPWmap Now includes OneBuilding Files - Mostapha has added a number of new features to the EPWmap web interface that the “Download Ladybug” component connects to. Among the improvements are a color wheel that quickly shows you how hot, cold, and comfortable a given climate is and, perhaps more importantly, there is now support for EPW files sourced from OneBuilding. With the addition of many more weather files, you should now be able to use Ladybug with ease for more locations across the planet. We should also note that the “Open EPW and STAT” component that downloads/unzips files from a URL now supports OneBuilding URLs.
New Image Viewer Component - Mingbo Peng has graced Ladybug with a fantastic new “Image Viewer” component that takes a given image file on one’s machine and displays it on the Grasshopper canvas. It also enables one to pull color data off of the image with ease by simply clicking on the pixel of the image one is interested in. This new component is useful for a wide variety of cases, including the viewing of screenshots after they have been taken with the “Ladybug_Capture View” or “Ladybug_Render View” components. However, many of you will likely recognize it as most immediately useful in workflows involving image-based Honeybee Daylight (Radiance) simulations. This is particularly true as Migbo has built-in the capability to read many image file types, including PNG, JPEG, GIF, TIFF and the High Dynamic Range (.HDR) image files that Radiance Outputs:
The following video gives a quick overview of the Image Viewer’s capabilities:
The new component can be found under the Ladybug_Extra tab and I think I speak for us all in saying thank you Mingbo for this great component!
New Sun Shades Calculator Released Under WIP - After over a year of software development and nearly a career's worth of geometric math development, a joint effort between Abraham Yezioro and Antonello Di Nunzio has produced a new sun shade design component that can be described as nothing short of “magical.” Based on a similar principle to the current “Ladybug_Shading Designer,” the new component takes an input of sun vectors and produces shade geometries that can block the vectors. However, in comparison to the shading designer, the range of shade options that are available in this new component is truly staggering, ranging from classic overhangs, louvers and fins to pergolas and custom shade surfaces. Perhaps more importantly, the calculation methods used by this new component are faster and more reliable. It can currently can be found under the WIP section of Ladybug and it will continue to evolve in new versions of Ladybug.
Renewable Component Now Support Sandia and CEC Photovoltaics Modules - Polishing off his many contributions to the “Renewables” section of Ladybug, Djordje Spasic has added support for a couple more ways of defining Photovoltaic modules for renewables estimation. Specifically, the Ladybug WIP section now includes components to import modules defined with the California Energy Commission (CEC) and Sandia Labs.
HONEYBEE
Support for OpenStudio 2.x - A few months ago, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) released a stable version of OpenStudio version 2, which included a number of improvements in stability and available features. This stable release of Honeybee is built to work with the new version of OpenStudio and, in the coming months, Honeybee will be adding a few more capabilities to its OpenStudio workflows to support v2.x’s new capabilities. Most notable among these will be support for OpenStudio measures. Measures are short scripts written in Ruby using OpenStudio’s SDK to quickly edit and change OpenStudio models. They are fundamental to visions of OpenStudio as a flexible energy modeling interface and to Honeybee’s goals of being a collaborative interface between the architectural and engineering industries. Stay tuned for the next release for many of these new capabilities!
Critical Memory Issue Fixed for Large Energy Models - A number of you wonderful members of our community have been aware of computer memory issues with large Honeybee models for some time (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). Namely, a model that is larger than 50 zones could quickly eat up 16 GBs of memory and change Honeybee from a fast-flying insect to something more reminiscent of a snail. We are happy to say that, after a much longer time than it should have taken us, we finally identified and fixed the issue. In this version of Honeybee, such large models can now be created using less than 2% of the memory and time previously. Thanks to all of you who made us aware of this and hopefully you will now reap the rewards of your struggle.
Split Building Mass Component Getting a Makeover - Many of you veteran Ladybug users will recognize Saeran Vasathakumar as one of the original contributors of Ladybug who added components for solar fans and envelopes years ago. Now he’s back with new components to split a building mass into zones that are truly revolutionary in their speed and methodology. Saeran has divided the new capabilities into two components (one for floor-by-floor subdivision and another for core-perimeter subdivision) and they both can be found under the WIP section of this release. In this WIP version, core-perimeter thermal zones can only be generated for all convex and very simple concave geometries. Most concave geometries and geometries with holes (or courtyards) in them will fail. However it can handle even very complex convex geometries with speed and ease. You can expect the component to start accommodating concave/courtyard geometries very soon.
Load / Dump HB Objects to File - Keeping in line with the support of large, full building energy models, this release includes full support for two components that can dump and load any HBObjects to a standalone file. All information about HBzones can go into this file including custom constructions, schedules, loads, natural ventilation, shading devices, etc. You can then send the resulting .HB file to someone else and they can load up the same exact zones in another definition. This also makes it possible to have one Grasshopper file for generating the zones and running the simulation and another GH definition to import results and color zones/surfaces with those results, make energy balance graphics, etc.
Write ViewFactorInfo to File - After many of you asked for it, the _viewFactorInfo that is output from the “Honeybee_View Factor” component can now be written out to an external file using the same Load / Dump HB Objects components cited above. For those of you who have worked with the comfort map workflows, you probably already know that calculating these view factors is one of the most time consuming portions of building a microclimate map. Having to re-run this calculation each time you want to open up the Grasshopper script is a nuisance and, thanks to this new capability, you should only have to run it once and then store your results in an external .HB file.
Transform Honeybee Components Modified for Large Model Creation - Many large buildings today are made up of copies of the same rooms repeated over and over again across multiple floors, or along a street, etc. Accordingly, one can imagine that the fastest way to create a full building energy model of such buildings is to simply move and copy the same zones several times. This is what a new set of edits to the Honeybee Transform components is aimed at supporting by allowing one to build a custom set of zones, translate them several times with a Honeybee_Transform component, then solve adjacencies on all zones to make a complete energy model.
Central Plants Available on HVAC Systems - While Honeybee has historically supported the assigning of separate HVAC systems to different groups of zones, each HVAC was always an entirely new system from the ground up. So a building with separate VAV systems for each floor would be modeled with a different chiller and boiler for each floor. While this can be the case sometimes, it is more common to have only one chiller and boiler per building but separate air systems for each floor. The new ‘centralPlant_’ options on the Honeybee coolingDetails and heatingDetails enable you to create this HVAC structure by making a single boiler and chiller for any HVAC systems that have this option toggled on. Furthermore, in the case of VRF systems, you can also centralize the ventilation system, using the grouping of zones around a given HVAC to assign which zone terminals are connected to a given heat pump.
More HVAC Templates Added - As the profession continues to push the industry standard towards lower-energy HVAC systems, Honeybee intends to keep up. In this release, we have included a few more templates for modeling advanced HVAC systems including Radiant Ceilings, Radiant Heated Floors + VAV Cooling, and Two Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) systems. Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems have also gotten a large boost as it is now possible to model these systems with more efficient water-source loops. The next release will include the ability to model central ground source systems that use hydronics for heating cooling delivery.
Run THERM Simulations Directly from Grasshopper - Anyone who has used the THERM workflow in the past likely realized that, while Honeybee can write the THERM file, you would still have to open model in THERM yourself and hit “simulate” to get results. Now that LBNL has started a transition to becoming more open, they have graciously allowed free access for everyone to run THERM from a command line. What this means for Honeybee is that you no longer need to open THERM at all in order to get results and you can now work entirely in Rhino/Grasshopper. This also opens up the possibility of long parametric runs with THERM models since you can now automatically run simulations and collect results as you animate sliders, use galapagos, etc. A special thanks is due to the LBNL team for exposing this feature, including Setphen Selkowitz, Christian Kohler, Charlie Curcija, Eleanor Lee, and Robin Mitchell.
All Options Exposed for THERM Boundary Conditions - To finish off the full implementation of THERM in Honeybee, a final component has been added called “Honeybee_Custom Radiant Environment.” This component completes the access to all boundary condition options that THERM offers, including separate radiant and air temperatures, different view factor models, and the specification of additional heat flux (which is typically used to account for solar radiation).
Improvements to Schedule-Generating Components - Many of you who have watched the Honeybee energy modeling video tutorials have likely gotten in the habit of using CSV schedules for everything. While this is definitely one valid way to work, it is not always the most efficient since simple schedules can be specified much more cleanly to EnergyPlus/OpenStudio and the use of CSVs can also make it difficult to share your energy models (since you have to send CSV files along with the schedules themselves). This release adds two new schedule components that should take care of a lot of cases where CSV schedules were unnecessary. The new “Constant Schedule” component allow you to quickly make a schedule that is set at a single value or a set of constantly repeating 24-hour values. The second component allows you to create “Seasonal Schedules” by connecting “week schedules” from the other schedule components along with analysis periods in which these seek schedules operate. Together, these will hopefully make our schedule-generating habit a bit better as a community.
Lastly, many of you may know Mingbo Peng as the current maintainer of the Design Explorer web interface and the Colibri components under TTToolbox. Both of these tools have been revolutionary in enabling “brute force” studies of design spaces (aka. Grasshopper scripts where one runs all combinations of a set of sliders). Now, Mingbo has graced Ladybug with the aforementioned image viewer component and it is with pride that we welcome Mingbo Peng to the development team!
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.Cheers!
The Ladybug Tools Development Team
…