I’m doing a webinar on Thursday (28th of June) on how you make your own Grasshopper (Python) components faster. We will do this by using some of the awesome packages from CPython, such as NumPy.
We will not directly cover any Ladybug things, but we will use some Ladybug components along the way.
I hope to see you there!
Find further info and how to sign up here:
@ChristianKongsgaard Registration is full ？
I will try to change that
It’s written is going to be recorded, is it possible to watch it in a second moment please, as London 3pm is not a good time for me? Thanks. VM
Apparently there is a limit of 50 people (I was unaware of that). However, it will be recorded and can be seen afterwards. I will put a link up, when I know
Hello, I know it passed already but is there a way to see the seminar on youtube? Seems very interesting, thanks in advance!
The recording has not yet been released, I will return with the link as soon as it is available.
If you are interested take a look at my webpage, where most of the methodology is presented.
The recording is now available on the webinar site: https://www.bigmarker.com/TGIC/Grasshopper-Components-and-the-Livestock-Template-Method
I hope you find it interesting
Thanks for the webinar, it is a very interesting workflow that could help funneling some heavy calculations to the cloud.
Do you have any plans to implement geometrical calculations on the template? Currently, I´ve found the bottleneck of most comfort workflows on the view factor calculations required for mRT.
This is something I’m working on right now. As I say in the webinar; we lose the connection to Rhino’s geometry module, when we leave Grasshopper/IronPython. So I’m currently looking for a replacement.
However I’m not sure if computing the view factor by shooting rays is the right approach. I’m trying to find literature that has investigated ray tracing vs other methods.
If ray tracing indeed is the answer, I think existing tools such as Radiance or Solweig might be the way to go, in comparison to implementing an algorithm myself.
At the moment I’m still at the literature study stage, but as you say; view factors is a bottleneck and a issue that has to be addressed to making efficient work flows for outdoor comfort calculations.
I see, it doesn´t sounds like an easy one. Keep us posted with your dev and many thanks for the informative reply!
Another possible option. I haven’t tried it myself. I hope we can eventually workout a radiance-based solution. Similar to daylight coefficient based workflows for annual daylight.
View3D is what I currently find as the best option. The founding paper argues that the method they use are faster and more accurate than ray tracing. But the paper is from 2002, so I don’t know if their comparisons are valid anymore. But EnergyPlus uses View3D as the basis for their view factors, which should underline its credibility.