Some time ago I did some test with Butterfly 0.0.04 using OpenFOAM v1612+ in Linux through the Docker.
After that I did some work using a different CFD plug-in for GH. In that case I installed OpenFOAM 5 using Ubuntu 18.04 under the Linux Subsystem for Windows (also know as Bash for Windows). I didn’t have problems with the previous installation of OpenFOAM (they are also two different versions).
Now I want to come back to Butterfly 0.0.05 that I have seen uses OpenFOAM 5 and a new Linux installation, through blueCFD-Core 2017-2. The question is: Will Butterfly pick the correct installed version of Linux/OpenFOAM 5? Or there could be conflicts that make Butterfly or the other CFD plug-in (or both) not working correctly? (I still have files that I could need to use again and run simulations with the other plug-in).
Last question: are Butterfly 0.0.05 and Butterfly Plus the same thing?
They are separate installations and should not affect each other.
Butterfly is the core Python library. ButterflyPlus is used for plugin and plugin libraries like
Butterfly-Dynamo and so on.
thank you for the clarification.
About Butterfly versions: 0.0.05 comes with an installer (I used that) whereas Butterfly Plus with files in the folders butterfly_grasshopper and userObjects. Should I change the .ghuser files installed with the installer with those present in the userObject folder of Butterfly Plus? (they look the same just opening the folder - at least the number is the same).
i think i set the openfoam5 through blueCFD successfully like this.
(Sorry for I’m new member in ladybug, so i only can attach one pic one time.)
then i run the example file: outdoors air flow. Actually, I didn’t change any setting either imput geometry except turning on the boolean toggle in order as the tutorial. the result just like this.
there is no vector here , also the color seems not change with the air flow.
and these are 2 errors in my file
one in Solution part , said " can’t find C:\users\pinenut\butterfly\outdoor_airflow\log\simpleFoam.err"
another one is plot residuals: like this
Don’t know why it just cant run as tutorial , and i tried several times . Last time I saw a tutor who use “openfoam/exe” , he enable the virtualization through BIOS first. and i check it and found i haven’t enable it. so I enable it, restart my laptop. and run butterfly again.
I haven’t got an result yet, since it nearly toke over 2 hours to run the solution component. I just can’t wait to shut down my laptop.
this screenshot you can see it speed is really slow in block mesh, not alone in Solution.every time loop took 5 mins. notice, i just imput the default-geometry – 2 simple box, don’t know why it take so long to analysis.
So is it necessary for me to enable virtualization?!
thanks a lot for your patience to read my questions!
thank you it worked also for me.
May i ask have you enable your virtualization technology in BIOS?
Don’t know the reason why after i disabled the virtualization technology , it seems works correctly. but super slow in solution component.
you can see the time in right part. Nearly 90s for each time loop, I have no idea when will it finish.
since it almost have hundreds time loop in total…
Do you have any ideas?
yes Windows has the Virtualization Technology enabled. Actually this feature was not required in the installation instruction of Blue CFD.
I did just two quick test using the outdoor airflow example file that is a very simple model with a small domain and I also noticed it is extremely slow. Meshing takes some kind of 20 or 30 minutes and each iteration takes really long time as you say. It is not possible to use this in real studies of urban environments. Other CFD plug-in for GH that use OpenFOAM are tens of time faster. I don’t know if it depends on the Virtualization Technology.
As soon as I have time I wanted to make a full run using different plug-ins compare the times and post to ask clarifications.
same question aroused in my mind . i guess members of this website are quite active.
Thank you everyone for providing such great knowledge.
Thank you so much!
I thought that I need buy a new laptop or upgrade it a week ago. But thanks to your testing, now, i would like to try another CFD plugin!
By the way, do I need to unload the blue CFD and then install CFD for windows? After that , can Butterfly run it in new CFD plugin automatically or we need to edict the code?
I didn’t make any test. I just tried one example file of Butterfly and it looks slow. But I didn’t compare with other plug-ins using same urban environment and CFD domain settings. So the reason why Butterfly is slow could be just that the example file has, for example, a much larger number of cells in the domain comparing other CFD domains I used for other works with different CFD plug-ins. When I will have the time I will test the different CFD plugins using same models and similar CFD domain settings.
Butterfly itself should have little to no influence in CFD computation, it’s either the OF or BlueCFD performance in question here.
Both should be considered slow in comparison to their Linux alternative, although what is slow and fast is really dependent, as you correctly note, on the case specific settings for both the mesh and solver.
Just echoing @hazel’s experience with the slow CFD simulation time.
I successfully downloaded Butterfly and BlueCFD yesterday and the install went seamlessly (love the new install method!) but the outdoor airflow tutorial is painfully slow. Yes, we are spoiled now with wicked fast simulations but compared to other grasshopper CFD tools, like RhinoCFD, the pace of this simulation is much slower.
Using 4 processors on a Dell Core i7, I am getting around 30-40 seconds per timestep.
However, the residuals are not plotting nor are they appearing in the panel attached to residual_fields - results are previewing though. Happy to provide more details on BlueCFD version for debugging!
yes what I wanted to say is just that in case is BlueCFD that makes the CFD computation slow.
I did some other quick test using larger CFD domain cells (without grading) and actually it is faster. So yes it is mostly a matter of specific settings, though probably BlueCFD is a bit slower anyway comparing using directly Linux through the Linux Subsystem for Windows.