Ha ha hopefully I can find one for free because I am not modeling another animal. Except for a squid. That would be cool. But those tentacles must not translate well to 3DH.
"1. Contour at 45 degrees (that's Per's secret recipe - not 0/90)."
Exactly
Then is 3Ds there are the Shell modifier ,that --- well that will make a shell. But again ;
"1. Contour at 45 degrees (that's Per's secret recipe - not 0/90)."
In fact that is what make the whole magic ---- if you don't turn the intire model 45 deg. then you follow the tradisional front,side and top views for the sections and --- well and that will not produce a framework as efficient my advise ;
I found out, that imageshack.com allow me to enter one of my 3dh Yahoo groups and there point to a picture I want to have hosted , quite an option I been missing all these years where if I wanted to publish one of the graphics in one of these groups, then I had to download it again from my own group, and then upload it for the web , as you couldn't just enter a Yahoo group and publish strait from that --- well now you can .
But it was a surprise to look into all these old 3DH groups and even know that only a fraction of the models and tests was uploaded to a Yahoo group, and with some of the graphics I wonder ; what was this for ---
I guess it was to try out combining two framework in two different scales.
my first assignment in the CG class many years ago. a 30 sec clip which i had designed around 600 textures there. kind of being obsessive at that time.
Exactly it is the detail that make the difference --- the textures I used I found by chance and not enough touch was put into it, that I see today .
But I guess nomatter what modeling it is still quite a bit of knowleage and experience you have to put into it , and I guess the skills are underestimated knowing you acturly work with sometimes badly hidden advanced Math. --- just hands-on and by intuition know how light has to be added by the inverse square of the distance ,realy 3D modeling learn you so much ,and working on a project you learn it the not boring way.
But still ontop these skills, you also are the one to decide exactly what graphic to publish , so you can add critic towerds your own creation to the ones needed. --- why did leave out this ;
meta-
while those renderings are beautiful (really!), you're design will never fly without some deleuzing gobbledy-gook to build your argument for why it would make such a great house. come on, let's hear it.
Realy 3D-H is something ,where when you understand it you will say ; "Is that all , why havn't anyone thought of this before ?"
You realy don't need special software it ijust offer a better solution than how these things tradisionaly are done, how a structure tradisionaly are emagined in 3 planes this method do it with only 2 planes . But as it is a structural system a structural idea, then realy it is only gifted designers ,who can realy profit -- and it is not about trend, not about looks, not about style or talk , it is about doing things in a new way. It is nothing but a new way to put things together, a way that would be to difficult without a computer ,but now when the computer is here, it mean that with 3D-H you can have the computer generate an intire structure , so jlaucks I am sorry that I can not use the hollow words or the spetacular fame, the glitter or the idol , -- --- --- but I don't understand how you can be sarkastic about a new way to put things together, Ofcaurse if you don't understand what it is ,but then again you can hardly be sarkastic towerds something you don't understand can you ?
No , nothing I would describe as 3D-H , and realy I find this a positive thing ; it is not my obligation to deliver that. I don't know why I atayed with that obsession as it would be easy to produce, but I think it is right, that it is right I am not supposed to deliver that , beside I don't think 3D-H is supposed for a standstill ; aswell as it offer buildings that can evolve over time it must change itself , and with ever more efficient digital means it will.
Architectural design is not just structure and/or form alone. There's also the issue of how light gets in and, yes, how does water stay out. Et cetera.
Did Descartes really 'invent' the xyz coordinate system? Or did he just use it philosophically?
Did Kant really 'invent' categories? Or did he just them philosophically?
Apr 9, 07 9:02 pm ·
·
"'bout the same thing right?"
Are you kidding me?!?
I'm pretty sure there was such a thing as categories before Kant. And I am curious whether the concept of XYZ coordinates existed before Descartes.
The point of my questions was more to highlight the notion that the "buck doesn't stop" with citings of Descartes or Kant.
Descartes used the xyz coordinate system to help form his theory of logic, but I don't think he invented the mathematical system of xyz coordinates. (I could be wrong, but that's why I asked the question.)
The xyz coordinate system is not necessarily the same thing as Cartesian logic, and I think that's where your references (and perhaps even the way you're being taught) get confused.
It wasn't too long ago when architectural 'theorists' were using the term "non-Euclidean geometry" incorrectly too. It wouldn't surprise me it the term is still used incorrectly. (see "A Glass of Blue Nun Wine" in A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part II)
The idea of this system was developed in 1637 in two writings by Descartes. In part two of his Discourse on Method Descartes introduces the new idea of specifying the position of a point or object on a surface, using two intersecting axes as measuring guides. In La Géométrie, he further explores the above-mentioned concepts.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system
So let me rephrase...
The xyz coordinate system is not necessarily the same thing as Cartesian rationalism.
Interestingly...
The work, La Géométrie,was responsible for introducing the Cartesian coordinate system, which is a mathematical graph in which x is the horizontal line and y is the vertical line, and in which the positive numbers on the x line are on the right and the negative numbers on the left, and the positive numbers on the y line are on the top and the negative numbers are on the bottom, and specifically discussed the representation of points of a plane, via real numbers; and the representation of curves, via equations.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_G%C3%A9om%C3%A9trie
So the system was not so much a rational cage, rather a method to represent curves?!
There are a New architecture . Remember how different it is ; only after the house is designed the computer calculate the parts ,not as now where we place the parts and tell the computer to remember it and in that way do more than halve of the logistic, as if we don't trust the computer to be better to calculate than us.
That will create the new architecture, And please remember we are creating a new architecture, we are not defending a new architecture we are creating one.
i find it amazing that vindpost has elevated himself to a living legend through forum based website and a little idea called 3d-h. i was a little stunned when i recently met up with some people i went to school with and they were debating the 3d-h movement. trust me, i was just as surprised as you.
Funny and today i was just in a lecture where we were discussing the dangers of playing fast and loose with computers in relation to structural engineering.
An explanation ---- I was asked to work a set of primitive CAD drawing ,made after the building was acturly build , a set of drawings made as cookie sections around a center axis , as the firm's skills ended there. These 2D drawings shuld be made into a 3D drawing something that was easily done in fact, but when I wanted to deliver the drawings, it was impossible to contact the architect that asked for them. Now everything ended there that they didn't use a 3D drawing ,and the othervise promising possibilities with a 3D router, was vasted fabricating 2D carpenter work and instead of the structure I suggested , they ended up promoting plywood laminating as done by boatsbuilders in the 1920's as "cutting edge" 3D technology.
Want to see the plain 2D sections I used to make my suggestion, just ask .
See --- when I was asked to do the work just before cristmess these years ago, the credit would come quite handy, and I did it did even more and ontop I made this suggestion --- made the 3D drawing from 14 silli 2D sections --- exactly what they couldn't do themself --- and kept that apart form my suggestion of what could form the interiour , ---- sadly I newer recived even a word so all I can use this for is to publish it and tell a small story about huge firms and their CAD ability.
Apr 11, 07 6:36 am ·
·
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.
3DH Gallery
Submit Now!
.
...
.......
..........
............
damn you garpike vind let you tap the knowledge of 3hd before me.
How can the design of the standard basketbal be improved? 3dh?. At first I was skeptical, but here's your proof!
I love it can you imagine what you can do with a football?
Whoa! Slow down there...
3dh monkey, 3dh monkey!
Ha ha hopefully I can find one for free because I am not modeling another animal. Except for a squid. That would be cool. But those tentacles must not translate well to 3DH.
Close. First you have to model the pig. Then (in Rhino)...
1. Contour at 45 degrees (that's Per's secret recipe - not 0/90).
2. Offset each slice to make the form hollow.
3. Extrude.
4. Mirror for symmetrical animals.
Takes about 5 minutes.
Sweet!
architects are paying big money for this. maybe 12 dollars an hour!!!
where do I get my copy of 3dh looks....uhmmm fantastic
It's in you my son.
the force?
Let me get this straight.... you modeled that in Rhino? You actually modeled a pig in Rhino....in 3dh.....
can you give me that tutorial?
3DH is wack.
garpike ;
"1. Contour at 45 degrees (that's Per's secret recipe - not 0/90)."
Exactly
Then is 3Ds there are the Shell modifier ,that --- well that will make a shell. But again ;
"1. Contour at 45 degrees (that's Per's secret recipe - not 0/90)."
In fact that is what make the whole magic ---- if you don't turn the intire model 45 deg. then you follow the tradisional front,side and top views for the sections and --- well and that will not produce a framework as efficient my advise ;
Look At The Pig.
I found out, that imageshack.com allow me to enter one of my 3dh Yahoo groups and there point to a picture I want to have hosted , quite an option I been missing all these years where if I wanted to publish one of the graphics in one of these groups, then I had to download it again from my own group, and then upload it for the web , as you couldn't just enter a Yahoo group and publish strait from that --- well now you can .
But it was a surprise to look into all these old 3DH groups and even know that only a fraction of the models and tests was uploaded to a Yahoo group, and with some of the graphics I wonder ; what was this for ---
I guess it was to try out combining two framework in two different scales.
my first assignment in the CG class many years ago. a 30 sec clip which i had designed around 600 textures there. kind of being obsessive at that time.
Exactly it is the detail that make the difference --- the textures I used I found by chance and not enough touch was put into it, that I see today .
But I guess nomatter what modeling it is still quite a bit of knowleage and experience you have to put into it , and I guess the skills are underestimated knowing you acturly work with sometimes badly hidden advanced Math. --- just hands-on and by intuition know how light has to be added by the inverse square of the distance ,realy 3D modeling learn you so much ,and working on a project you learn it the not boring way.
But still ontop these skills, you also are the one to decide exactly what graphic to publish , so you can add critic towerds your own creation to the ones needed. --- why did leave out this ;
I see the green......I see the green! Come on Baby! doing the shuffle and the slide.....3dh rules!
3dh will rule the world i know it.
i can't wait for version 2008!!
i am not sure meta.. i was only being sarcastic
Be sure you you become a Beta Tester for 3dh
meta-
while those renderings are beautiful (really!), you're design will never fly without some deleuzing gobbledy-gook to build your argument for why it would make such a great house. come on, let's hear it.
Realy 3D-H is something ,where when you understand it you will say ; "Is that all , why havn't anyone thought of this before ?"
You realy don't need special software it ijust offer a better solution than how these things tradisionaly are done, how a structure tradisionaly are emagined in 3 planes this method do it with only 2 planes . But as it is a structural system a structural idea, then realy it is only gifted designers ,who can realy profit -- and it is not about trend, not about looks, not about style or talk , it is about doing things in a new way. It is nothing but a new way to put things together, a way that would be to difficult without a computer ,but now when the computer is here, it mean that with 3D-H you can have the computer generate an intire structure , so jlaucks I am sorry that I can not use the hollow words or the spetacular fame, the glitter or the idol , -- --- --- but I don't understand how you can be sarkastic about a new way to put things together, Ofcaurse if you don't understand what it is ,but then again you can hardly be sarkastic towerds something you don't understand can you ?
you all are a bunch of romans =P
meta, those are cool!
vindpust, do you have any built work with 3dh? might be a nice addition to the gallery.
No , nothing I would describe as 3D-H , and realy I find this a positive thing ; it is not my obligation to deliver that. I don't know why I atayed with that obsession as it would be easy to produce, but I think it is right, that it is right I am not supposed to deliver that , beside I don't think 3D-H is supposed for a standstill ; aswell as it offer buildings that can evolve over time it must change itself , and with ever more efficient digital means it will.
I'll buy that meta man...! Please pass the hooch...
The 3-dimensional grid has been an implicit architectural/structural design tool pretty much since architecture began.
Yes, Guggenheim Bilbao came in on budget, but that doesn't erase the fact that is was an extremely expensive building as well.
When it comes to optimal (economical) square foot usage, stricter adherence to the grid still wins out.
Architectural design is not structure alone.
meta - you're doing a good job legitimizing vindpust's "idea." I challenge you to totally debunk 3DH.
In 15 minutes.
maybe 3dh is the supersensible , an unconditioned absolute, allowing man to fulfil his destiny as moral agent.
how do you keep water out?
Architectural design is not just structure and/or form alone. There's also the issue of how light gets in and, yes, how does water stay out. Et cetera.
Did Descartes really 'invent' the xyz coordinate system? Or did he just use it philosophically?
Did Kant really 'invent' categories? Or did he just them philosophically?
"'bout the same thing right?"
Are you kidding me?!?
I'm pretty sure there was such a thing as categories before Kant. And I am curious whether the concept of XYZ coordinates existed before Descartes.
The point of my questions was more to highlight the notion that the "buck doesn't stop" with citings of Descartes or Kant.
Descartes used the xyz coordinate system to help form his theory of logic, but I don't think he invented the mathematical system of xyz coordinates. (I could be wrong, but that's why I asked the question.)
The xyz coordinate system is not necessarily the same thing as Cartesian logic, and I think that's where your references (and perhaps even the way you're being taught) get confused.
It wasn't too long ago when architectural 'theorists' were using the term "non-Euclidean geometry" incorrectly too. It wouldn't surprise me it the term is still used incorrectly. (see "A Glass of Blue Nun Wine" in A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part II)
anyway
The idea of this system was developed in 1637 in two writings by Descartes. In part two of his Discourse on Method Descartes introduces the new idea of specifying the position of a point or object on a surface, using two intersecting axes as measuring guides. In La Géométrie, he further explores the above-mentioned concepts.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system
So let me rephrase...
The xyz coordinate system is not necessarily the same thing as Cartesian rationalism.
Interestingly...
The work, La Géométrie,was responsible for introducing the Cartesian coordinate system, which is a mathematical graph in which x is the horizontal line and y is the vertical line, and in which the positive numbers on the x line are on the right and the negative numbers on the left, and the positive numbers on the y line are on the top and the negative numbers are on the bottom, and specifically discussed the representation of points of a plane, via real numbers; and the representation of curves, via equations.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_G%C3%A9om%C3%A9trie
So the system was not so much a rational cage, rather a method to represent curves?!
There are a New architecture . Remember how different it is ; only after the house is designed the computer calculate the parts ,not as now where we place the parts and tell the computer to remember it and in that way do more than halve of the logistic, as if we don't trust the computer to be better to calculate than us.
That will create the new architecture, And please remember we are creating a new architecture, we are not defending a new architecture we are creating one.
i find it amazing that vindpost has elevated himself to a living legend through forum based website and a little idea called 3d-h. i was a little stunned when i recently met up with some people i went to school with and they were debating the 3d-h movement. trust me, i was just as surprised as you.
post.....do they speak vindpust?
Funny and today i was just in a lecture where we were discussing the dangers of playing fast and loose with computers in relation to structural engineering.
This gallery is all about fast and loose...
Too bad it's empty.
Problem is that my graphics are quite Old , if I shuld display some it would be better with new ones. And realy it shuldn't be me who contribuate.
And like this, also OLD ;
An explanation ---- I was asked to work a set of primitive CAD drawing ,made after the building was acturly build , a set of drawings made as cookie sections around a center axis , as the firm's skills ended there. These 2D drawings shuld be made into a 3D drawing something that was easily done in fact, but when I wanted to deliver the drawings, it was impossible to contact the architect that asked for them. Now everything ended there that they didn't use a 3D drawing ,and the othervise promising possibilities with a 3D router, was vasted fabricating 2D carpenter work and instead of the structure I suggested , they ended up promoting plywood laminating as done by boatsbuilders in the 1920's as "cutting edge" 3D technology.
Want to see the plain 2D sections I used to make my suggestion, just ask .
See --- when I was asked to do the work just before cristmess these years ago, the credit would come quite handy, and I did it did even more and ontop I made this suggestion --- made the 3D drawing from 14 silli 2D sections --- exactly what they couldn't do themself --- and kept that apart form my suggestion of what could form the interiour , ---- sadly I newer recived even a word so all I can use this for is to publish it and tell a small story about huge firms and their CAD ability.
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.