I would like to know, what is this fitness value, is it the output values of various objectives? If so am not able to get that values while checking the generations. What should I do? Am using the latest version of Wallacei, 2.65.

The Fitness Value output from WallaceiX component is the fitness values (objectives) for the entire population. I do not understand your other question, please upload a screenshot or a file so I can help you better

I am working on form optimization based on insolation, so there are inputs as geometry constraints and output as insolation. After I ran the simulation I have received the geometry constraints and fitness values related to insolation from the Wallacei component. The concern is that the fitness values received are found to be not the insolation output but a different number. Am I making any mistakes here? If not how the fitness values are computed here in our Wallacei?

For example, take the case of insolation I am getting the fitness value of 3.047352, and the insolation is 3.2734e+6. Should both same? Or how the fitness value is calculated? Am sorry for bothering you.

I really appreciate any help you can provide.
Vijesh

I have understood the error. When we have multiple fitness objectives in the Wallacei, the serial order is modified while running the optimization. Then I could not figure out what was happening. For example, in the above image, the fitness objective, F01:Insolation, is serial number 0, but the output Fitness value is another fitness objective, Average height. I do not understand why it is happening. But I figured the disoriented positions to equate with fitness objectives by directly taking from Wallacei Engine.

hello, can you vision my question? I meet the same situation,When using the Wallacei plugin to calculate the Standard Effective Temperature (SET) and Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI 100-2000) in architecture, I set absolute values in the process, but the SET fitness value turned out to be negative. Is the fitness value the result?but even after flattening the data for UDI, the results are still strange numbers.