kind of interesting that no question regarding "content" or, alas, "meaning of it all" is being asked. hum har, perhaps that's just me, though... "workflow".. humph..
"kind of interesting that no question regarding "content" or, alas, "meaning of it all" is being asked. hum har, perhaps that's just me, though... "workflow".. humph.."
I just wanted to cut down to the chase and get down to it.
noci >> if you can do that in maya you can make just about anything. this thread has nothing to do with content. not saying the work does or does not have content, but that is not the discussion at hand.
If you'd like to discuss that image with the idea of content in mind check out one of Hernan's studio reviews. They procure interesting discussions.
well, I was being a bit polemical. I sure know that technique can be discussed independently of content, though in my own practice of teaching 3d at arch. school I often find that content and technique are in fact entangled.
there are many prerequisites leading to that premise; first and foremost, 3d in architecture should be more than just visualization but an explorative tool that examines design variations as well as actual considerations of how a form might be put together (think integrated building models or CAE as taught at engineering faculties)- and all that during the actual design process. otherwise we come up with fancy images and that's the end of it.
Considering that 3d has in many cases eroded other explorative techniques, i.e. the creation of working models, stringent drawing & conceptualization (which is not a bad thing per se), we're in fact in dire need of a "3d in Architecture" paradigm. Otherwise we'll substitute old tools for new ones that aren't "worked out" just yet. And it's not in our hands, either- students often start designing with i.e. sketchup from Day One- again, this might not be bad, but it is seen as such by people who (rightfully so) mourn the loss of proven design aids.
Technique, if employed unreflectedly, has an unoutspoken impact on design results. It is therefore my belief that at least the awareness of this has to be taught: any given media has to be examined in such a way. Hence my dissatisfaction with the original post, which was not intended as an attack but struck a nerve with me. I see plenty of "program a) has limitations / features such and such, thus design a) shows precisely matching geometric braking points right there" happenings. that's maddening.
I am sure down the road we will have 3D "hologram" type displays
where we basically model our thing in an actual 3D space whereby we use finger gestures to mold the thing like clay (but with precision and control).
I guess in the history of things..of development, industrialization; what have you, there is importance in using tools and techniques at the forefront of technology/culture in order to design things that are projective for the field of architecture.
Also, I am interested in theories pertaining to haptic spaces, objects of desire, spaces of desire etc.
In another lineage of thinking...I am interested in geometry and thus, a certain limitation of materiality. At this point, I am unfamiliar with nano technology, nanomaterials, bio-materials etc. but basically, to me, materiality has the do with the fakery of geometry a lot of the time. It is basically like texturing in a video game...that is what materiality is. I guess with the development of nano-materials the line between geometry/materiality become more blurred as they have a more inherent feedback relationship to one another.
Materiality is of utmost importance of course but basically it is limited by geometrical, three dimensional constraints.
I know that MANY things in Maya look the same. Everything looks smooth and Sub-d'ed. This allows for smooth transistions become architectural elements/components. It literally exudes ideas of smoothness, fluidity etc.
HOWEVER, literally looking smooth and actually being smooth can be two different things. Intuitively, my definition of smooth has more to do with how the typical, pervasively smooth maya building can transition (via gradation) into something that becomes more rectlinear, boxy, detached, fragmented etc. And this in turn, may lead to a new way of conceiving organization, programming etc.
ANYWAY...I am done rambling. But yeah in the OP I was simply looking at the bottom line and I wanted to learn how these complex things were modeled in maya.
"I guess in the history of things..of development, industrialization; what have you, there is importance in using tools and techniques at the forefront of technology/culture in order to design things that are projective for the field of architecture"
I really like how you put this, and fully agree.. in many ways pertaining new, nano, bio etc. materials I am a lot less forward looking, hence the many caveats in my long post.
"but basically, to me, materiality has the do with the fakery of geometry a lot of the time. It is basically like texturing in a video game...that is what materiality is."
perhaps it has become that way and is expressed as such in a lot of contemporary building.. whether from this transitory phase some "new" materiality in terms of "new materials" will be established remains to be seen. it has begun to happen i.e. with membranes as envelopes and advanced material coatings etc., but here we'd have to start distinguishing between mundane and "couture" architecture, which is in the course of our argument something I'd not be comfortable with right now (as we'd start branching out indefinately).
I certainly don't hope that "classic" materiality will be devalued as "faked mostly, anyways" and "no need to attain it as new materials will [insert action]". In many ways this is a reformulation of a point made in my previous post pertaining 3d as an explorative tool in the design process: modelling should address conjectures on how something is roughly put together as a system. with "new" materials we might not know this and thus have a higher degree of freedom in modelling- IF we are simulatenously researching manufacture and materials themselves. there is an additional set of variables that comes into play - they have to be defined.
oh and I fully agree with the recommendation of gnomon3d courseware.. real good! and plenty available on emule.
t-splines are cool for 3d nurbs, yes, but the examples shown where much much more simple to do.
Just get basic 3D linework modeled (just the center lines of the structure-really thats all) and extrude a simple polygon along the lines in Maya. Where two lines intersect go in and hack together the polygons. Neatness is not required. Use history to control the amount of faceting in in each extruded polygon, and when your ready, goo-ify it with subDs. Ta daa instant Maya matter boney stuff. Spend a day cleaning up intersections you didn't like and and some mysterious transparent materials in the holes and you got your self a sci-arc thesis. (I'm being a little sarcastic about the speed of the work, but not much)
To get the stuff too swell/thin in a gradient: I think is just a hair harder, but not much. And I guess getting the right line work in the beginning may be fun. Just don't download someone else's MEL script and change a couple numbers. Thats cheating.
As far as "content and technique being entangled" - The reason that a lot off stuff Maya looks the same is because this is the sort of "organic" modeling in thats really easy/fast to do. Maya does linework to structure to bones really well. Other forms, are a little harder, or at least maya doesn't give you a instant "look" -you'd have to design that your self... This particular techniques comes with a pre-packaged content: spooky, sci-fi, ossified, bones as structure.
Workflow for Modeling Organic stuff in Maya?
Hey guys
Just want to know what's a typical workflow /methodology to model organic stuff in Maya.
http://archinect.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=5&pos=63
Think greg lynn, hernan diaz alonzo etc.
Polygons?
Nurbs?
Thanks
other examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcvI7jYx1NY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOD1Yvrf4Xk
so what's the workflow?
poly to sub-d
I reckon that it is poly to sub-d.
And that curves initially define the geometry.
Would you first use commands like loft/boundary surface to
define the geometry?
yes, loft quite a bit.
kind of interesting that no question regarding "content" or, alas, "meaning of it all" is being asked. hum har, perhaps that's just me, though... "workflow".. humph..
"kind of interesting that no question regarding "content" or, alas, "meaning of it all" is being asked. hum har, perhaps that's just me, though... "workflow".. humph.."
I just wanted to cut down to the chase and get down to it.
ah, I understand. well, happy lofting.
merry xmas, y'all.
noci >> if you can do that in maya you can make just about anything. this thread has nothing to do with content. not saying the work does or does not have content, but that is not the discussion at hand.
If you'd like to discuss that image with the idea of content in mind check out one of Hernan's studio reviews. They procure interesting discussions.
well, I was being a bit polemical. I sure know that technique can be discussed independently of content, though in my own practice of teaching 3d at arch. school I often find that content and technique are in fact entangled.
there are many prerequisites leading to that premise; first and foremost, 3d in architecture should be more than just visualization but an explorative tool that examines design variations as well as actual considerations of how a form might be put together (think integrated building models or CAE as taught at engineering faculties)- and all that during the actual design process. otherwise we come up with fancy images and that's the end of it.
Considering that 3d has in many cases eroded other explorative techniques, i.e. the creation of working models, stringent drawing & conceptualization (which is not a bad thing per se), we're in fact in dire need of a "3d in Architecture" paradigm. Otherwise we'll substitute old tools for new ones that aren't "worked out" just yet. And it's not in our hands, either- students often start designing with i.e. sketchup from Day One- again, this might not be bad, but it is seen as such by people who (rightfully so) mourn the loss of proven design aids.
Technique, if employed unreflectedly, has an unoutspoken impact on design results. It is therefore my belief that at least the awareness of this has to be taught: any given media has to be examined in such a way. Hence my dissatisfaction with the original post, which was not intended as an attack but struck a nerve with me. I see plenty of "program a) has limitations / features such and such, thus design a) shows precisely matching geometric braking points right there" happenings. that's maddening.
best wishes,
Max
I just want the ability to model anything.
I am sure down the road we will have 3D "hologram" type displays
where we basically model our thing in an actual 3D space whereby we use finger gestures to mold the thing like clay (but with precision and control).
I guess in the history of things..of development, industrialization; what have you, there is importance in using tools and techniques at the forefront of technology/culture in order to design things that are projective for the field of architecture.
Also, I am interested in theories pertaining to haptic spaces, objects of desire, spaces of desire etc.
In another lineage of thinking...I am interested in geometry and thus, a certain limitation of materiality. At this point, I am unfamiliar with nano technology, nanomaterials, bio-materials etc. but basically, to me, materiality has the do with the fakery of geometry a lot of the time. It is basically like texturing in a video game...that is what materiality is. I guess with the development of nano-materials the line between geometry/materiality become more blurred as they have a more inherent feedback relationship to one another.
Materiality is of utmost importance of course but basically it is limited by geometrical, three dimensional constraints.
I know that MANY things in Maya look the same. Everything looks smooth and Sub-d'ed. This allows for smooth transistions become architectural elements/components. It literally exudes ideas of smoothness, fluidity etc.
HOWEVER, literally looking smooth and actually being smooth can be two different things. Intuitively, my definition of smooth has more to do with how the typical, pervasively smooth maya building can transition (via gradation) into something that becomes more rectlinear, boxy, detached, fragmented etc. And this in turn, may lead to a new way of conceiving organization, programming etc.
ANYWAY...I am done rambling. But yeah in the OP I was simply looking at the bottom line and I wanted to learn how these complex things were modeled in maya.
"I guess in the history of things..of development, industrialization; what have you, there is importance in using tools and techniques at the forefront of technology/culture in order to design things that are projective for the field of architecture"
I really like how you put this, and fully agree.. in many ways pertaining new, nano, bio etc. materials I am a lot less forward looking, hence the many caveats in my long post.
"but basically, to me, materiality has the do with the fakery of geometry a lot of the time. It is basically like texturing in a video game...that is what materiality is."
perhaps it has become that way and is expressed as such in a lot of contemporary building.. whether from this transitory phase some "new" materiality in terms of "new materials" will be established remains to be seen. it has begun to happen i.e. with membranes as envelopes and advanced material coatings etc., but here we'd have to start distinguishing between mundane and "couture" architecture, which is in the course of our argument something I'd not be comfortable with right now (as we'd start branching out indefinately).
I certainly don't hope that "classic" materiality will be devalued as "faked mostly, anyways" and "no need to attain it as new materials will [insert action]". In many ways this is a reformulation of a point made in my previous post pertaining 3d as an explorative tool in the design process: modelling should address conjectures on how something is roughly put together as a system. with "new" materials we might not know this and thus have a higher degree of freedom in modelling- IF we are simulatenously researching manufacture and materials themselves. there is an additional set of variables that comes into play - they have to be defined.
oh and I fully agree with the recommendation of gnomon3d courseware.. real good! and plenty available on emule.
x
Max
i would say look into T-Splines they is the most advanced powerful tool in 3d organic nurbs modeling
http://www.tsplines.com/
t-splines are cool for 3d nurbs, yes, but the examples shown where much much more simple to do.
Just get basic 3D linework modeled (just the center lines of the structure-really thats all) and extrude a simple polygon along the lines in Maya. Where two lines intersect go in and hack together the polygons. Neatness is not required. Use history to control the amount of faceting in in each extruded polygon, and when your ready, goo-ify it with subDs. Ta daa instant Maya matter boney stuff. Spend a day cleaning up intersections you didn't like and and some mysterious transparent materials in the holes and you got your self a sci-arc thesis. (I'm being a little sarcastic about the speed of the work, but not much)
To get the stuff too swell/thin in a gradient: I think is just a hair harder, but not much. And I guess getting the right line work in the beginning may be fun. Just don't download someone else's MEL script and change a couple numbers. Thats cheating.
As far as "content and technique being entangled" - The reason that a lot off stuff Maya looks the same is because this is the sort of "organic" modeling in thats really easy/fast to do. Maya does linework to structure to bones really well. Other forms, are a little harder, or at least maya doesn't give you a instant "look" -you'd have to design that your self... This particular techniques comes with a pre-packaged content: spooky, sci-fi, ossified, bones as structure.
Don't get me wrong. It still looks good.
personally i'd do it in Rhinoceros as it has many more tools
good luck
Hey guys thanks again for all the help.
Someone linked me these videos from another forum that I think are very good examples of organic modeling techniques (for anyone else interested):
http://area.autodesk.com/index.php/blogs_cory/blog_detail/alien_spawn/
sub-d
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.