Realy --- when I round 13 years ago realised 3D-H , it was solely a structural solution, it was just the result of troubling a whole life with structures build the tradisional way .
The fancy look was just a sideeffect --- for me it was just a new way to put things together , a way that work that different than century old tradisional methods , the looks was just a side effect.
The most important thing about 3D-H is not the looks, but the structural idea, -- then emagine a crowd of fame wanting architects , that just go for the looks of it ; omit the innovation and newthinking, the fact that this time a fresh new idea can change architecture if you understand it thruout , But instead suddenly and without putting any efford into it, without spending a life long to solve one of the real hard challances , what you see are copyists and trend or style robbers grapping the looks.
Helsinki that was not the idea ; I put serious work and spended halve my life getting to know the crafts, mastering the computer and acturly Deliver a method that work and can be made better, --- then you crowd start praising the thief.
My argument is that if it is the looks of it that made a tread of 101869 visitors at designcommunity with the " Hi all you fancy graphics lovers, and if Helsinki think any amature can reach 38600 with a tread like Galleri Silver Screen , whithou being an honest working artist.
No sorry my argument was if 3D-H are just the looks of it, or there are more structure than tapestry in it. ---- If a method can reach so much attention without everyone knowing it , and knowing that the fancy look is more than surface, that the fancy look realy reflect an even more fancy function and options that is exactly what architects cried out for, since the start with computers.
Anyway that clumpsy Serpentine Pavilion where some old guy for some reson just had to show how little the old garde understand about the new fantastic optionsm just had to rob the bread from the the computer trained artists, allready prove it, prove that 3D-H is more than the fancy looks but, another brand of architects those with screen grappers, are more difficult to uncover --- but they fail in their understanding of the structure fail useing just a few of the fantastic options and, fail by just copying the looks of it, --- as the looks realy was just a side effect.
It worked a few hours, but that did not answer why it is so difficult, to presave Helsinki that 3D-H is just a tool, and no one said he have to use it no one. Or answer why it must be difficult for one of today's designers, even he don't sell designs but tools.
I apriciate the debate but the goal must be a better architecture -- houses and structures that acturly do profit as simple a tool, thruout the actural means , case someone want a new way to build and form a house , Gee fighting against the expertations of the academic world, presaving Helsinki that I love displaying my visions knowing, there are a great deal of fun not fierse dabate or repedative going no where ,
3D-H bring wonders and as soon architecture get sober, there are no way back progress move forverts. Gee I just want you all to project nice houses and, whatever you add the basic 3D-H structure just make it even better bside , this allready work with today's computers ,extreemly cheap software and the actural needs of progress .
I want happy people ,not just hippies or sacred people ,My obligation is to spend halve a life giving, damn Giving the lazy crowd their dream oppotunity but, for the last 14 years it seem architecture was newer about the core structure.
Ha --- there you got me.
It can produce the structure , but let's see, that all depend how you define tensile membrame architecture.
Still 3D-H is made to deliver the structure not the surface so you proberly hit just the point 3D-H might not be suited for producing a surface cover, but it cirtainly will hold one in the air.
But you can simply make the framework so thick, that the "holes" disaper when each cross section sheets meet eachother so there are no "holes anymore and the rain stay out -- huge arears covered with a shell 3D-h structure could provide dry spots covered with a fairly "open" 3D-H dome structure, it could prove , that the ground would be dry, covered by just a huge scale open coverage , even you see holes where you recon rain will enter, then will a fairly cheap 3D-H , totaly "open" structure, be able to catch enough water, to control inviroment to the better , without doing any real dameage ; conclution you do not need to cover the huge area with a watertight surface, you just need a structure that can catch the rain , so I guess 3D-H also would provide a tensile membrame architecture it will deliver better than old methods.
I remember back in the day, the original post which showed that eggcrate cathedral (by the way, models are made with the "3D-H" method all the time here at Penn made from single laser cut pieces). My question, where on the face of the Earth can you manufacture a single slab of concrete that is the full length and height of that church in the animation (don't show the animation again)? In the urban condition, no chance. Truck it in? Never. It seems like an incredibly inefficient structural system at the building scale, maybe ok for boats. Similarly inflexible for producing space. With all your arguments, I still have yet to see the validity. I want to see a full scale implementation. I want to see a real cost analysis. So far, it's a scaleless animation and words. Prove it.
Simple ; you emagine that heavy structure as Solid -- why ?
It don't need to be Solid and on a computer , it is the simplest task in the world, to order either the unfolded exact surfaces, prepared with weld edge as a square Tube structure. Now I am not the one who claim CAD is perfect down to each micro in real, bside who say a Solid material lightweight hey bal sewn together from a grid please, everything is possible with 3D-H, even a mountain of money.
Acturly one of my first 3D-H structures was a very heavy 3D-H structure with only few frames but very "heavy as you would say. This structure was formed by an even smaller scale 3D-H ; a 3D-H structure replacing the very material of the outher 3D-H structure , sort of making sheet material from a 3D-H structure , and use this 3D-H small scale sheet material, for section frames in a greater structure.
This one -- Guess a better designer could distribuate the framework better , find a better direction of the cubes, but yes, even Solid frames can be made and you don't need to move anything around, you simply build those frames, there like that ;
Beside you can use sheet material with holes distribuated , use these to transverse steel rods, and if I did not express this clearly enough, yes ; you can also get the panel that will cover the frame forms this way, by just spot weld to the sandwich frames 3D-H framework , so you could as useal build it from just the panels but I wouldn't suggest that.
"I want to see a real cost analysis. So far, it's a scaleless animation and words. Prove it."
Now that is where I draw the line --- I know how this is programmed , know how to grab any entity in a 3D drawing, how to by just pointing calculate , the volume arear and perimeter Gee these things show as changes in system var and can be written directly but no , I am not supposed to be super everything, --- Romans ; your claims are unrealistic my obligation is only, to uncover your eyes.
Please open one of the 3D drawings I left for anyone to reach at yahoo , anyone just anyone with CAD skills atleast AutoCAD skills know how to individualy point and save the sysvar "area" even write it to an external file, and when the intire number of building frames been measured and values plus identity stored , you can get exact the cost calculations you want ofcaurse.
It is even simpler than Revit more accurate than Point atleast more relevant, for the future production the wonders this is capable of, plus all the nice side effects. But I define my role, and when a vision is sound I can not help you more, --- you can not expect just to open your mouth , and fried birds will enter no, sorry but this is maybe even more difficult to master at higher level, still for all use structures, This provide exactly what you can emagine.
Now if I must presave you that you allmost invented this yourself, it can only be with pictures of what can happen. With this there are no clumpsy nail hammers to hit your thoumb , no meaningless cold waiting for a stupid late delivery , there are no materials to fight everything become four times as strong and realising the slimm amount of very cheap materials, no wonder you can build that much cheaper. Anyway and this is worth an anyway , fact is that when I calculated some of the first 3D-H structures thought as cut from industry Plywood , the cost proved so low, that I decided not to say it to loud , you see this is good it is very good almost to good , and belive me with this revolusionary method, the extreem low cost is not as you might think, something that can be used as an argument. But it still justify saying "at a third the cost.
Helsinki the fancy look was just a side effect
Realy --- when I round 13 years ago realised 3D-H , it was solely a structural solution, it was just the result of troubling a whole life with structures build the tradisional way .
The fancy look was just a sideeffect --- for me it was just a new way to put things together , a way that work that different than century old tradisional methods , the looks was just a side effect.
The most important thing about 3D-H is not the looks, but the structural idea, -- then emagine a crowd of fame wanting architects , that just go for the looks of it ; omit the innovation and newthinking, the fact that this time a fresh new idea can change architecture if you understand it thruout , But instead suddenly and without putting any efford into it, without spending a life long to solve one of the real hard challances , what you see are copyists and trend or style robbers grapping the looks.
Helsinki that was not the idea ; I put serious work and spended halve my life getting to know the crafts, mastering the computer and acturly Deliver a method that work and can be made better, --- then you crowd start praising the thief.
vindpust,... fuckitol,
let me treat you to a beer.
Congratulations on the beginning of what will no doubt become another long and confusing thread!
No that was not the idea :
My argument is that if it is the looks of it that made a tread of 101869 visitors at designcommunity with the " Hi all you fancy graphics lovers, and if Helsinki think any amature can reach 38600 with a tread like Galleri Silver Screen , whithou being an honest working artist.
No sorry my argument was if 3D-H are just the looks of it, or there are more structure than tapestry in it. ---- If a method can reach so much attention without everyone knowing it , and knowing that the fancy look is more than surface, that the fancy look realy reflect an even more fancy function and options that is exactly what architects cried out for, since the start with computers.
Anyway that clumpsy Serpentine Pavilion where some old guy for some reson just had to show how little the old garde understand about the new fantastic optionsm just had to rob the bread from the the computer trained artists, allready prove it, prove that 3D-H is more than the fancy looks but, another brand of architects those with screen grappers, are more difficult to uncover --- but they fail in their understanding of the structure fail useing just a few of the fantastic options and, fail by just copying the looks of it, --- as the looks realy was just a side effect.
yikes.
can we all come to the conclusion that this horse is dead?
It worked a few hours, but that did not answer why it is so difficult, to presave Helsinki that 3D-H is just a tool, and no one said he have to use it no one. Or answer why it must be difficult for one of today's designers, even he don't sell designs but tools.
I apriciate the debate but the goal must be a better architecture -- houses and structures that acturly do profit as simple a tool, thruout the actural means , case someone want a new way to build and form a house , Gee fighting against the expertations of the academic world, presaving Helsinki that I love displaying my visions knowing, there are a great deal of fun not fierse dabate or repedative going no where ,
3D-H bring wonders and as soon architecture get sober, there are no way back progress move forverts. Gee I just want you all to project nice houses and, whatever you add the basic 3D-H structure just make it even better bside , this allready work with today's computers ,extreemly cheap software and the actural needs of progress .
I want happy people ,not just hippies or sacred people ,My obligation is to spend halve a life giving, damn Giving the lazy crowd their dream oppotunity but, for the last 14 years it seem architecture was newer about the core structure.
...zzzzzzzz
hi MauOne! thanks for the snoring.
Vindpust, Can we use your 3D-H if one wants to design tensile membrane architecture.
i.e..you see those bird-like white floating canopy type things above the tables..
Can u use your 3DH to fabricate those ?
Ha --- there you got me.
It can produce the structure , but let's see, that all depend how you define tensile membrame architecture.
Still 3D-H is made to deliver the structure not the surface so you proberly hit just the point 3D-H might not be suited for producing a surface cover, but it cirtainly will hold one in the air.
But you can simply make the framework so thick, that the "holes" disaper when each cross section sheets meet eachother so there are no "holes anymore and the rain stay out -- huge arears covered with a shell 3D-h structure could provide dry spots covered with a fairly "open" 3D-H dome structure, it could prove , that the ground would be dry, covered by just a huge scale open coverage , even you see holes where you recon rain will enter, then will a fairly cheap 3D-H , totaly "open" structure, be able to catch enough water, to control inviroment to the better , without doing any real dameage ; conclution you do not need to cover the huge area with a watertight surface, you just need a structure that can catch the rain , so I guess 3D-H also would provide a tensile membrame architecture it will deliver better than old methods.
I remember back in the day, the original post which showed that eggcrate cathedral (by the way, models are made with the "3D-H" method all the time here at Penn made from single laser cut pieces). My question, where on the face of the Earth can you manufacture a single slab of concrete that is the full length and height of that church in the animation (don't show the animation again)? In the urban condition, no chance. Truck it in? Never. It seems like an incredibly inefficient structural system at the building scale, maybe ok for boats. Similarly inflexible for producing space. With all your arguments, I still have yet to see the validity. I want to see a full scale implementation. I want to see a real cost analysis. So far, it's a scaleless animation and words. Prove it.
Hi
Simple ; you emagine that heavy structure as Solid -- why ?
It don't need to be Solid and on a computer , it is the simplest task in the world, to order either the unfolded exact surfaces, prepared with weld edge as a square Tube structure. Now I am not the one who claim CAD is perfect down to each micro in real, bside who say a Solid material lightweight hey bal sewn together from a grid please, everything is possible with 3D-H, even a mountain of money.
Acturly one of my first 3D-H structures was a very heavy 3D-H structure with only few frames but very "heavy as you would say. This structure was formed by an even smaller scale 3D-H ; a 3D-H structure replacing the very material of the outher 3D-H structure , sort of making sheet material from a 3D-H structure , and use this 3D-H small scale sheet material, for section frames in a greater structure.
This one -- Guess a better designer could distribuate the framework better , find a better direction of the cubes, but yes, even Solid frames can be made and you don't need to move anything around, you simply build those frames, there like that ;
Then you can move them.
Beside you can use sheet material with holes distribuated , use these to transverse steel rods, and if I did not express this clearly enough, yes ; you can also get the panel that will cover the frame forms this way, by just spot weld to the sandwich frames 3D-H framework , so you could as useal build it from just the panels but I wouldn't suggest that.
"I want to see a real cost analysis. So far, it's a scaleless animation and words. Prove it."
Now that is where I draw the line --- I know how this is programmed , know how to grab any entity in a 3D drawing, how to by just pointing calculate , the volume arear and perimeter Gee these things show as changes in system var and can be written directly but no , I am not supposed to be super everything, --- Romans ; your claims are unrealistic my obligation is only, to uncover your eyes.
Please open one of the 3D drawings I left for anyone to reach at yahoo , anyone just anyone with CAD skills atleast AutoCAD skills know how to individualy point and save the sysvar "area" even write it to an external file, and when the intire number of building frames been measured and values plus identity stored , you can get exact the cost calculations you want ofcaurse.
It is even simpler than Revit more accurate than Point atleast more relevant, for the future production the wonders this is capable of, plus all the nice side effects. But I define my role, and when a vision is sound I can not help you more, --- you can not expect just to open your mouth , and fried birds will enter no, sorry but this is maybe even more difficult to master at higher level, still for all use structures, This provide exactly what you can emagine.
Now if I must presave you that you allmost invented this yourself, it can only be with pictures of what can happen. With this there are no clumpsy nail hammers to hit your thoumb , no meaningless cold waiting for a stupid late delivery , there are no materials to fight everything become four times as strong and realising the slimm amount of very cheap materials, no wonder you can build that much cheaper. Anyway and this is worth an anyway , fact is that when I calculated some of the first 3D-H structures thought as cut from industry Plywood , the cost proved so low, that I decided not to say it to loud , you see this is good it is very good almost to good , and belive me with this revolusionary method, the extreem low cost is not as you might think, something that can be used as an argument. But it still justify saying "at a third the cost.
Well.
Vindper
OK, I have my reservations about that last image and its stability.
However, that seems a simple enough model to test out realtime and actually construct.
So, my challenge to you is this:-
Build it.
Show us it works for real not just on a computer.
D
Like this
Or like that ;
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.