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.…
m
-Area of blue line: min. 80% of the rectangel a x b
-Max. hight h of the top point: h,max = a
-Min. Volume between rectangel a x b and membrane: 500 m3
Can anyone help me?…
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
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?
…
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.…
se enseñan los principios de modelado básico y orgánico en Rhinoceros. En Grasshopper se estudian los principios de Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $5,000.00
Pagos diferidos $5,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
De lunes a viernes de 10 am a 18 pm
Del 23 al 27 de julio de 2012
DURACION: 40 HORAS
SESIONES: 5 DE 8 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
Incluye material para corte digital.…