urves as editable splines, not editable meshes, as I don't want to collapse the modifier stack and lose the parametric elements of max (offsets, chamfers, bevels etc).
There are two ways in which i would like to use the curves
-The imported curves need to be useable by my colleagues who don't use or have access to rhino and will potentially be doing several variations on a design theme, but then have the modifier stack reapply the offsets, extrusions, materials IDs etc. Too many vertices along all the curves make this too inefficient on the large scale projects I'm currently working on (10 acres of parkland)
-The alternate method I'm using, is modelling everything in rhino, parkland, parkland borders, paving between grassed areas, lots of amorphous shapes with specific offsets (similar in style to this http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/dongdaemun-design-park-plaza/).
Then I import this into max to extrude, shell, render etc.
This way unfortunately is not very parametric either, as it requires me to model each change in rhino, using GH where I can, but then exporting uneditable, non parametric geometry to 3dsMax.
One of the recurring issues I have is when curved lines are imported , each curve is treated individually according to the export settings and as a result, adjacent and completely touching curves are interpolated differently to one another due to their individual lengths and tangents, losing the exactness of the detail created in rhino.
Still keen for any advice on whether there is an answer to this problem? Or even a combination of answers.
Cheers,
Dave…
odels. After having made some paper models I started to insert them in a pc program so I can use the geometry for a more scientifically manner. (And check their structural efficiency) After having started in GH I was able to model the in plane movement of a Miura and Eggbox fold. However, I was unable to describe the out of plane movement.
This is why I started to investigate your Freeform origami program. This program works great for the Miura an waterbomb fold, and I am planning to validate their form by doing some experiments with paper models. Unfortunately the Ronresch.dxf that was included in the model-demo folder does not fold as it should be as is shown in the figure below. This while I am very interesting in the form freedom of this origami.. Do you know what the problem of this file is? Maybe its because it is an .dxf file instead of an .obj file? Or when I start the freeform program I get an error message, does it has to do something with this? (free origami 0.23) You would really help me when you are able to solve this problem!
Thanks in advance,
Bergen
…
ions! == fantastic.
1. When at begin = false mode > (a) you can now see things and (b) you can reduce your panels (prior the interactive massacre,i.e. begin = true) based on the famous algo of mine as written in this top secret (C)(tm) function:
MassacreOnList(sListSorted, pC, CofCPanelDist) : in Plain English:: take no prisoners.
2. make a break > buy a book (you know what kind) > learn things > sky is the limit (in fact events/delegates is the limit - nasty stuff).
3. in order to get your def (the complete thing) YOU MUST post here a hymn (original, lyrical and passionate) related with the ultimate thing: my Panigale 1199.
best, Lord Of Darkness
…
nstalling of 3 previous versions of Ladybird and Honeybee but nothing different happened. This was all happening on a desktop PC running windows 10 and with a wired connection to the internet router (via a switch). I then tried installing Ladybug and Honeybee on a MacBook Pro running Windows 7 on bootcamp. This computer was wirellesly connected to the same router. The installation of the latest version was very smooth and all the right files of the right sizes appeared without any problem on the first import of Honeybee-Honeybee. I then copied the files over to the other computer. Solved.
1. good thing I didn't know that as I wouldn't have kept on trying to resolve it!
2. Ok, sticking with it - besides I would hate miss out on such a major release!
3. Makes sense.
4. ok, I thought that that was the main file because of the EP in the title - I now have them both anyway.
5. Now that you say this when I click on the file in github and download it from the view raw link then I do get the right file size. But when I have been trying to download it directly from the root folder (i.e.Honeybee/resources) with "save link as" then I get the 36kB. Could it be that Honeybee_Honeybee was doing something similar?
Many thanks again to both of you - great work out there!
best,
Alex…
ld hardrive. It's too much of an effort for me to open my PC tower and change the hardrive and look for that definition, sorry.I made a quick replica of the definition you saw in that video. It's not the same, for example you won't be able to change the system size in kw, nor area of the array. But it might give you an understanding of how it works.
I posted another solution below, on how to find the optimal tilt and azimuth (other than by using Galapagos): with the usage of "Tilt and Orientation Factor" component, which did not exist at the time when this video was created.You told me in your private message, that you do not need to check for the optimal azimuth, and that PVsurface is always going to be oriented towards the south. To account for this you need to remove(erase) the wire which goes from "Galapagos" component to the "azimuth angle" slider.Do this, by putting your mouse pointer at the location of the "Galapagos" component's "Genome" input plug, then press and hold CTRL on your keyboard, press and hold left mouse button, and drag the new wire all the way to the "azimuth angle" slider.I hope this helps.
…
data. Like that you can get much more fluid input.
A while ago we used this to build a wall using musical data. We generated Midi notes in Apple Logic (using a drum plugin) - the plugin generates the drum patterns. Then we setup a network midi session (built in functionality in OS X) and receive it on a PC using rtpMidi. There a small patch coded in vvvv converted the midi data to OSC. Firefly then receives the data in Grasshopper using OSC. It worked surprisingly well and fast. Here is a small video. The walls have actually been built and are part of a bakery building in senegal. Finished project: https://www.hansen.ch/en/news/fertigstellung-der-baeckerei-gandiole...
If you want even better control and have an iPad or Android tablet around (can be one of the old ones as well), then I suggest using TouchOSC. You can create your own control surfaces and it sends out OSC directly, which you can receive in Firefly.
ps: this will all be so much easier with GH on the Mac! can't wait!…
Added by Armin Seltz at 7:08am on September 12, 2016
s and use those "identifications" to connect it with any PC application: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40L3SGmcPDQ
An example of usage on grasshopper:
(Andrea Graziano credit)
More grasshopper usage links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6U29g6rCng http://www.grasshopper3d.com/video/eeg-and-biofeedback-architecture?xg_source=activity…
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
i have to rely completely in passive means.
To speed things i'm calculating comfort for Extreme hot/cold week, thinking maybe on typical weeks instead.
The cool week is kind of "right", but the hot (extreme) is giving all night hours 100% comfort. Knowing the climate, there is no way this can be the case. Some of the settings with the european standards give sometimes the right tendency, but still, compared to ASHRAE's the average of % percentage is too high.
Also my assumptions for flexibility of use/clothing/etc is the maximal. I mean, no constrains on this respect ("let's be passive as much as we can").
So right now i have no specific questions, but rather your advice, if any: "What you would do ...?? (I don't like these kind of questions, sorry).
A request, yes, if it is possible to output the set temperature for each hour. For instance, when you give the degFromTargetMtx i'll like to know this target. This is for control, and i think this is important for better understanding this black box.
Any other insights you may have, just shoot.
Not related to the discussion, but if you happened to check the model, we are simulating 2 apartments in the building. The northern one is only one thermal zone. The southern is divided in rooms. I wanted to see how much difference e get between both ways. And there is. No doubt the more detailed modeling looks more reliable. Also if you have some points here, shoot again.
BTW humidity, look at page 32-33 in the AC book. Nicol is clear on the "real" influence of the humidity, arguing it is mostly psychological than real.
Thanks again, and to you too Mauricio.
-A.…
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.…