Eh --- how can it be a drawback that this method ask more develobment, basicly it is a concept that most people can emagine and those who know 3D find exiting ( among these FAA that describe the concept very positive as a promising new method to build small planes ) --- but realy there are so much potentials in building ontop the basic concept , and I agrea that what can be develobed with what I call a brand new attitude simply can not be emagined .
Now many of the graphics are rather old several years old, so please open your mind even the designs themself can be primitive, these graphics is only to show ,and please reconise that each sorm focus on one particular detail.
This one show that there are no limits combining different forms, but don't try this with a mesh entity it will only work as a framework ;
As far as I can tell, per, this technique, and the manner in which you use it, offers no reconceptualization of architecture or architectural technology, and is, in fact, not a concept, but is an operational tool--one that can easily be (and has been) utilized within any conventional modeling program. Further, it is a rather unintelligent process, which indiscriminatly sections a form along two axis in a fairly dumb kind of way; and thus, you produce DUMB OBJECTS. There's no selective variation in the size, orientation, frequency, or spacing, of the sections, which would be likely informed by the nature of the material being used, as well as countless other programmatic and structural issues. I don't even know why I'm responding to this discussion, because has now become very very old. I guess I just want the last word. Enter Per...
PER THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY -- BILBAO DESIGNED BY FRANK GERRY
WAS IN FACT ONCE A PIECE OF PAPER CRUMPLED UP INTO A BALL. THEN SKETCHS ON PAPER... THEN THE PROGRAM THAT HE USES PRETTY MUCH DESIGNS THE BLDG FOR HIM --CERTIAN THINGS THAT HE DESIGNS CANNOT BE BUILT SO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM (CATIA) RE-SHAPES THE BLDG SO THAT IT CAN STAND. THATS NOT MUCH OF A DESIGN
Per, I dont think you know much about architecture. If you want to become better at it, dont be such a goose, listen to criticism.
If you really feel like flogging this rather dead-looking structural system into the ground, I second what Pixelwhore said: build a room using your skinny fibreboard dinosaurs, 1:1 scale, and see if it really revolutionizes the world. I'll eat your hat.
Per, I dont think you know much about architecture. If you want to become better at it, dont be such a goose, listen to criticism.
If you really feel like flogging this rather dead-looking structural system into the ground, I second what Pixelwhore said: build a room using your skinny fibreboard dinosaurs, 1:1 scale, and see if it really revolutionizes the world. I'll eat your hat.
Once I to was a rigid tradisional wooden boats builder, wanting nothing but good old quality and what we know work and no modern spooky computerworks. But I am a craftman not somone who want to ground any artistic graphics fancy coloring, ---- Listen I been there I know that, but it realy get irelevant when it gets ugly and self dependant realy if this is about rethat and Linux I just must tell you guy\s, that somone that can use a hammer withiut destry both nail plank acturly shuld be the one designing the home for your grand children. Unless ofcaurse anyone is saur that I raised two children and still love my crafts Listen < architecture is for making nice houses, not about bullying not about exelent social harasment. Architecture deal with beauty you never even talk about it.
I know you guy's care least about what you write, but somone is going to eat a Hat , one guy claim that "this is nothing and already ha ha is in use so it work. In same tread another one claim that if it work he is going to eat my Hat ; please runin go ask Pixelhome if Pixelhome realy think that 3D-H is no invention and where Pixelhome think it is used ,Jmac keep talking about that Jmac don't think it is nice instead it shuld be dumb , now what's the real trouble, you all hate progress to come, that computers shuld be used to shape the world, one say it is already develobed, another that it will never work, beside a beautifull building must think on it's own othervide it is not what Jmac expect and therefore stupid. Been there know that.
I know that academics already just hate the selfmade, esp if they make somthing better than theirs , but what shuld I care, I am just an artist, being designer develobing building methods ,but luck is, that whenever I show some fantastic challancing, exiting new designs there alway\s is some that just hate you for just that ,that you can use a tool can build a boat do the CAD drawings, do it in a new way.
What is it you jokers want, is it cold in hell and therefore you must get suply in this world ? You simply do not want different tools or beauty you want to build boats as in 1880 well guess what you get place your grand children in that, se what happen. Or maby you don\t have grandchildren and just want to feed the good old social artwork, well do that long enough and you will start stink..
I love mahogony and copper .craftmanship and exelent skills. But if you been there, you know how saur tradisionalist become when they harm what is growing in terms of develobment within the crafts, we started with stone adges and ended with social harasment and making the kids pay , isn't this how it is ?
Now Hush you dryass usenet bore asses. BUH you selfprotective academics that just hate when a skilled craftman show some guts, FLY you sad arogant eternity students there are no need for you in this temple.
Se Romans this is how you give future a chance, you don\t make old dryass Linux fanatic talk about actural houses, you allow architects to make that. Then you realise that arts alway\s been a social game and that a lot of what you bought is worthless , well if you bought the lot you were clever, if you only invested in social games and zero quality not just art but you will suffer. If you allow hippie haters determine the language and tone , well what architecture do you think you will get.
architecture is definatly not about making pretty houses-per-it is way mor in depth than that. architects that think all architecture is is making a house and putting it on a large piece of land-they are the architects that make suburban areas boom...for about 50 years...then there is no land to build on --suburbia turns into an urban situation w/ no city plan---ex. long island, new york---LIRR which is totally insuficient, a huge parking lot that they call the long island expressway---architecture is more than even that - i could go as far into it as politics and economics, but thats a whole nother ball of wax
architecture is in everything that we do-every move that we make
this thread is just f**king unreal... "fancy graphics lovers" ha! man! boy-o! goddamn! yeah PER i studied architecture for 5 years to become a fancy graphics lover and because we discuss things we're "selfprotective academics"... i'm lovin reading this just for the comedic value...
WARNING! WARNING!
Do not click that link - it contains a powerful virus that will not reside in your computer's memory but will reside in your physical brain. You can recognize it by you catching yourself rationalizing the wasting of time.
Make you wonder, when you know that in this small contry back when things started ,the famous desing trends that surfaced, some 60 years ago the only reson was, that some architects and designers harrassed a few members of architect contect jury\s to persave the rest of the jury to support these designers .
Realy so it happened, it was impossible to come thru with modern design and architecture,and the settled crowd of those time had their own social game. Then some visionary designer simply started to in any way persave one particular jury member , somone being the typical socialy well skilled and therefore one of those the rest would follow, this guy was simply harrassed untill he chose to give in as it anyway didn\t mean anything for him, and Danish Design started.
Read about that, you be surprised. Find what you can about P.H. and you will know.
i finally figured it out. i have come out of the cave and into the light. i really don't know why i didn't see it before, it really is obvious, you just need to hold your monitor in your arms, rotate on its base about 15 degrees, and tilt the upper right corner of the monitor toward the back at 2 1/2 degrees, then and only then will all be revealed. per is the james joyce for the new millenium. don't you see? the similarities are striking.
i bow to you sir, you are truly what you have claimed to be, a visionary voice of mythic proportions, here to guide the visionless through the mediocrity of idea and thought.
Not before you realise that now you don\t need 20 different steel profiles ,expensive special fittings, fiddeling and bending to make a paper drawing work out a structure that do not fit with the measures in the plans.
What you maby forget, is how today\s architectural programs work maby you forget that these do not provide a direct link from CAD drawing to manufactoring ,but only provide the same paper and code work ,now done on computer, but with the exact same limitations as before computers.
This is a different world, one where the structurel framework is not individual bended and expensive frames as some lookalike calim in their expression, here there are more to it, than just playing fancy, --- you think 3 axis N.C. routers is more high tech, well choek out what they acturly produce and what they support ; take the boat industrie where you first make a plug full size boat in styrofoam here it's claimed that technology made a revolution, well is it realy a revolution to make an extreamly expensive 3D router do the exact same work as before, just to provide a plug to perform a mold for the same outdated technike casting plastic boats --- where are the new thing, isn't 3D routers just used to support outdated technology ?
Isn't it like saying "we want innovation and new technology, but it must look and be as what we already know" . Isn't it so that you realy don't give somthing that a lot of people find facinating and exiting a chance, but only do the same thing as any other academic, that you first look if this guy is an academic or not, do you realy give knowleage skills and visions a chance ?
Would you have accepted this exiting new method if an academic had put it forth ?
Isn't this where arts ended up redwine and roses, social skills and emty talk with no visions about a better world and those new jobs.
In this contry it is, real skills count nothing compared promising a museum an Spetacular exebition with dull talk about technology no one realy understand , just big words and nothing underneath just fancy surface with no structure, -------- and then having skilled craftmen make it fit together.
Again, in this contry some 70 years ago, some visionary designers got their way by forcing jury members to accept that somone else than the useal friends got the job, this thing about open contests and everyons oppotunity to show somthing visionary and realy fantastic forget about it, as if you realy leave in a brilliant suggestion and is not among the settled crowd, they just say that even your works as the only participant is Digital, then you did not fill in the right piece of paper with the right color , counting the arears, then it do not help you that your model is 3D and the arears give themself or acturly is added together ; if you didn't do it on the right piece of paper you can not use an open competition , to show new technikes and real visions.
Isn't this how it was 4 years ago, even everyone scremed for 3D and new brilliant architecture ? Don't you academics ever get enough, will you ever give anyone outside the academic circles a chance nomatter how skilled nomatter how experienced, ------ well it's your academic world I never had a chance in it anyway so keep on doing your harasment the best way bullying work within academics, let the least skilled of your friends do what you call art and kill the beast, with social games , ------ you don't want beautifull things anyway only expensive scrap that others say is art.
Realy Beta, couldn't you find better poison to describe this that others acturly are stunned about ;
"You are very close, But the amazing thing is that what you produce as 3D-H is in only two planes, not the tree planes we are used to only two.
These two planes are 90 deg to eachother to make a simple assembly notch possible-- a halve notch where two sections intersect."
...
"The issue workplane to small for cutting large frames are easy solved, in the various 3D-H groups you will se several suggestions, from cutting a lock as soon as the frame extend the workspace to double layer sheet tom make butt join overlap. "
So, if I would keep the intersecting grid normal to the earth's surface, no 45 degree rotation in any plane that is, align it to the two axes of an orthogonal structure (your green roof, for example), and then intersect it with the solid of its walls and roof, I would in fact get an ordinary structural wooden frame solution, with a solid traditional overlapping joint, right? Where's the newness then? Where's the "method"? Is it the rotation of 45 degrees? Normally one wouldn't do that, since it is going against sound structural thinking: the earth's normal usually should be aligned to the direction of extrusion for the grid.... to me, it seems a bit unnecessary. Take your roof for example: give the beams some thickness and try to model a flat roofing panel that is laid on top of the four corners where the beams intersect, with millimeter precision. Not that easy, since there are a lot of gaps and angles here. Without the 45 degree rotation it is easy, since the thickness of the beams would be aligned to the surface of the roof. I don't find this very clever - it reminds me of Scharoun's sections through the Berlin Philharmonic, made at a completely arbitrary angle, without the computer. Use 3d-modeling to analyze surface parameters instead, not to make the old trick of overlaying a grid, borne out of a traditional twodimensional thinking in plan, elevation and section.
And please don't believe you're the only one with professional experience and knowledge in scripting.
Thanks for the links lexRie... It's really getting funny. I've been following the adventures of Per on architecture, but I never imagined he was also posting his ass off on other forums. Per is really someone. He is definitively talented in keeping the bandwith busy...
i cant believe this...i hit those links- did everyone see where the statues (venus de milo?) and the other were done in the same fashion as per's "groundbreaking revolutionary building method"?
just leads me to believe that whatever program he's using to generate this cross-grid is capable of a one click tool that converts a solid into this angled grid. kinda like "edit mesh" in 3dsudio or somethin...
show us more per. theres an angle to all this, i'm sure
so wait- "you don\t make old dryass Linux fanatic talk about actural houses, you allow architects to make that. " we allow our architects and engineers, designers to MAKE it....right- you said it yourself- MAKE it- something you have not done.
you have built nothing
you have shown nothing but a 45 degree cross grid that was more than likely sculpted by some program with a couple commands, not with precise calculation.
we ALL understand the rigidity that could be achieved with a honeycomb structural system- its not that difficult to understand. what i have a problem with is it's validity in terms of being "revolutionary" when #1- its not proven to be integral with the rest of the architectural/engineering elements of a building and #2- its NOT REVOLUTIONARY
plus- wheres the beauty in this monotonous form of structure? does calatrava use the SAME kind of structural framing methods in his bridges or buildings? read Why Buildings Stand Up: The Strength of Architecture by Mario Salvadori- maybe you'll absorb something that would make you put up or.....
What I like about Per is he doesn't have to read this somebody's book or that somebody's book.
Do you have to stay in school your whole life, to conform to the latest elite?
There are foults ,as our local Pimp Minister point out when a frame is cut from sheet , thick sheet that acturly could be cast concrete, then as everyone can se ,there be an angle between the paneling and the frame --- Now is this good or is it bad, it don't mean bad fit as the top make perfect fit and if this was steel sheet then the open angle will fit perfect or would anyway need to be widened for a weld.
----- In wooden shipsbuilding (sorry I know this act a bit quirky but I guess a relevant paralell is on it's place) , well building a tradisional big wooden boat ,you handle ribs that from the tradisional building idears are placed paralell to the keel, you do so to even be able to make drawings as you need somthing that follow the tradisional top ,side and front planes, and you cut only that you can calculate from these planes, this is what plans are about ,the 3 tradisional planes. ------ But please Pimp Minister here the exact same problem occour as what you point to,that when all ribs is placed on the keel their outside along the planking (paneling) will not be angled the right way but need to be smoothened before you can place the paneling.
Now first of all it is quite an handicap that I can not take the renderings further and show how frames acturly can be produced as hollow tubes omitting this problem, but just staying within materials as steel sheet make this foult somthing to use for weld grove, and as I point out, the exact same problem occour in tradisional projecting as where the rigid 3 plane sections meet a curved paneling in a ship construction. Now staying with the other things you point out , that just rotating the grid make no difference from before ; well isn't this simply one of these things, where you say "this is so simple that you wonder why no one done it before". Guess that realy is the best argument for any real innovation.
What you forget is the multible floors that "grow" at the same time, how this framework support any frame by all others, where a tradisional rib structure only offer ribs that is depandant on themself and acturly move the forces onto the much weaker paneling. I try again, look at the structure for a plane, a structure that realy grew from the princips of boatsbuilding, here you also even today se, how individual frames as rings, is just attached to the panels blaffering in the wind if there was no skin , with no strength if not the skin held it in place ------- realy all these ribs do is keep the panels in form and leave out the tention to the skin, instead of distrubing it among the interconnected ribs making the panel form a honeycomb structure.
----- How much stronger would you think a plane fuselage would be if the ribs was interconnected ; well one particular WW2 plane was made _NOT AS A 3D-H_ but in a lookalike system , a genious system that produced a very strong and extreamly rugid fuselage, but as this was a semi-3D-H it was expensive to perform to complicated in some way , but again if you want a framework that fit exactly to a 3D shaped Solid, that will fit millimeter down , don't rely on mesh entities with the obvious problems investigated by everyone who tried, do it by creating a new cooerdinate system and make cross sections, but before look at how floor and wall structure on various hights form as by magic ; this is the exiting thing about this simple new method , you can not make it without a computer.
Now please concider this carefully ; I did not draw any single line of any of these structures, all I did was to ask the computer to generate the 3D lines where a plane in 3D met a 3D solid. The computer "ansver" with real calculations in 3D showing the exact result in real 3D. Now shuld I trust the mashin or worry if we would evenhit the moon when we calculate it with a computer.
Realy I did not draw anything not one single frame, I used the calculations you are supposed to ,calculations that yield a real result ,this result show up in 3D as the outline of the frame that will fit 32 bit onto the 3D Solid, this is math this work othervise there would be no numbers no calculations.
But the greatest problem here, is to grasp the obvious side effects ; how things like water supply and fire safety now can be solved much more flexoble as when your structure is the weakest one you can emagine, the card-house model, that with this diagonal and transverse structure clerly show to be the basics of tradisional upright and horisontal structure idear -- the tradisional one, where you already seen how it can be needed with diagonal structural members in the card-house highrise, this is nothing but diagonals and the floors and spaces you use is then what realy lock things in place, not the other way around.
But again, the real challance come when you accept this ,as it change everything, the building element now travel the structure but with no problem and even the building element is now not a "window" a 5 inch H-beam or a brick wall, it is defined as N.C. codes and it is not any more expensive or different ,to make a frame in the top or in the bottom, even one that support part wall and part stairway, will not be different than one being the roof traveling down the top floor, ---- even codes will be outdated everything will be defined 3D easy to find in the 3D drawing it will be not in one of 20 different materials it will be sheet material and you can cut it directly from CAD drawing with no paper inbetween.
I said that the potential is the side effects, and that mean that this "raw" idear will ask a lot of develobment, I just think that the gains must be obvious, a new technike, a real use of efficient cheap 2D manufactoring forming 3D objects , and finaly we can skip the hippie like organic shapes that realy don't offer anything but problems . We can replace the zero thickness mesh based structures with an earthquake safe structure , that allow you to shape the building so the winds will escape it, this mean a new form language as now you do not worry about the structure, engineers made sure that the program that generate the structure ,take another look at it and repair the foults in dimentions of materials.
Sorry have to stop, those offended please bear in mind I am only here to force upon you my Pony.
Listen I done the best I can.
You want new visions new tools new technology that make computers work, do it in a brand new way in a new form language with new sorts of materials using the cheapest and simplest avaible N.C. production, skipping the paper using only 3D, ---- Realy do you expect and only accept a Superman will you only accept new things that you can reconise and is like what is here alraedy how can that be new, how can anyone ask innovation and visions and then say "no this is not what we expected" .
Architecture are about social skills isn't it, it's not about skills ability and will, no one is better to shape the future, than somone who can't use a computer ,refuse the new tools and omit detail ,it's not about wanting cheap houses new jobs and a promise of a bright future.
It's not about develobing new methods but about putting the old technikes and way's into computer code, tomorrow you better be a bookkeper than an architect or designer, if not academics succes to strangle the visions bookkepers will , it don't evolve 3D hardly 2D rather one D .
Duh.
This picture was taken at my first visit to the states workshops for arts and crafts, ----- realy Alex don't you think throwing shit make yourself stink.
honestly- i've been in disagreements with the likes of betad, a-f, and others on this thread and they're actual intellects that could hold their own.
what we'd do, feebleminded one, had Per or ANYone boasting this b.s. put on their resume "Harvard", or "FAIA" is scoff at the idiot at the admissions board who allowed him in or out with this comedic act.
like I said before, gust or per- put up something that shows this innovation or just shut the holes in ya faces
and for the record, the idiot is he who thinks that he no longer is a student for life.
Kyll what is this realy about, I showed the tread to some close friends and they asked me why I even bothered dealing with thais stinking jeloux swamp, what is realy your problem try real the poison you try type, where are your own works. Do you think you build visions throwing shit.
Gustav thank's for your positive input.
This tread realy develobed into showing what seem to be the main issue on the web and and among students that think architecture and design is about having a big ego se how this amazing media contribute to the world of arts, ------ seem that bullying and throwing shit is more interesting than the arts. Now the different sad mails is no pieces of arts in themself and rather respond the quality of those "artists" that use the tools that fit their mind, this is attemts to social harrasment and dirt throwing.
Guess this define architecture for those throwing dirt, they try master that and show no visions themself.
You still haven't really responded to those of us who have asked you to show us an actual built form instead of 3D models. It doesn't have to be an entire building, but perhaps a full-scale mock up would serve your purpose - showing windows, doors, etc. and the other things that people have brought up here. Regardless of how its delivered, there has been some very valid criticism of this building type that you've proposed, yet you constantly show the same models over and over.
Instead of getting into arguements with people about "throwing shit" etc. spend the time applying your idea to prove the people doubting you wrong.
You are quite right but realy ,and sorry if anyone get offended by this statement, but what shuld the difference be between an accurate CAD drawing and a build model.
Now when you know what CAD is about, you will know that with 3D you have a gurantie that the points and planes defined within the CAD world is as real as in the real world --- othervise why do we use computers, or do most simply don't know that what you draw 3D can be made in real oposed what you sketch in 2D ,where you have no gurantie that it is even possible.
You are quite right but when you read some of the "arguments" you would proberly in my situation wonder if a picture would make any more "arguments" than graphics --- I mean if students don't even know that when you can draw it in 3D and render it, then bringing it into the real world is just rutine.
Beside the problems finding a workshop please realise that I already spended quite some years writing and proving software to acturly work such as what borught this ;
Realy I spended 15 years develobing software as design tools, invented several new way's , made the intire process drawing a boat, unfolding the planks even the impossible zig-zag lapstrake planking no software othervise could unfold, build 12 different designs in real , why shuld it be needed for such a guy to "show" that what he project in real 3D can also be build.
Please check http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/stv-1.jpg
All the small boats you se there is projected 3D without use of a pen or ruler , but I still pay the bank for materials for my last project where a bad client never payed.
Is the knowleage about 3D realy that bad, that no one know that a 3D drawing is enough "prove" in itself. Strange.
No, a 3D model doesn't prove itself, at least not yet. A 3D program usually doesn't contain structural, material and logistical intelligence. For example, you can make a funky blob by just applying a FFD box on a sphere and tweaking the points, but would have some difficulties building it as a 20x20 meter model out of 3mm cardboard sheets and a perfectly smooth surface. You can of course say that your hundred meter high 3D-H towers are covered with wooden planks, 45 degree rotated steel beams, twisted laths and custom made double-curved glass, but I would like to see you estimate a budget for that project, especially since you claim that 3D-H "makes cheap houses". More irritating though, is that you somehow claim to have invented a structural system that is already in use! 45 degree rotation is not enough of an "innovation" to me, especially if the only thing it adds is to make the structure more weak. But having said this, it's still nice to see someone writing his own scripts and software - great!
Frankly, I do not care if these models are buildable. They are uninteresting and unprovocative as images. As a-f mentioned, the operations Per uses to produce them are far from novel, and while yes, they are not to be found in an out-of-the-box version of AutoCad, they can be easily performed in programs such as Rhino, 3dMax, FormZ, Maya...anything more suited for modeling.
Per, you have found yourself in a crowd that wants to hear your ideas, but does not have the patience to endure a self-promoted fixation, which is more of a banal transformation tool than a visionary architectural polemic, from an individual who has little, to no awareness, of the circumstances and subjects of current architectural discourse. Whether appealing to you or not, Per, architecture is in part, an academic endeavor. You should curb the ego, offer some true incite, and understand the productivity in a non-unilateral conversation.
Per,
Could you take a look at the this image (it an artist's rendering of the Houston Astrodome) and tell me how this solution differs from what you're proposing?
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
Eh --- how can it be a drawback that this method ask more develobment, basicly it is a concept that most people can emagine and those who know 3D find exiting ( among these FAA that describe the concept very positive as a promising new method to build small planes ) --- but realy there are so much potentials in building ontop the basic concept , and I agrea that what can be develobed with what I call a brand new attitude simply can not be emagined .
Now many of the graphics are rather old several years old, so please open your mind even the designs themself can be primitive, these graphics is only to show ,and please reconise that each sorm focus on one particular detail.
This one show that there are no limits combining different forms, but don't try this with a mesh entity it will only work as a framework ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/1969.jpg
What to use it for, only to show there are no limitations and that you never bend one single piece with 3D-H
As far as I can tell, per, this technique, and the manner in which you use it, offers no reconceptualization of architecture or architectural technology, and is, in fact, not a concept, but is an operational tool--one that can easily be (and has been) utilized within any conventional modeling program. Further, it is a rather unintelligent process, which indiscriminatly sections a form along two axis in a fairly dumb kind of way; and thus, you produce DUMB OBJECTS. There's no selective variation in the size, orientation, frequency, or spacing, of the sections, which would be likely informed by the nature of the material being used, as well as countless other programmatic and structural issues. I don't even know why I'm responding to this discussion, because has now become very very old. I guess I just want the last word. Enter Per...
PER THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY -- BILBAO DESIGNED BY FRANK GERRY
WAS IN FACT ONCE A PIECE OF PAPER CRUMPLED UP INTO A BALL. THEN SKETCHS ON PAPER... THEN THE PROGRAM THAT HE USES PRETTY MUCH DESIGNS THE BLDG FOR HIM --CERTIAN THINGS THAT HE DESIGNS CANNOT BE BUILT SO THE COMPUTER PROGRAM (CATIA) RE-SHAPES THE BLDG SO THAT IT CAN STAND. THATS NOT MUCH OF A DESIGN
OK GET SOME POOR SAP TO BUILD THIS THING A LETS SEE IF IT FUNCTIONS
Two cents worth (of water off a gooses back):
Per, I dont think you know much about architecture. If you want to become better at it, dont be such a goose, listen to criticism.
If you really feel like flogging this rather dead-looking structural system into the ground, I second what Pixelwhore said: build a room using your skinny fibreboard dinosaurs, 1:1 scale, and see if it really revolutionizes the world. I'll eat your hat.
Two cents worth (of water off a gooses back):
Per, I dont think you know much about architecture. If you want to become better at it, dont be such a goose, listen to criticism.
If you really feel like flogging this rather dead-looking structural system into the ground, I second what Pixelwhore said: build a room using your skinny fibreboard dinosaurs, 1:1 scale, and see if it really revolutionizes the world. I'll eat your hat.
Hi
Once I to was a rigid tradisional wooden boats builder, wanting nothing but good old quality and what we know work and no modern spooky computerworks. But I am a craftman not somone who want to ground any artistic graphics fancy coloring, ---- Listen I been there I know that, but it realy get irelevant when it gets ugly and self dependant realy if this is about rethat and Linux I just must tell you guy\s, that somone that can use a hammer withiut destry both nail plank acturly shuld be the one designing the home for your grand children. Unless ofcaurse anyone is saur that I raised two children and still love my crafts Listen < architecture is for making nice houses, not about bullying not about exelent social harasment. Architecture deal with beauty you never even talk about it.
I know you guy's care least about what you write, but somone is going to eat a Hat , one guy claim that "this is nothing and already ha ha is in use so it work. In same tread another one claim that if it work he is going to eat my Hat ; please runin go ask Pixelhome if Pixelhome realy think that 3D-H is no invention and where Pixelhome think it is used ,Jmac keep talking about that Jmac don't think it is nice instead it shuld be dumb , now what's the real trouble, you all hate progress to come, that computers shuld be used to shape the world, one say it is already develobed, another that it will never work, beside a beautifull building must think on it's own othervide it is not what Jmac expect and therefore stupid. Been there know that.
I know that academics already just hate the selfmade, esp if they make somthing better than theirs , but what shuld I care, I am just an artist, being designer develobing building methods ,but luck is, that whenever I show some fantastic challancing, exiting new designs there alway\s is some that just hate you for just that ,that you can use a tool can build a boat do the CAD drawings, do it in a new way.
What is it you jokers want, is it cold in hell and therefore you must get suply in this world ? You simply do not want different tools or beauty you want to build boats as in 1880 well guess what you get place your grand children in that, se what happen. Or maby you don\t have grandchildren and just want to feed the good old social artwork, well do that long enough and you will start stink..
I love mahogony and copper .craftmanship and exelent skills. But if you been there, you know how saur tradisionalist become when they harm what is growing in terms of develobment within the crafts, we started with stone adges and ended with social harasment and making the kids pay , isn't this how it is ?
Eat That Hat.
Now Hush you dryass usenet bore asses. BUH you selfprotective academics that just hate when a skilled craftman show some guts, FLY you sad arogant eternity students there are no need for you in this temple.
Se Romans this is how you give future a chance, you don\t make old dryass Linux fanatic talk about actural houses, you allow architects to make that. Then you realise that arts alway\s been a social game and that a lot of what you bought is worthless , well if you bought the lot you were clever, if you only invested in social games and zero quality not just art but you will suffer. If you allow hippie haters determine the language and tone , well what architecture do you think you will get.
architecture is definatly not about making pretty houses-per-it is way mor in depth than that. architects that think all architecture is is making a house and putting it on a large piece of land-they are the architects that make suburban areas boom...for about 50 years...then there is no land to build on --suburbia turns into an urban situation w/ no city plan---ex. long island, new york---LIRR which is totally insuficient, a huge parking lot that they call the long island expressway---architecture is more than even that - i could go as far into it as politics and economics, but thats a whole nother ball of wax
architecture is in everything that we do-every move that we make
this thread is just f**king unreal... "fancy graphics lovers" ha! man! boy-o! goddamn! yeah PER i studied architecture for 5 years to become a fancy graphics lover and because we discuss things we're "selfprotective academics"... i'm lovin reading this just for the comedic value...
Per, I know you've been thinking about this for a long time, my hat is off to you.
I don't know what it is going to take, a sledgehammer?
WARNING! WARNING!
Do not click that link - it contains a powerful virus that will not reside in your computer's memory but will reside in your physical brain. You can recognize it by you catching yourself rationalizing the wasting of time.
Per, I'm so sorry your cat died.
He is out of control. Per, you really are great. I love the 3dH, your drawings are beautiful. Sorry to be such a retard. Be seeing you.
Hi
Make you wonder, when you know that in this small contry back when things started ,the famous desing trends that surfaced, some 60 years ago the only reson was, that some architects and designers harrassed a few members of architect contect jury\s to persave the rest of the jury to support these designers .
Realy so it happened, it was impossible to come thru with modern design and architecture,and the settled crowd of those time had their own social game. Then some visionary designer simply started to in any way persave one particular jury member , somone being the typical socialy well skilled and therefore one of those the rest would follow, this guy was simply harrassed untill he chose to give in as it anyway didn\t mean anything for him, and Danish Design started.
Read about that, you be surprised. Find what you can about P.H. and you will know.
Hi
It\s alright for me if you just fill that hat with popcorn and place it in the microvawe.
i finally figured it out. i have come out of the cave and into the light. i really don't know why i didn't see it before, it really is obvious, you just need to hold your monitor in your arms, rotate on its base about 15 degrees, and tilt the upper right corner of the monitor toward the back at 2 1/2 degrees, then and only then will all be revealed. per is the james joyce for the new millenium. don't you see? the similarities are striking.
i bow to you sir, you are truly what you have claimed to be, a visionary voice of mythic proportions, here to guide the visionless through the mediocrity of idea and thought.
thank you Per.
I have found God.
surely we are being taken for a RIDE and AGAIN. Or maybe it is just DEJA VU...
Hi
Not before you realise that now you don\t need 20 different steel profiles ,expensive special fittings, fiddeling and bending to make a paper drawing work out a structure that do not fit with the measures in the plans.
What you maby forget, is how today\s architectural programs work maby you forget that these do not provide a direct link from CAD drawing to manufactoring ,but only provide the same paper and code work ,now done on computer, but with the exact same limitations as before computers.
This is a different world, one where the structurel framework is not individual bended and expensive frames as some lookalike calim in their expression, here there are more to it, than just playing fancy, --- you think 3 axis N.C. routers is more high tech, well choek out what they acturly produce and what they support ; take the boat industrie where you first make a plug full size boat in styrofoam here it's claimed that technology made a revolution, well is it realy a revolution to make an extreamly expensive 3D router do the exact same work as before, just to provide a plug to perform a mold for the same outdated technike casting plastic boats --- where are the new thing, isn't 3D routers just used to support outdated technology ?
Isn't it like saying "we want innovation and new technology, but it must look and be as what we already know" . Isn't it so that you realy don't give somthing that a lot of people find facinating and exiting a chance, but only do the same thing as any other academic, that you first look if this guy is an academic or not, do you realy give knowleage skills and visions a chance ?
Would you have accepted this exiting new method if an academic had put it forth ?
Isn't this where arts ended up redwine and roses, social skills and emty talk with no visions about a better world and those new jobs.
In this contry it is, real skills count nothing compared promising a museum an Spetacular exebition with dull talk about technology no one realy understand , just big words and nothing underneath just fancy surface with no structure, -------- and then having skilled craftmen make it fit together.
Again, in this contry some 70 years ago, some visionary designers got their way by forcing jury members to accept that somone else than the useal friends got the job, this thing about open contests and everyons oppotunity to show somthing visionary and realy fantastic forget about it, as if you realy leave in a brilliant suggestion and is not among the settled crowd, they just say that even your works as the only participant is Digital, then you did not fill in the right piece of paper with the right color , counting the arears, then it do not help you that your model is 3D and the arears give themself or acturly is added together ; if you didn't do it on the right piece of paper you can not use an open competition , to show new technikes and real visions.
Isn't this how it was 4 years ago, even everyone scremed for 3D and new brilliant architecture ? Don't you academics ever get enough, will you ever give anyone outside the academic circles a chance nomatter how skilled nomatter how experienced, ------ well it's your academic world I never had a chance in it anyway so keep on doing your harasment the best way bullying work within academics, let the least skilled of your friends do what you call art and kill the beast, with social games , ------ you don't want beautifull things anyway only expensive scrap that others say is art.
Realy Beta, couldn't you find better poison to describe this that others acturly are stunned about ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/index.htm
You guy's realy tought me what architecture is all about, sad isn't it.
This is getting ridiculous please let this thread die!
I bow to you Per, Kungen!
Men ska ni se efter vad ni har i den?
Den ar fodrad med natursilke!
Stop talking and start drawing Per...PROVE IT.
Per:
"You are very close, But the amazing thing is that what you produce as 3D-H is in only two planes, not the tree planes we are used to only two.
These two planes are 90 deg to eachother to make a simple assembly notch possible-- a halve notch where two sections intersect."
...
"The issue workplane to small for cutting large frames are easy solved, in the various 3D-H groups you will se several suggestions, from cutting a lock as soon as the frame extend the workspace to double layer sheet tom make butt join overlap. "
So, if I would keep the intersecting grid normal to the earth's surface, no 45 degree rotation in any plane that is, align it to the two axes of an orthogonal structure (your green roof, for example), and then intersect it with the solid of its walls and roof, I would in fact get an ordinary structural wooden frame solution, with a solid traditional overlapping joint, right? Where's the newness then? Where's the "method"? Is it the rotation of 45 degrees? Normally one wouldn't do that, since it is going against sound structural thinking: the earth's normal usually should be aligned to the direction of extrusion for the grid.... to me, it seems a bit unnecessary. Take your roof for example: give the beams some thickness and try to model a flat roofing panel that is laid on top of the four corners where the beams intersect, with millimeter precision. Not that easy, since there are a lot of gaps and angles here. Without the 45 degree rotation it is easy, since the thickness of the beams would be aligned to the surface of the roof. I don't find this very clever - it reminds me of Scharoun's sections through the Berlin Philharmonic, made at a completely arbitrary angle, without the computer. Use 3d-modeling to analyze surface parameters instead, not to make the old trick of overlaying a grid, borne out of a traditional twodimensional thinking in plan, elevation and section.
And please don't believe you're the only one with professional experience and knowledge in scripting.
So much feedback...........
THE LINK DEOSNT WORK FOR ME
Thanks for the links lexRie... It's really getting funny. I've been following the adventures of Per on architecture, but I never imagined he was also posting his ass off on other forums. Per is really someone. He is definitively talented in keeping the bandwith busy...
i cant believe this...i hit those links- did everyone see where the statues (venus de milo?) and the other were done in the same fashion as per's "groundbreaking revolutionary building method"?
just leads me to believe that whatever program he's using to generate this cross-grid is capable of a one click tool that converts a solid into this angled grid. kinda like "edit mesh" in 3dsudio or somethin...
show us more per. theres an angle to all this, i'm sure
so wait- "you don\t make old dryass Linux fanatic talk about actural houses, you allow architects to make that. " we allow our architects and engineers, designers to MAKE it....right- you said it yourself- MAKE it- something you have not done.
you have built nothing
you have shown nothing but a 45 degree cross grid that was more than likely sculpted by some program with a couple commands, not with precise calculation.
we ALL understand the rigidity that could be achieved with a honeycomb structural system- its not that difficult to understand. what i have a problem with is it's validity in terms of being "revolutionary" when #1- its not proven to be integral with the rest of the architectural/engineering elements of a building and #2- its NOT REVOLUTIONARY
This has to be a classic. If only I could bronze type face I would keep this one forever.
plus- wheres the beauty in this monotonous form of structure? does calatrava use the SAME kind of structural framing methods in his bridges or buildings? read Why Buildings Stand Up: The Strength of Architecture by Mario Salvadori- maybe you'll absorb something that would make you put up or.....
What I like about Per is he doesn't have to read this somebody's book or that somebody's book.
Do you have to stay in school your whole life, to conform to the latest elite?
Hi
There are foults ,as our local Pimp Minister point out when a frame is cut from sheet , thick sheet that acturly could be cast concrete, then as everyone can se ,there be an angle between the paneling and the frame --- Now is this good or is it bad, it don't mean bad fit as the top make perfect fit and if this was steel sheet then the open angle will fit perfect or would anyway need to be widened for a weld.
----- In wooden shipsbuilding (sorry I know this act a bit quirky but I guess a relevant paralell is on it's place) , well building a tradisional big wooden boat ,you handle ribs that from the tradisional building idears are placed paralell to the keel, you do so to even be able to make drawings as you need somthing that follow the tradisional top ,side and front planes, and you cut only that you can calculate from these planes, this is what plans are about ,the 3 tradisional planes. ------ But please Pimp Minister here the exact same problem occour as what you point to,that when all ribs is placed on the keel their outside along the planking (paneling) will not be angled the right way but need to be smoothened before you can place the paneling.
Now first of all it is quite an handicap that I can not take the renderings further and show how frames acturly can be produced as hollow tubes omitting this problem, but just staying within materials as steel sheet make this foult somthing to use for weld grove, and as I point out, the exact same problem occour in tradisional projecting as where the rigid 3 plane sections meet a curved paneling in a ship construction. Now staying with the other things you point out , that just rotating the grid make no difference from before ; well isn't this simply one of these things, where you say "this is so simple that you wonder why no one done it before". Guess that realy is the best argument for any real innovation.
What you forget is the multible floors that "grow" at the same time, how this framework support any frame by all others, where a tradisional rib structure only offer ribs that is depandant on themself and acturly move the forces onto the much weaker paneling. I try again, look at the structure for a plane, a structure that realy grew from the princips of boatsbuilding, here you also even today se, how individual frames as rings, is just attached to the panels blaffering in the wind if there was no skin , with no strength if not the skin held it in place ------- realy all these ribs do is keep the panels in form and leave out the tention to the skin, instead of distrubing it among the interconnected ribs making the panel form a honeycomb structure.
----- How much stronger would you think a plane fuselage would be if the ribs was interconnected ; well one particular WW2 plane was made _NOT AS A 3D-H_ but in a lookalike system , a genious system that produced a very strong and extreamly rugid fuselage, but as this was a semi-3D-H it was expensive to perform to complicated in some way , but again if you want a framework that fit exactly to a 3D shaped Solid, that will fit millimeter down , don't rely on mesh entities with the obvious problems investigated by everyone who tried, do it by creating a new cooerdinate system and make cross sections, but before look at how floor and wall structure on various hights form as by magic ; this is the exiting thing about this simple new method , you can not make it without a computer.
Now please concider this carefully ; I did not draw any single line of any of these structures, all I did was to ask the computer to generate the 3D lines where a plane in 3D met a 3D solid. The computer "ansver" with real calculations in 3D showing the exact result in real 3D. Now shuld I trust the mashin or worry if we would evenhit the moon when we calculate it with a computer.
Realy I did not draw anything not one single frame, I used the calculations you are supposed to ,calculations that yield a real result ,this result show up in 3D as the outline of the frame that will fit 32 bit onto the 3D Solid, this is math this work othervise there would be no numbers no calculations.
But the greatest problem here, is to grasp the obvious side effects ; how things like water supply and fire safety now can be solved much more flexoble as when your structure is the weakest one you can emagine, the card-house model, that with this diagonal and transverse structure clerly show to be the basics of tradisional upright and horisontal structure idear -- the tradisional one, where you already seen how it can be needed with diagonal structural members in the card-house highrise, this is nothing but diagonals and the floors and spaces you use is then what realy lock things in place, not the other way around.
But again, the real challance come when you accept this ,as it change everything, the building element now travel the structure but with no problem and even the building element is now not a "window" a 5 inch H-beam or a brick wall, it is defined as N.C. codes and it is not any more expensive or different ,to make a frame in the top or in the bottom, even one that support part wall and part stairway, will not be different than one being the roof traveling down the top floor, ---- even codes will be outdated everything will be defined 3D easy to find in the 3D drawing it will be not in one of 20 different materials it will be sheet material and you can cut it directly from CAD drawing with no paper inbetween.
I said that the potential is the side effects, and that mean that this "raw" idear will ask a lot of develobment, I just think that the gains must be obvious, a new technike, a real use of efficient cheap 2D manufactoring forming 3D objects , and finaly we can skip the hippie like organic shapes that realy don't offer anything but problems . We can replace the zero thickness mesh based structures with an earthquake safe structure , that allow you to shape the building so the winds will escape it, this mean a new form language as now you do not worry about the structure, engineers made sure that the program that generate the structure ,take another look at it and repair the foults in dimentions of materials.
Sorry have to stop, those offended please bear in mind I am only here to force upon you my Pony.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/index.htm
Listen I done the best I can.
You want new visions new tools new technology that make computers work, do it in a brand new way in a new form language with new sorts of materials using the cheapest and simplest avaible N.C. production, skipping the paper using only 3D, ---- Realy do you expect and only accept a Superman will you only accept new things that you can reconise and is like what is here alraedy how can that be new, how can anyone ask innovation and visions and then say "no this is not what we expected" .
Architecture are about social skills isn't it, it's not about skills ability and will, no one is better to shape the future, than somone who can't use a computer ,refuse the new tools and omit detail ,it's not about wanting cheap houses new jobs and a promise of a bright future.
It's not about develobing new methods but about putting the old technikes and way's into computer code, tomorrow you better be a bookkeper than an architect or designer, if not academics succes to strangle the visions bookkepers will , it don't evolve 3D hardly 2D rather one D .
Duh.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/3D-H-Gotic-4.gif
shhhh, its quiet, we're all drinking the kool-aid, shhhh.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
ahhhhh. ahhh..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
oh ho HA hahahhaahhHa
ah
ah
ha ah
Now that you can call a stinking dryass usenet comment, When you old chickens get bored from talking plaintext you show what\s realy on your mind.
Hi
Alex Mymind ;
"this is amazing. ... i want to show this to the world and find this creature named Per. he seems a lot like gollum from lotr "
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/stv-1.jpg
This picture was taken at my first visit to the states workshops for arts and crafts, ----- realy Alex don't you think throwing shit make yourself stink.
Per,
I'll bet if Harvard or FAIA were mentioned somewhere in your resume, these little puppies would lick your shoes.
not puppies
and we would not lick his shoes
honestly- i've been in disagreements with the likes of betad, a-f, and others on this thread and they're actual intellects that could hold their own.
what we'd do, feebleminded one, had Per or ANYone boasting this b.s. put on their resume "Harvard", or "FAIA" is scoff at the idiot at the admissions board who allowed him in or out with this comedic act.
like I said before, gust or per- put up something that shows this innovation or just shut the holes in ya faces
and for the record, the idiot is he who thinks that he no longer is a student for life.
Hi
Kyll what is this realy about, I showed the tread to some close friends and they asked me why I even bothered dealing with thais stinking jeloux swamp, what is realy your problem try real the poison you try type, where are your own works. Do you think you build visions throwing shit.
Hi
Gustav thank's for your positive input.
This tread realy develobed into showing what seem to be the main issue on the web and and among students that think architecture and design is about having a big ego se how this amazing media contribute to the world of arts, ------ seem that bullying and throwing shit is more interesting than the arts. Now the different sad mails is no pieces of arts in themself and rather respond the quality of those "artists" that use the tools that fit their mind, this is attemts to social harrasment and dirt throwing.
Guess this define architecture for those throwing dirt, they try master that and show no visions themself.
Per:
You still haven't really responded to those of us who have asked you to show us an actual built form instead of 3D models. It doesn't have to be an entire building, but perhaps a full-scale mock up would serve your purpose - showing windows, doors, etc. and the other things that people have brought up here. Regardless of how its delivered, there has been some very valid criticism of this building type that you've proposed, yet you constantly show the same models over and over.
Instead of getting into arguements with people about "throwing shit" etc. spend the time applying your idea to prove the people doubting you wrong.
Hi
You are quite right but realy ,and sorry if anyone get offended by this statement, but what shuld the difference be between an accurate CAD drawing and a build model.
Now when you know what CAD is about, you will know that with 3D you have a gurantie that the points and planes defined within the CAD world is as real as in the real world --- othervise why do we use computers, or do most simply don't know that what you draw 3D can be made in real oposed what you sketch in 2D ,where you have no gurantie that it is even possible.
You are quite right but when you read some of the "arguments" you would proberly in my situation wonder if a picture would make any more "arguments" than graphics --- I mean if students don't even know that when you can draw it in 3D and render it, then bringing it into the real world is just rutine.
Beside the problems finding a workshop please realise that I already spended quite some years writing and proving software to acturly work such as what borught this ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Lofot-1.jpg
Realy I spended 15 years develobing software as design tools, invented several new way's , made the intire process drawing a boat, unfolding the planks even the impossible zig-zag lapstrake planking no software othervise could unfold, build 12 different designs in real , why shuld it be needed for such a guy to "show" that what he project in real 3D can also be build.
Please check
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/stv-1.jpg
All the small boats you se there is projected 3D without use of a pen or ruler , but I still pay the bank for materials for my last project where a bad client never payed.
Is the knowleage about 3D realy that bad, that no one know that a 3D drawing is enough "prove" in itself. Strange.
No, a 3D model doesn't prove itself, at least not yet. A 3D program usually doesn't contain structural, material and logistical intelligence. For example, you can make a funky blob by just applying a FFD box on a sphere and tweaking the points, but would have some difficulties building it as a 20x20 meter model out of 3mm cardboard sheets and a perfectly smooth surface. You can of course say that your hundred meter high 3D-H towers are covered with wooden planks, 45 degree rotated steel beams, twisted laths and custom made double-curved glass, but I would like to see you estimate a budget for that project, especially since you claim that 3D-H "makes cheap houses". More irritating though, is that you somehow claim to have invented a structural system that is already in use! 45 degree rotation is not enough of an "innovation" to me, especially if the only thing it adds is to make the structure more weak. But having said this, it's still nice to see someone writing his own scripts and software - great!
Hi
WHAT !!!
You just proven that you know nothing about CAD, what you write is nonsense to a CAD profesional.
YEAH EAT THAT!
Hi
a-f what CAD program do you use, what do you think about Revit ?
P.C.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/stv-1.jpg
Again I bow to you Per, Kungen!
Hi
Sorry right link;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
make some discussion
that is SWEET computer! You must get blazingly fast render times
Frankly, I do not care if these models are buildable. They are uninteresting and unprovocative as images. As a-f mentioned, the operations Per uses to produce them are far from novel, and while yes, they are not to be found in an out-of-the-box version of AutoCad, they can be easily performed in programs such as Rhino, 3dMax, FormZ, Maya...anything more suited for modeling.
Per, you have found yourself in a crowd that wants to hear your ideas, but does not have the patience to endure a self-promoted fixation, which is more of a banal transformation tool than a visionary architectural polemic, from an individual who has little, to no awareness, of the circumstances and subjects of current architectural discourse. Whether appealing to you or not, Per, architecture is in part, an academic endeavor. You should curb the ego, offer some true incite, and understand the productivity in a non-unilateral conversation.
Per,
Could you take a look at the this image (it an artist's rendering of the Houston Astrodome) and tell me how this solution differs from what you're proposing?
Astrodome Rendering
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.