a machine that is light and very sturdy. I have taken my Macbook Pro all around the world, carry it with me every day, even dropped it a few times and its still totally fine. Its thin and light.
2) You get some actual support for your hardware even a few years down the line. My Macbook Pro is from 2012 and I can still walk in to any Apple Store and get help with it, which I have done many, many times in different places around the world - I never had to show a receipt or was charged any money for help. There is no PC/Laptop manufacturer in the world with anything close to that, because companies like Asus, Dell, etc. bring out dozens of new versions of laptops every year, so its much harder to service them after a few years.
3) This is the most important one, which usually people forget when they say that Macbooks are overpriced: Resale Value. If you have ever tried to sell an old PC/Laptop (I have a few times), you will know how little value they have even after just 2-3 years. Macbooks retain their value very well and even after 4 years you can still get 50% of your original price.
4) Of course you can install Windows on it and it runs perfectly. I have MacOS and Windows on it and both run absolutely fine. On the Windows side I have Rhino+GH, Maya and a few others. Having Windows is good, because some software still only runs on Windows (looking at you, 3DSMax!). Most other software also runs on MacOS. In the interest of sanity it is great to have an alternative to Windows for all the day to day stuff, like Mail, Calender, Photos, Presentations, etc. that just always works.
5) As for performance: Yes, Macbook Pros dont necessarily have the latest and greatest in graphics cards (the rest is on par with PC laptops), but unless you want to play games you will not need it. VRay RT can do GPU rendering, but you wont get great performance from a Notebook GPU anyways and it doesnt make sense to do rendering on a laptop (especially since you have a workstation). You could get one of the older Macbook Pro Retina Late 2013 or Mid 2014 models with the GTX750M by Nvidia, which will be usable to render using VRay RT, but of course not huge performance. Better to invest in a good used graphics card for your workstation like an Nvdia GTX980ti, which is the best value for money for GPU rendering right now (lots of used ones available).
So at least consider also getting a Macbook Pro. You can buy refurbished models (depending where you are) and they are like new, but a lot cheaper or even get an older one thats used. It will be a worthwile investment.
Take it from someone who has used dozens of PCs and Macs in my lifetime and have to do the IT support here at work (where we also use both).
I still have my Macbook Pro Retina from 2012 and its still running perfectly, super fast, and I can use Rhino and GH for huge files, do GPU Rendering with Octane Render and all sorts of other heavy computing stuff.
Hope that helps.…
Added by Armin Seltz at 11:12am on September 19, 2016
he "return" is comment out as shown below?
After restarting Rhino and Grasshopper, I opened the outdoors_airflow demo file, and the first step of creating the case file is ok:
Then the blockMesh component gives the following error: seems I have to manually start OF first..
so, as the error message suggested, I open OF by Start_OF.bat:
Then come back to the blockMesh component, now it can be executed while the OF command line window is also openning:
... and the blockMesh finished successfully:
... so I proceeded to run snappyHexMesh, checkMesh and update fvScheme:
... up to the simpleFoam component, I got the error again:
The warning message is:
1. Solution exception: --> OpenFOAM command Failed!#0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #2 ? in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #3 double Foam::sumProd<double>(Foam::UList<double> const&, Foam::UList<double> const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #4 Foam::PCG::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #5 Foam::GAMGSolver::solveCoarsestLevel(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #6 Foam::GAMGSolver::Vcycle(Foam::PtrList<Foam::lduMatrix::smoother> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #7 Foam::GAMGSolver::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #8 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solveSegregated(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libfiniteVolume.so" #9 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #10 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve() in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #11 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #12 __libc_start_main in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #13 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam"
... and the command lines in the readMe! output are pretty long and it is saved in the text file attached here.
So, my questions are:
1. why I have to manually start OF first before I can use the blockMesh component? Should butterfly automatically start OF?
2. what might be the cause of the unsuccessful run of simpleFoam in the end?
Hope you can kindly advise! Thank you!
- Ji
…
neybee?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A1257744&xg_source=msg_com_gr_forum
is useful to replace values (even if I cannot replace the same value for example "fraction radiant" in two different internal gains), but not to add new stuff, as in our case.
As you may recall, we were able to add our internal gains through the additional strings, but we have the problem of the default ones that we can not change or remove.
We've noticed that People, Lights and ElectricEquipment Internal gains are located inside the "runEnergySimulation" honeybee command inside the Python script.
We were thinking of two possible quick alternatives while waiting to be able to fully customize the internal gains with honeybee.
For the first one, if it is possible, you could make a "modified" "runEnergySimulation" command for us in which you cut off the Internal Gain parts, so that we can add them as text in the additional strings part. Alternatively you could show us where to add the additional strings we need inside the runEnergySimulation command so that we can add the values we need to run the simulation.
For clarity, these are the internal gains in idf file we need (that are inside de gh file in the panel just below the additional strings command)
Lights,, !- Name, !- Zone or ZoneList Name, !- Schedule Name Watts/Person, !- Design Level Calculation Method , !- Lighting Level {W} , !- Watts per Zone Floor Area {W/m2} 16, !- Watts per Person {W/person} 0.2, !- Return Air Fraction 0.59, !- Fraction Radiant 0.2, !- Fraction Visible 0, !- Fraction Replaceable GeneralLights; !- End-Use Subcategory
People,, !- Name, !- Zone or ZoneList Name, !- Number of People Schedule Name People, !- Number of People Calculation Method 4, !- Number of People , !- People per Zone Floor Area {person/m2} , !- Zone Floor Area per Person {m2/person} 0.3, !- Fraction Radiant , !- Sensible Heat Fraction attività metabolica, !- Activity Level Schedule Name 0.0000000382, !- Carbon Dioxide Generation Rate {m3/s-W} , !- Enable ASHRAE 55 Comfort Warnings ZoneAveraged, !- Mean Radiant Temperature Calculation Type , !- Surface Name/Angle Factor List Name, !- Work Efficiency Schedule Name ClothingInsulationSchedule, !- Clothing Insulation Calculation Method , !- Clothing Insulation Calculation Method Schedule Name, !- Clothing Insulation Schedule Name, !- Air Velocity Schedule Name AdaptiveCEN15251; !- Thermal Comfort Model 1 Type
ElectricEquipment,, !- Name, !- Zone or ZoneList Name, !- Schedule Name Watts/Area, !- Design Level Calculation Method , !- Design Level {W} 5, !- Watts per Zone Floor Area {W/m2} , !- Watts per Person {W/person} 0, !- Fraction Latent 0.3, !- Fraction Radiant 0, !- Fraction Lost General; !- End-Use Subcategory
Thank you very much!Filippo
…
e on the left won't offset at all, while the shape on the right will, to about 5, then it stops working. What is happening that makes it not work? I would guess that it has to do with the shape folding in on itself or clipping itself as it gets smaller or bigger?? Anyone know exactly? And can anyone think of a a way how to be able to offset the shape on on the left?
Thanks!
…
seem to find a working solutution. Doing this by hand is not a option, as I need to export up to 500+ dwg files, so any kind of automation is usefull.
So in essence I need to export 2 layers, with each layer containing a couple of crv's to DWG. The dwg should include this layers structure when opened
In the forum I found two components that should have this kind of functionality, but neither seem to work or is still supported.
I am currently testing with the TTtoolbox plugin and its CADexporter, however this does not support the export of multiple layers. Only 1 layer can be exported.
The Finches components could possibly be useful for export batch processing, but the component is not longer for download as the makers (http://www.nicholas.demonchaux.com/) website is offline. I am currently on Rhino 5, with GH 0.9.0075, so if comeone can share a gha file of this, that would be much appriciated.
Are there alternatives that are being used by the community that i am aware of? As this seem to me has been of use to more people…
is blog http://bit.ly/22eCLl2 to my project, and since the area that needed to be covered is very extensive, it needs a lot more grid. I really want to keep the surface as smooth as possible, I tried to work with 5x5 square grids to speed things up but its very rough and pointy (and its not exactly speedy as well). On top of that, the very end part where I have to create a surface from every grid, it takes at least 5 minutes to even change the slider a little.1. Is there a faster way I can maybe do this? Should I use anything different or scale the model down or something?2. The final form of the surface would follow the outline of the site that I have, requiring trimming after achieving the desired form. Before trimming, since the NURBS (surface4points) aggravate the sluggishness, I tried replacing it with quad mesh but it simply said its invalid, so I tried once with construct mesh. but its still very slow. Is there another way to construct the final surface?
Attached below is the gh file, and here is the 3dm file http://bit.ly/1Uy0tWR I had to use dropbox since its about 40mb.
Thank you.…
ive collaborative environment.
TYPE : Course module and Workshop
The event is open for anybody interested from all the fields of design, including: architecture, interior design, furniture design, product design, fashion design, scenography, and engineering.
1. COURSE MODULE (20-23 April 2014) - optional
+ type: 3 days intensive course regarding basic knowledge in parametric design (LEVEL 1)
+ software: Rhinoceros & Grasshopper
+ plugins: Kangaroo, Weaver Bird, Lunch box, Ghowl, Geco
+ achievements:
- acquainting to the components & the concept of Generative Design
- understanding the strategies in Algorithmic Design
- how to easily insert simple mathematical equation into the project to gain more control
- how to utilize proper plugins with respect to their nature of the project
- interacting with different analysis platforms such as Ecotect & remote controller
- solving several exercises with different scales( 2D- 3D ) during each phase of the workshop
2. WORKSHOP (23-27 April 2014)
A 5 day Design-Based Research Workshop exploring new techniques in Digital Architecture/Fabrication, with a specific focus on the use of generative systems and parametric modeling as tools for creative expression.
Our ultimate goal is to increasing the efficiency of utilizing digital tools in parallel with geometric performance of the primitive design agent.
+ + CONCEPT
Fashion and Architecture are both based on basic life necessities – clothing and shelter.
However, they are also forms of self-expression – for both creators and consumers.
Both fashion and architecture affect our emotional being in many ways.
The agenda of this workshop is to investigate on the overlap between these two areas of design, art & fashion.
Fashion and architecture express ideas of personal, social and cultural identity, reflecting the concerns of the user and the ambition of the age. Their relationship is a symbiotic one and throughout history, clothing and buildings have echoed each other in form and appearance. This only seems natural as they not only share the primary function of providing shelter and protection for the body, but also because they both create space and volume out of flat, two-dimensional materials.
While they have much in common, they are also intrinsically different – address the human scale, but the proportions, sizes and shapes differ enormously.
+ + + OBJECTIVES
So far, Architects have been using techniques such as folding, bending etc. to create space, structural roofs or different other structural shapes.
The agenda of this workshop goes further with the investigation of algorithmic thinking through generative tools Integrated in design.
The challenge is creating a bridge that connects these two areas of design, architecture and fashion that perform at two opposite scales.
+ + + + TECHNICAL BRIEF
In the early stages physical models and low-tech strategies will be used, allowing the participants to gain a greater understanding of materials, fabrication and assembly methods as well as simple, yet pragmatic structural solutions.
Later in the workshop these strategies will be digitalized and elaborated using software visualizing tools such as Rhinoceros and the algorithmic plug-in Grasshopper.…
al read” component in grasshopper.
But somehow it seems that the command line “TempSensor.requestTemperatures();” makes the firefly firmata somehow unstable. I have also connected 5 servo motor which move strangely irregular/wrong when the command line above is in the program. So, when I for example only control the "Digital Pin 12" in grasshopper it mainly moves the servo on Pin 11 (!) but also a bit time delayed the servo on Pin 12.
Do you have any ideas? It has to be something inside the “#include <DallasTemperature.h>” (Libary for the temperature sensor) which doesnt go together with the firefly firmata und gets something wrong in the "void WriteToPin" firmata command
Or do you may have any working codes for implementing a temperature sensor? Its doenst have to be the one i have, I could get another one.
here you can see the code: http://txt.do/drqao (a simplified version of the latest firmata including my TempSensor lines marked with "//...//TEST")
Thanks! Julian…
the following image of a hut.
I do not have experience using kangaroo to simulate forces, but I have made a test using multiple random components on a flat surface to fake the effect I'm going for. See image below.
The main issue I'm having is that the original file used for my test surface used box morph and the variable pipe command. Box morph is a bit touchy on a curved surface and it is not as elegant as I would like it to be (ie. I want all the hair diameters to be perfectly circular and uniform in size). Variable pipe also does not align the base of the hair with the existing surface, which means I have to offset the surface and then trim the excess of my pipe.....leading to heavy code and the file crashing.
So I'm trying to rebuild the "hairs" using a new method:
1) Subdivide the surface
2) Find the midpoint of each surface and then create a straight line that is perpendicular
3) Move a point along the on the straight line (between the start and end points) in the z direction, and then create a nurbs curve using this point and the start and end points
4) create a circle at the base of each crv, and then two more circles: one at the point in the middle point (I think I set it to .9) and the end of the curve
5) The problem: Now I am trying to sweep along these three circles and the nurbs curve to create a bent hair/pipe that is flush with the conic surface, but it does not work.
If someone can help that would be amazing. I've included my original surface test file and my new file where I am rebuilding using the sweep command. Below is a drawing of what I'm trying to achieve.
…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…