The present invention generally relates to the area of design tools, particularly for lighting design. More precisely, it relates to a computer-implemented method for simulating the process of realizing lighting effects in an environment. As such, the realization process may include acquiring, installing and programming devices selected from a collection of available devices in accordance with generic design requirements.
Many existing tools for computer-aided lighting design are organized essentially as device palettes, from which the user can browse and select lighting devices (luminaries) to be purchased/rented and arranged in an environment. This is how Dialux™, a software tool developed by DIAL GmbH, is organized. Not uncommonly, the palette is populated with the product range currently available from a specific lighting device supplier. Such a device-oriented design interface forces the user into thinking in terms of existing devices and their capabilities, not in terms of what would be desirable aesthetically or functionally. To a large extent, design tools that are organized in a device-oriented manner owe their efficiency and output quality to the user's familiarity with the device palette. Acquiring and maintaining sufficient familiarity with lighting device available from suppliers may however be a time-consuming process that discourages fresh users.
It is an object of the present invention to overcome one or more of the problems outlined in the preceding section. Thus, it would be desirable to provide a design tool that does not require comprehensive prior knowledge of installable devices from its user. In accordance with a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a method for simulating the realization of lighting effects in an environment. The method, which is advantageously a computer-implemented method, comprises:
receiving environment data;
receiving user input indicative of a plurality of lighting effects;
receiving data indicative of installable devices for providing lighting effects; generating at least one implementation option for each lighting effect on the basis of the environment data and the data indicative of installable devices;
selecting one implementation option for each lighting effect having more than one implementation option; and
generating realization data based on the environment data and the selected implementation options.
There is further provided, in accordance with a second aspect of the invention, a method of realizing a plurality of lighting effects in an environment.
In accordance with a third aspect of the invention, there is provided a simulator for simulating the process of realizing lighting effects in an environment, the simulator comprising:
a first receiver for receiving environment data and data indicative of a plurality of lighting effects over a first communication channel; and
a second receiver for receiving data indicative of installable devices for realizing lighting effects over a second communication channel.
The first and second receivers may be implemented in one common receiver.
The simulator is operable in several modes:
a design mode, wherein the simulator is adapted to receive environment data and lighting effects data over the first communication channel;
an implementation mode, wherein the simulator is adapted to generate at least one implementation option for each lighting effect on the basis of data indicative of installable devices received over the second communication channel;
a selection mode, wherein the simulator is adapted to select one implementation option for each lighting effect; and
a realization mode, wherein the simulator is adapted to generate realization data on the basis of the selected implementation options.
Finally, in accordance with a fourth aspect of the invention, an alternative light-effect realization simulator comprises:
a receiver for receiving environment data and lighting effects data;
an implementation generator for generating at least one implementation option for each lighting effect on the basis of data indicative of installable devices;
a selector for selecting one implementation option for each lighting effect; and
a realization generator for generating realization data on the basis of the selected implementation options.
As used herein, the term environment data includes, but is not limited to, geometric properties of objects, optical properties of objects, audio data, video data, data indicative of a visible manifestation of mechanical interactions between objects (such as input data to a physics simulation engine) and data relating to natural light sources. Further, a lighting effect may refer to, but is no limited to, a light cone, a light beam, a diffuse light flow, a surface luminance, a video sequence and any time-variable lighting effect. An implementation option includes data indicative of at least one hardware device, of a spatial placement of each hardware device relative to the environment, of mounting means (fixtures) and of values of operating parameters, such as control signals, associated with each hardware device. Finally, the term realization data includes, but is not limited to, information specifying the set of installable devices capable of realizing the lighting effects, electric wiring data, data indicating a placement of each device relative to the environment and machine-readable control data to be provided to the devices during operation or preliminary programming.
The invention represents an advantage over existing design tools because it offers an improved support in the process of realizing desired lighting effects. The inventors have realized that an important part of the frustration experienced by users of design tools based on hardware palettes does not stem from a lack of information relating to the lighting devices; the software tool provider can easily make such details displayable within the user interface. The missing skill is rather that of approximating desired lighting effects in terms of devices or, put differently, of translating lighting effect ideas into hardware solutions. Fresh users in particular, who have not integrated the step of hardware realization into their mental design process, are sometimes led to select hardware devices whose effects are not their first choices, or are reduced to an unintelligent trial-and-error behavior. Experienced users, on the other hand, may not keep track of the development and tend to stick to their old and familiar ‘toolbox’.
The realization of one or more lighting effects may include selecting installable devices, providing placement and installation data and generating values of operating parameters to be provided to these, e.g., machine-readable control data if needed. The realization of an interactive lighting effect additionally requires selecting a detector and defining a trigger condition in terms of the detector signal for activating and/or deactivating the lighting effect. There exist software tools for the particular step of generating control data and other operating parameters for use in specific hardware devices or in predetermined arrangements of specific devices; examples of such tools include light show composers for programming complex light show hardware.
A design tool according to the invention may not only assist the user in bridging the gap between lighting effects and realizations of these, but may also simulate the deployment of the implementation options in the environment. More precisely, if the environment is encoded as a three-dimensional model, possibly including natural light sources and the like, artificial light sources corresponding to the implementation options can easily be added to the model. By examining the resulting three-dimensional model from suitable viewpoints, the user can subjectively assess the agreement with the intended light effect and base his or her selection of an implementation option on this.
An advantageous embodiment of the invention further includes a step of computer-aided assessment of the agreement of each implementation option with the lighting effect it is intended to realize. The result, which may be expressed as a percentage or in terms of an agreement metric, may be used as guidance for a user selecting an implementation option. Such agreement metric is also useful if the selection of implementation options is carried out automatically with the aim of maximizing the agreement.
In other embodiments of the invention, all or part of the selection of implementation options is carried out automatically. A preferred way of performing such automatic selection is by ranking the implementation options associated with one lighting effect according to a quality index. The quality index may be based on visual properties, an agreement metric or other properties. For example, the quality index could be the energy consumption per unit time (thus optimizing the operational economy), the purchase price (thus minimizing the initial expenditure), the expected useful life of each device (thus maximizing the lifetime) or the term of delivery (thus favoring a swift setup). Conceivable is also an index that minimizes the deviation between individual device lifetimes, so that the entire installation can be decommissioned at a future point in time when the total residual lifetime is as small as possible, which is economically desirable.
It is noted that the invention relates to all possible combinations of features recited in the claims.
These and other aspects of the present invention will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings showing embodiments of the invention. On the drawings,
In a first processing step 110, implementation options are generated to realize the lighting effects. This generation of implementation options is based on data indicative of installable hardware devices. An implementation option must only comprise installable devices. After the first processing step 110, implementation options have been generated and are represented, in a second tree 120, as leaves under the lighting effects. For instance, Effect 1 can be implemented (or approximated) by Implementation option 1a, Implementation option 1b, Implementation option 1c or Implementation option 1d. Effect 2 can be implemented by either Implementation option 2a or Implementation option 2b. For some lighting effects, such as Effect n, only one implementation option has been generated. The number of useful implementation options is related to the breadth of the installable hardware range, but can be further limited by evaluating an agreement metric in connection with generating the implementation options; implementation options for which the agreement is below some threshold may be discarded straight away. A maximum hardware cost for the project can be set beforehand, to eliminate unrealistic options. In the same vein, to limit the time the user spends considering different implementation options, it may be advantageous to impose a maximal number of implementation options to be generated for each light effect.
In a second processing step 130, selection of one implementation option for each lighting effect takes place. The selection is based either on an objective criterion applied by the computer system or through the user's scrutiny, possibly supported by a subjective impression obtained from a simulated three-dimensional model of the environment with the different implementation options deployed. The simulated three-dimensional model may be interactive or static. It may be entered directly into the authoring tool, or an existing model may be imported from a modeling package, such as AutoCAD™, Sketchup™ or 3D Studio™. After this step 130, the project can be represented as a third tree 140 having selected implementation options as its leaves, as many as the initial number of lighting effects. To realize Effect 1, Implementation option 1c has been selected; to realize Effect 2, implementation option 2b has been selected; to realize Effect 3, Implementation option 3a has been selected, etc. Necessarily, Effect n is realized by Implementation option n-a.
The user may inspect the total impression of all the selected implementation options in the simulated three-dimensional model and may reconsider his or her selections. In fact, if sufficient data is retained between the realization stages of the project—e.g., implementation option that have not been selected—it is possible to perform each of the processing steps in the reverse direction. When a satisfactory result has been achieved, the user can cause the computer system to execute a third processing step 150, in which the environment data are used to generate realization data on the basis of the selected implementation options. After this step 150, the project can be represented as a fourth tree 160 containing the realization data for realizing the lighting effects of the project: a record of the required hardware devices, electric wiring data, instructions for mounting and connecting the devices in the environment, commands or settings for controlling the devices in operation etc. Advantageously, to speed up the commissioning and installation process, the various kinds of realization data are not organized according to the lighting effects they are intended to realize but according to different tasks: purchase of devices, mounting, wiring, programming and operation.
Two other nodes 210, 220 represent Implementation options 2a and 2b, respectively. Similar windows 211, 221 can be created next to a cursor to show details characterizing the implementation options. The details may include the purchase price, the energy consumption, the manufacturer, term of delivery and required labor for installing. To give the user an idea of the complexity of the implementation option, the number of light sources and (for interactive effects) number of detectors may be indicated. Additional details may be stored in memory but not shown, in order to limit the amount of information to be considered by the user. For instance, the geometric properties of light cones which can be produced by the device forming part of the implementation option may be hidden from the user though such properties may have been decisive in the process of generating the implementation option. Likewise, the precise model names and product numbers of the devices, although these will be outputted with the realization data, may be omitted from the user interface to achieve clarity.
Further, the details include an agreement metric which expresses the extent to which the implementation option matches the desired lighting effect, wherein the value 100% indicates a perfect agreement and 0% indicates no correlation. In this case, the agreement metric may be based on a straightforward comparison of the lighting effect parameters (such as origin, direction, width, aperture angle, color and intensity) with respect to the corresponding parameters of the implementation option. To consider a more complex example, the desired lighting effect is a constant illumination of certain color and intensity on an elongated surface, which is not possible to illuminate using one light source. This effect can be attained by means of arrangements of light sources of different kinds, ceiling-mounted or wall-mounted, fluorescent or silicon-based. In generating the implementation options, the method then attempts to merge several installable devices and to determine their collective action in terms of lighting. The subsequent agreement check can be based on the degree of constancy of the light, in other words, on the magnitude of the intensity fluctuations; generally, such fluctuations are less pronounced if a larger number of light sources are deployed. Further, if the user has indicated a desired angle of incidence on the surface, then this can be taken into account when assessing the agreement. The overall agreement can be calculated as a weighted average. The parameters of this could be determined using machine learning, wherein users train the system as to the importance of the respective parameters.
Alternatively, a ranking function can be constructed similarly to the scene/beat precondition checking process described in H. ter Horst, M. van Doom, W. ten Kate, N. Kravtsova and D. Siahaan, “Context-aware Music Selection Using the Semantic Web” in Proceedings of the 14th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Louvain, Belgium, October 2002, pp. 131-138.
It is emphasized that the user's selection is not necessarily based on information such as shown in
It is noted that the above is but one way of encoding conditions for controlling interactive effects. It may be convenient to use a time line for visualizing the execution of lighting effects. As is known in the art, transitions, Z order, priorities and the like can be included in such a timeline-based interface.
It can be appreciated that the simulator 501 operates in successive modes to realize the lighting project. In a design mode, the simulator 501 receives data indicative of desired lighting effects. In an implementation mode, the simulator 501 generates implementation options (after inquiring for the relevant hardware) and provides these to a user. In a selection mode, the simulator 501 receives the user's 500 selections of one implementation option for each lighting effect. In a realization mode, finally, the simulator 501 generates realization data on the basis of the selected implementation options and transmits these to the user 500.
The person skilled in the art realizes that the present invention by no means is limited to the preferred embodiments described above. On the contrary, many modifications and variations are possible within the scope of the appended claims. For example, the tree structure used for storing and displaying the lighting effects and implementation options is but one possible representation.
Other variations to the disclosed embodiments can be understood and effected by those skilled in the art in practicing the claimed invention, from a study of the drawings, the disclosure, and the appended claims. In the claims, the word ‘comprising’ does not exclude other elements or steps, and the indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ does not exclude a plurality. A single processor or other unit may fulfill the functions of several items recited in the claims. The mere fact that certain measures are recited in mutually different dependent claims does not indicate that a combination of these measured cannot be used to advantage. A computer program may be stored/distributed on a suitable medium, such as an optical storage medium or a solid-state medium supplied together with or as part of other hardware, but may also be distributed in other forms, such as via the Internet or other wired or wireless telecommunication systems. Any reference signs in the claims should not be construed as limiting the scope.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
09163715 | Jun 2009 | EP | regional |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/IB2010/052728 | 6/17/2010 | WO | 00 | 12/22/2011 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2010/150150 | 12/29/2010 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5307295 | Taylor et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
6166496 | Lys et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
7242152 | Dowling | Jul 2007 | B2 |
20050248299 | Chemel | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050275626 | Mueller et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20070176926 | Garcia | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070189026 | Chemel | Aug 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0495305 | Jul 1992 | EP |
10105591 | Apr 1998 | JP |
2004086514 | Mar 2004 | JP |
2006185204 | Jul 2006 | JP |
2008129485 | Oct 2008 | WO |
2009004531 | Jan 2009 | WO |
2009010058 | Jan 2009 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120095745 A1 | Apr 2012 | US |