Hello my friends, I want to ask you guys a question: if I have a curvilinear free formed surface, what is the easiest way to model the diagrid structure frames on this surface? and how can I make each small opening (the triangle piece framed by the diagrid lattice) to be the same size? Is there a quick way to do it? I have both 3d Viz and Rhino available. if someone can give me some tips, it will be much appreciated!
may be better to visualize the surface polygonaly, ie, multiple flat triangles = curlivlinear surface at least from a distance. If that was the case, i'd probably take my surface and play with the mesh tool in rhino with polygon count really low.
Eh, --- I wouldn't force my way, but when you solved the problem, maybe if you have a few hours , maybe you want to add just that final touch, get an idear about how in fact to make these faces stay in the air something that sometimes ask a structure ---- then why not make a try, you don't need to section the intire structure, maybe a few corners maybe the bottom only or the top, --- but I can gurantie, that trying a whole or just part structural framework, will change everything compleatly, call it inspiration, atleast meshes alone get trivial.
thank you for the response. Can you elaborate a little more? I am very basic on using rhino. when I use mesh tool, it is still rectangular grid pattern, how do I get to triangular pattern? I just want to do something similar to foster's british museum...
Sorry but so inpacience , you just has to look into some dusty manual or build-in help function, triangulation shuld be easy but remember it is the program that decide, untill you decide othervise --- that solution could prove your design ,so don't blame others they don't do your work.
well rectangles can be broken into triangles. trace out the patterns of your diagrid over the flat polygons (i.e. node to node). make profiles of your channels with the line tool (think section) and sweep along curves.
But that's how i'd do it and i don't know that much about rhino
I'm not the best at Rhino either, but how about ApplyCrv? You choose a curve that you've drawn orthagonally (the diagrid) which is then applied to a nurbs surface. Then, you can use Apur's method of sweeping a profile along the curves drawn on the surface to create the diagrid frame.
Scripts are the way to go but sometimes they dont work exactly how you want them to work unless you writte them yourself, so if you want to triangulate the surface (lattice configuration) i would suggest loft between to curves move the origin point (1) space or isoparm loft and extract wireframe, repeat and this time move the origin point (1) sapce in the opposite direction.
now you have a lattice structure correct. next do a multiple extrusion with the profile you want (C shape, HSS or I beam) and thats pretty much it.
I don't think that 3d-h sectioning is really one option, Per. Unless you have developed infinately large sheet materials, laser cutters, and ignored all considerations of cost, structure and reality. Sorry, dude.
Not at all -- infinately large sheet materials is not needed at all ; it is not with the steel constructions as ships where the exact same troubles you think occour ; please laser cutters can be callibrated and assembly of several sheets is trivial issues in the industrie many industries and there are countless way's to put smaller pieces together intobigger ones .
--------Sad you don't read into the thing, ofcaurse so trivial problems are solved.
Liebchen -- I am not planning for infinity long buildings and and already steel beams are not infinity long already ,why shuld the Eco friendly sheet you can develob for 3dh be that, Sorry Liebchen but 3dh acturluy offer a platform for develobing new materials and if you didn't know, then laser or water cutters can be callibrated ; this mean that the workplane can cut any place of any piece of sheet and if you looked into 3dh , then you would know, that assembly of two interedge sheets, is something that can be cut with the laser or water cutter--- in fact two pieces to put together into a bigger sheet, can be cut in each end of the world just the same flattened drawings are there. But ofcaurse it is easier to emagine what we already have rewritten into computer and the mashins we already use do exactly the same lattrice they alway's did, than emagine how to realise new building methode or even how to make two sheets into one and cut them individualy in two different mashins and still make them fit together ; Lego is easyer I know, but lease , Lego was invented before the computer, ---- realy what we need are new platforms to develob new materials and a new architecture. We don't need the old methods to mimic the new architecture , by building a lookalike with a fake core.
Liebchen try forget the nip-pick critic, pointing to things you don't understand by sight , and please open your mind, as if you attack any thing that is just a bit "different" then new thinking will newer get a chance, in fact you shuld welcome things that turn things upside down, not fight them with arguments so easy to prove back ; these things need your support not your arogance ;
Where are the infinity long sheets there ?
Now I know there are multible nip-pick details in the above, that can be of argument --- but please Liebschen, I do not bring these new idears to the scaffort for your pleasure to dismantle, I do it to widen your emagination. To prove that there are other way's to buyld than how our stiffened emagination enslave our computers to do so, Maybe the above is not possible to build, just like that --- but I know that someone who get into the technike will both understand my argument, and find a scale or a way, to build just that, -- and as you see there are no infinity long sheets or any need of stoneage cutters unable to recalibrate there.
Liebschen there are a small wonder hidden there in the above ; look to the "center" of the two 3dh frames build as 3dh framework --- there you will see an elbow shape piece that is part of both frames, just in the middle , find it and open your mind, such details are not trivial .
Liebschen --- think about how fantastic it realy is, that there are another way , to get the computer do just any form, how would you think this shuld be made with rigid steel beams, and please note sheet materials can already be assembled from small pieces into bigger ones ; this is possible, and when the cutters are there, it will be cheaper, stronger, better all way's , beside what's realy wróng being able to build anything with one material only, and one on site mashin to cut the building elements ?
Do you realy think a trivial steel lattrice structure would perform as bold as this ?
Per, you can show all the pictures in the world and point me to any of your long rambling diatribes (which I have read), and you constantly fail to provide more than a superficial insistence that 3d-h would work. I don't doubt that with years of persistent and self critical work (not just simple commands in rhino or autoCAD) in developing the details of your system will yield results. How are the pieces connected? How is your system less expensive or more efficient than standard construction? These are not new questions...they have been raised for years with you on these threads and others and somehow you refuse to answer. You could at least say "yeah, you're right, there's a great number of things that need to be considered before this system is a realistic option." Right now it is little more than simple process in a 3d software application.
I know you are a middle-aged man...you've had a child, you've built boats, you've lived. I'm half your age and an architecture student, and I would think that I am the last person to promote the status quo of anything, especially architecture...but all I've seen of 3d-h lacks the rigor necessary to convince anyone of the desirability of the system.
Quinqig, I'm sorry for being complicit in the hijacking of your thread :^)
Liebschen I wonder if you would tell me what you can't understand about this structure. will you ask "How are the pieces connected?" . Will you ask "How is your system less expensive or more efficient than standard construction?" , please tell me what is wrong using only one material that form foundations for floors, walls and roof ------
Please show me just one example of a new method, where there are a uniform material cut with n.c. tools and projected 3D in the computer.
If you can not, please ask yourself if your critics are in fact infame or jeloux or you are protecting your own things by spitting on others work.
Liebschen I will present you for a few texts I recived in my mailbox, you are welcome to crowd with these guy's, it is alway's easier to pick on someone than to use relevant arguments , here are a few of the messeages I recived ;
From: LeCorbusier
To: P.C.
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:50 am
Subject: You suck Quote message
I hate you asshole
LeCorbusier
To: P.C.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:46 pm
Subject: u loser Quote message
loser
rom: LeCorbusier
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:35 pm
Subject: asshole Quote message
you fake- ive made it my buisness to expose you for the fake that you are. They can ban me from this forum but I wont stop until scumbags like yourself are exposed
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:28 am
Subject: you mother fucking piece of shit Quote message
you mother fucking piece of shit
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:16 pm
Subject: asshole Quote message
you fucking dumb ass
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:17 pm
Subject: fuck off Quote message
how is your stupid fucking 3d shit going? you fucking scumbag
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:17 pm
Subject: fuck off Quote message
how is your stupid fucking 3d shit going? you fucking scumbag
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:49 pm
Subject: ja elske jeres kvinde og arbejdsdrengen Quote message
Jeres kone er en lumpen gris , og jeres søn er indskrænket.
Now you read just a few messeages, feel free to add your's, I proberly know more about your reson than you would think, -- after so many hate letters would you think I realy would care ?
Is it wrong not just to use the mesh structure from the CAD program and just replace the vectors with steel rods, is that wrong ?
Is it wrong to point to the fact that there are other way's than the trivial steel lattrice --- do you realy think we are at the top and will be in a standstill and no one are going to critic "how we build a house" , --------- what is your point remember your attacks are personal .
Liebschen published tonns of test bench pictures, so in graphic prove what is obvious, while it work on computers ,is a new way to engage the structure, while it build anything , and if it's looks don't fit your eye, then cover it, atleast it will hold the measures.
I know it is difficult to realise, that providing a form, with automated building frames is even possible with today's programs but it is, there are sheet materials and there are computers so it's already here. You already can not develob, on the pine plywood not even lattrice and no universal fitting will only split more low quality pine and the only way to make things cheaper is not the digital. Your houses are all way round limited in a fasion difficult to emagine you Romans simply decide, that old is better than new, and you don't see it. You need new efficient building methods, and yet want to climb the tradisional way we build a House. At the same time you don't realise computers can make assemblies as you requier, you don't even ask "what other way's was it you ment others than 3dh" but, you didn't do that and tomorrow are a very busy day, ---- but not for the promised Better houses you Romans alway's cried out for Belive me, the future are Digital, and the production must be efficient by those means 3dh are Absolut.
so from A simple modeling question to a complete debate of what is better, more efficient or even just the plain idea that he wanted it to look like that, there is this constant sharing of ideas of what the building should do and perform but someone always criticizes that you are closed minded and that you should be doing this instead of that but keep in mind that your idea is conceptual and you are trying to sell the possibility that it could exist in the world and if you complicate the whole project by not doing enough research then you will be looking like an ass and that good project will be looked down upon it because it's inability to stand by itself...
thanks very much for all the inputs. It looks like to me Archcut is the best way...I haven't read all the posts on 3dh, but I will when I get a break from the project. thanks.
"Yeah, sorry! I'm officially ignoring this thread."
Exactly --- and you answered none of my questions, --- you came with the same load of attacks ;
This
"Per, you can show all the pictures in the world and point me to any of your long rambling diatribes "
And this;
"you refuse to answer. You could at least say "yeah, you're right, there's a great number of things that need to be considered before this system is a realistic option"
Clearly show why you are here and why you havn't answered one single of my arguments or questions ; what is wrong with a particular link, what is wrong replacing hundreds of various building parts with only one, why today's software are a complete copy of yestoday's methods and what is wrong develobing new building materials with so promising production as by N.C. cutters and assembly building parts --- latest post you make ;
"Yeah, sorry! I'm officially ignoring this thread."
--- and you newer answered this simple question, what's wrong with this design ;
You didn't reflect on the suggestion how to make a platform for develobing new eco friendly materials .
You claim the method don't work and yet copyists won contests and years after I published the method some old men tried a misunderstood Serpentine pavilion who anyone in this fora thought to be a 3Dh.
The looks of the methods it's attitude been copied recently into two buildings, sadly the architects didn't have the guts to borrow more than the surface looks not what it is all about the structure, but fancy it looks.
You didn't even seem to have real knowleage about N.C. cutting and how low the cost of this dropped and where the costs will end.
You totaly refused to answer the fact, that this is the first method that work by the computer generating a reliable framework for almost anything, drawn 3D on a computer, --- did you answer anything but being socialy polite and licking up when the first new writer showed up, and when you answered him, wasn't it with a dirty social complain about me ?
Sorry I say things so direct --- but I been in many discussions about 3dh where it has been total outsiders knowing less than nothing, who fused me with personal attacks while they had no arguments what so ever.
Then when someone prove so little knowleage about N.C. cutters , when this is a discussion about what methods are fit with software , then Visions are just as important as oldfasion arogance towerds what is new.
It is no argument that others havn't "understood" the method, maybe these was usenet trolls looking for a midnight snack, and if you realy are so engaged in architecture, you wouldn't answer like that, you would respect newthinking and apriciate a method that finaly allow you to generate a full assembly framework from a 3D model, the cost of steel cutting are down under one Eur pr cut meter in one millimeter steel , now if that shuldn't offer cheap building elements I wonder what would.
I don't think so, the issue is still diagrid structures and ofcaurse there are other way's to generate a building structure than 3dh.
It's just to invent one, it's not enough just to look at the meshes in a CAD drawing and say " we just replace that with steel rods, --- even there I suggest to deform the stringers where two stringers meet , run it thru a punching mashin that count the distance between two overlapping stringers and pounch a halve moon deformation exactly where it shuld be, -- you get bird cages all forms ,steel meshes all dimensions but true, not very innoventing , not realy new thinking.
I wonder when someone realise that what we need is something --- and it don't realy need to be 3dh --- that by a press of a button, will transform your detailed 3D drawing, into the compoments to put together to build it, no I newer said it has to be 3dh.
modeling diagrid structures
Hello my friends, I want to ask you guys a question: if I have a curvilinear free formed surface, what is the easiest way to model the diagrid structure frames on this surface? and how can I make each small opening (the triangle piece framed by the diagrid lattice) to be the same size? Is there a quick way to do it? I have both 3d Viz and Rhino available. if someone can give me some tips, it will be much appreciated!
You should as Per Corell. I bet he knows.
*ask, sorry.
may be better to visualize the surface polygonaly, ie, multiple flat triangles = curlivlinear surface at least from a distance. If that was the case, i'd probably take my surface and play with the mesh tool in rhino with polygon count really low.
Eh, --- I wouldn't force my way, but when you solved the problem, maybe if you have a few hours , maybe you want to add just that final touch, get an idear about how in fact to make these faces stay in the air something that sometimes ask a structure ---- then why not make a try, you don't need to section the intire structure, maybe a few corners maybe the bottom only or the top, --- but I can gurantie, that trying a whole or just part structural framework, will change everything compleatly, call it inspiration, atleast meshes alone get trivial.
thank you for the response. Can you elaborate a little more? I am very basic on using rhino. when I use mesh tool, it is still rectangular grid pattern, how do I get to triangular pattern? I just want to do something similar to foster's british museum...
so nobody really knows the solution? do I have to use some kind of rhino script?
Sorry but so inpacience , you just has to look into some dusty manual or build-in help function, triangulation shuld be easy but remember it is the program that decide, untill you decide othervise --- that solution could prove your design ,so don't blame others they don't do your work.
well rectangles can be broken into triangles. trace out the patterns of your diagrid over the flat polygons (i.e. node to node). make profiles of your channels with the line tool (think section) and sweep along curves.
But that's how i'd do it and i don't know that much about rhino
lasers
I'm not the best at Rhino either, but how about ApplyCrv? You choose a curve that you've drawn orthagonally (the diagrid) which is then applied to a nurbs surface. Then, you can use Apur's method of sweeping a profile along the curves drawn on the surface to create the diagrid frame.
create uv curves, draw diagrid on flattened surface the do a flow along surface
Liebchen and Apurimac seem to have it...
I was battling similar issues a few weeks ago:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=62690_0_42_0_C
...there is also that plug in "Arch Cut" ...might help....seems about as as hard as my issue.. email me and we can trade secrets.
not that t matters..but that last ms.la post is actually me ff33,...i forgot to sign her out, as we share computers and such.
but seriously...email me,ff33, if you want.....
Scripts are the way to go but sometimes they dont work exactly how you want them to work unless you writte them yourself, so if you want to triangulate the surface (lattice configuration) i would suggest loft between to curves move the origin point (1) space or isoparm loft and extract wireframe, repeat and this time move the origin point (1) sapce in the opposite direction.
now you have a lattice structure correct. next do a multiple extrusion with the profile you want (C shape, HSS or I beam) and thats pretty much it.
:P
Just want to add, there are other technikes, strait steel profiles are not the only way to eject a building structure
There are other way's than a space frame lattrice, 3dh sectioning are one.
I don't think that 3d-h sectioning is really one option, Per. Unless you have developed infinately large sheet materials, laser cutters, and ignored all considerations of cost, structure and reality. Sorry, dude.
Not at all -- infinately large sheet materials is not needed at all ; it is not with the steel constructions as ships where the exact same troubles you think occour ; please laser cutters can be callibrated and assembly of several sheets is trivial issues in the industrie many industries and there are countless way's to put smaller pieces together intobigger ones .
--------Sad you don't read into the thing, ofcaurse so trivial problems are solved.
Liebchen -- I am not planning for infinity long buildings and and already steel beams are not infinity long already ,why shuld the Eco friendly sheet you can develob for 3dh be that, Sorry Liebchen but 3dh acturluy offer a platform for develobing new materials and if you didn't know, then laser or water cutters can be callibrated ; this mean that the workplane can cut any place of any piece of sheet and if you looked into 3dh , then you would know, that assembly of two interedge sheets, is something that can be cut with the laser or water cutter--- in fact two pieces to put together into a bigger sheet, can be cut in each end of the world just the same flattened drawings are there. But ofcaurse it is easier to emagine what we already have rewritten into computer and the mashins we already use do exactly the same lattrice they alway's did, than emagine how to realise new building methode or even how to make two sheets into one and cut them individualy in two different mashins and still make them fit together ; Lego is easyer I know, but lease , Lego was invented before the computer, ---- realy what we need are new platforms to develob new materials and a new architecture. We don't need the old methods to mimic the new architecture , by building a lookalike with a fake core.
Liebchen try forget the nip-pick critic, pointing to things you don't understand by sight , and please open your mind, as if you attack any thing that is just a bit "different" then new thinking will newer get a chance, in fact you shuld welcome things that turn things upside down, not fight them with arguments so easy to prove back ; these things need your support not your arogance ;
Where are the infinity long sheets there ?
Now I know there are multible nip-pick details in the above, that can be of argument --- but please Liebschen, I do not bring these new idears to the scaffort for your pleasure to dismantle, I do it to widen your emagination. To prove that there are other way's to buyld than how our stiffened emagination enslave our computers to do so, Maybe the above is not possible to build, just like that --- but I know that someone who get into the technike will both understand my argument, and find a scale or a way, to build just that, -- and as you see there are no infinity long sheets or any need of stoneage cutters unable to recalibrate there.
Liebschen there are a small wonder hidden there in the above ; look to the "center" of the two 3dh frames build as 3dh framework --- there you will see an elbow shape piece that is part of both frames, just in the middle , find it and open your mind, such details are not trivial .
Liebschen --- think about how fantastic it realy is, that there are another way , to get the computer do just any form, how would you think this shuld be made with rigid steel beams, and please note sheet materials can already be assembled from small pieces into bigger ones ; this is possible, and when the cutters are there, it will be cheaper, stronger, better all way's , beside what's realy wróng being able to build anything with one material only, and one on site mashin to cut the building elements ?
Do you realy think a trivial steel lattrice structure would perform as bold as this ?
Per, you can show all the pictures in the world and point me to any of your long rambling diatribes (which I have read), and you constantly fail to provide more than a superficial insistence that 3d-h would work. I don't doubt that with years of persistent and self critical work (not just simple commands in rhino or autoCAD) in developing the details of your system will yield results. How are the pieces connected? How is your system less expensive or more efficient than standard construction? These are not new questions...they have been raised for years with you on these threads and others and somehow you refuse to answer. You could at least say "yeah, you're right, there's a great number of things that need to be considered before this system is a realistic option." Right now it is little more than simple process in a 3d software application.
I know you are a middle-aged man...you've had a child, you've built boats, you've lived. I'm half your age and an architecture student, and I would think that I am the last person to promote the status quo of anything, especially architecture...but all I've seen of 3d-h lacks the rigor necessary to convince anyone of the desirability of the system.
Quinqig, I'm sorry for being complicit in the hijacking of your thread :^)
^^why do I immediately regret writing that....AUGH! Here it comes...
Liebschen I wonder if you would tell me what you can't understand about this structure. will you ask "How are the pieces connected?" . Will you ask "How is your system less expensive or more efficient than standard construction?" , please tell me what is wrong using only one material that form foundations for floors, walls and roof ------
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/manzard-wh-r.jpg
Please show me just one example of a new method, where there are a uniform material cut with n.c. tools and projected 3D in the computer.
If you can not, please ask yourself if your critics are in fact infame or jeloux or you are protecting your own things by spitting on others work.
Liebschen I will present you for a few texts I recived in my mailbox, you are welcome to crowd with these guy's, it is alway's easier to pick on someone than to use relevant arguments , here are a few of the messeages I recived ;
From: LeCorbusier
To: P.C.
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:50 am
Subject: You suck Quote message
I hate you asshole
LeCorbusier
To: P.C.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:46 pm
Subject: u loser Quote message
loser
rom: LeCorbusier
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:35 pm
Subject: asshole Quote message
you fake- ive made it my buisness to expose you for the fake that you are. They can ban me from this forum but I wont stop until scumbags like yourself are exposed
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:28 am
Subject: you mother fucking piece of shit Quote message
you mother fucking piece of shit
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:16 pm
Subject: asshole Quote message
you fucking dumb ass
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:17 pm
Subject: fuck off Quote message
how is your stupid fucking 3d shit going? you fucking scumbag
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:17 pm
Subject: fuck off Quote message
how is your stupid fucking 3d shit going? you fucking scumbag
From: Jeanneret
To: P.C.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:49 pm
Subject: ja elske jeres kvinde og arbejdsdrengen Quote message
Jeres kone er en lumpen gris , og jeres søn er indskrænket.
Now you read just a few messeages, feel free to add your's, I proberly know more about your reson than you would think, -- after so many hate letters would you think I realy would care ?
But don't forget to tell me what is "wrong" with this structure ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/manzard-wh-r.jpg
Is it wrong not just to use the mesh structure from the CAD program and just replace the vectors with steel rods, is that wrong ?
Is it wrong to point to the fact that there are other way's than the trivial steel lattrice --- do you realy think we are at the top and will be in a standstill and no one are going to critic "how we build a house" , --------- what is your point remember your attacks are personal .
Nice assemble of volumes
Liebschen published tonns of test bench pictures, so in graphic prove what is obvious, while it work on computers ,is a new way to engage the structure, while it build anything , and if it's looks don't fit your eye, then cover it, atleast it will hold the measures.
I know it is difficult to realise, that providing a form, with automated building frames is even possible with today's programs but it is, there are sheet materials and there are computers so it's already here. You already can not develob, on the pine plywood not even lattrice and no universal fitting will only split more low quality pine and the only way to make things cheaper is not the digital. Your houses are all way round limited in a fasion difficult to emagine you Romans simply decide, that old is better than new, and you don't see it. You need new efficient building methods, and yet want to climb the tradisional way we build a House. At the same time you don't realise computers can make assemblies as you requier, you don't even ask "what other way's was it you ment others than 3dh" but, you didn't do that and tomorrow are a very busy day, ---- but not for the promised Better houses you Romans alway's cried out for Belive me, the future are Digital, and the production must be efficient by those means 3dh are Absolut.
I don't think my comments warrant inclusion with those posted above. If you carefully read my comments, there is no hate there.
ZOMG!!!11!11 Its turning into another 3Dh debate!
Yeah, sorry! I'm officially ignoring this thread.
so from A simple modeling question to a complete debate of what is better, more efficient or even just the plain idea that he wanted it to look like that, there is this constant sharing of ideas of what the building should do and perform but someone always criticizes that you are closed minded and that you should be doing this instead of that but keep in mind that your idea is conceptual and you are trying to sell the possibility that it could exist in the world and if you complicate the whole project by not doing enough research then you will be looking like an ass and that good project will be looked down upon it because it's inability to stand by itself...
:P
thanks very much for all the inputs. It looks like to me Archcut is the best way...I haven't read all the posts on 3dh, but I will when I get a break from the project. thanks.
haha, qunping
I said that on my thread a couple weeks ago.."that i would go back and read the 3d-h threads. "
It basically will teach you to never , ever argue with Per about the utter superiority of 3d-h!
"Yeah, sorry! I'm officially ignoring this thread."
Exactly --- and you answered none of my questions, --- you came with the same load of attacks ;
This
"Per, you can show all the pictures in the world and point me to any of your long rambling diatribes "
And this;
"you refuse to answer. You could at least say "yeah, you're right, there's a great number of things that need to be considered before this system is a realistic option"
Clearly show why you are here and why you havn't answered one single of my arguments or questions ; what is wrong with a particular link, what is wrong replacing hundreds of various building parts with only one, why today's software are a complete copy of yestoday's methods and what is wrong develobing new building materials with so promising production as by N.C. cutters and assembly building parts --- latest post you make ;
"Yeah, sorry! I'm officially ignoring this thread."
--- and you newer answered this simple question, what's wrong with this design ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/manzard-wh-r.jpg
You didn't answer one single question, only personal attacks, now that's not debating
You didn't reflect on the suggestion how to make a platform for develobing new eco friendly materials .
You claim the method don't work and yet copyists won contests and years after I published the method some old men tried a misunderstood Serpentine pavilion who anyone in this fora thought to be a 3Dh.
The looks of the methods it's attitude been copied recently into two buildings, sadly the architects didn't have the guts to borrow more than the surface looks not what it is all about the structure, but fancy it looks.
You didn't even seem to have real knowleage about N.C. cutting and how low the cost of this dropped and where the costs will end.
You totaly refused to answer the fact, that this is the first method that work by the computer generating a reliable framework for almost anything, drawn 3D on a computer, --- did you answer anything but being socialy polite and licking up when the first new writer showed up, and when you answered him, wasn't it with a dirty social complain about me ?
Sorry I say things so direct --- but I been in many discussions about 3dh where it has been total outsiders knowing less than nothing, who fused me with personal attacks while they had no arguments what so ever.
Then when someone prove so little knowleage about N.C. cutters , when this is a discussion about what methods are fit with software , then Visions are just as important as oldfasion arogance towerds what is new.
It is no argument that others havn't "understood" the method, maybe these was usenet trolls looking for a midnight snack, and if you realy are so engaged in architecture, you wouldn't answer like that, you would respect newthinking and apriciate a method that finaly allow you to generate a full assembly framework from a 3D model, the cost of steel cutting are down under one Eur pr cut meter in one millimeter steel , now if that shuldn't offer cheap building elements I wonder what would.
per, you won
I don't think so, the issue is still diagrid structures and ofcaurse there are other way's to generate a building structure than 3dh.
It's just to invent one, it's not enough just to look at the meshes in a CAD drawing and say " we just replace that with steel rods, --- even there I suggest to deform the stringers where two stringers meet , run it thru a punching mashin that count the distance between two overlapping stringers and pounch a halve moon deformation exactly where it shuld be, -- you get bird cages all forms ,steel meshes all dimensions but true, not very innoventing , not realy new thinking.
I wonder when someone realise that what we need is something --- and it don't realy need to be 3dh --- that by a press of a button, will transform your detailed 3D drawing, into the compoments to put together to build it, no I newer said it has to be 3dh.
--------- But ofcaurse if it was 3dh, scale models would be so easy to make.
the dingo ate your baby
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.