im sure PER was in the development team for GRASSHOPPER yeah sure....
anyways, leaving the triviality outisde this thread.... i would say i played the other day a lil' bit with grasshopper.... for those interested in rhino scripting etc. this is a biiiig leap forward... grasshopper just made hours of text script so much easier.... next time kids in architecture school would be generating shapes, structures and components in 2 weeks....
go on and try rhino + grasshopper!!!
Antisth yes, RHINO is kicking ass, and BIM?? f^*k BIM u can always outsource that part of the job!
"it means you can make a wavy ass surface. big flippin' deal. go make some architecture, kids."
jafidler, im sure you are talking about architecture in the US...go travel and see whats going on outside - people are actually integrating 'wavy ass' surfaces into architectures.
sod, i've actually worked for one of the better offices in india, but point well taken, if you can turn that wavy ass surface into something more than a wavy ass surface, more power to you. perhaps apu's point is closer to what i was getting at, imposing imaginary steel sections onto a surface is still not architecture.
actually grasshopper makes in a very time-efficient way the right dimension of complex-geometry elements which can go from simple louvers to structural elements, instead of an almost "handcrafted" way you can instead have a very accurate 3d model of your elements, cut and assembled with higher precision which will reflect into your costs in terms of material waste and time in execution, more than that, it gives the opportunity to anyone to play with 'parametrics', without having to know how to script in softwares of generative components like rhino, maya or any other you can think of, to say differently, to try different options in your design, what if one element is rotated 45 instead of 90 and how the other elements related to this will react... parametric has nothing to do with funky, wavy or bloby shapes, is just another method to do architecture, as respectable as those who still use pastel, watercolors and a compass and ruler to design curves in plan because "it brings movement to your designs"
"it means you can make a wavy ass surface. big flippin' deal. go make some architecture, kids."
SOUTHERN CROSS STATION, "a wavy ass surface" but if u ask me pretty serious piece of ARCHITECTURE
"...i've actually worked for one of the better offices in india, but point well taken, if you can turn that wavy ass surface into something more than a wavy ass surface, more power to you. ...imposing imaginary steel sections onto a surface is still not architecture..."
also i guess this is not serious Architecture done by a serious Architecture office....
the Alianz Arena is a building covered by 64,000 m2 (688890 ft2), of pneumatic EFTE membranes, with parametric software(parameters include the profile of the building, the area to cover, resistance of the material max length of the structural elements, etc) which calculated inside an architectural office in Basel all the exact measures of pneumatic panels and steel profiles which held them all together, sealing ventilation and air supply systems in a period of just 15 months. yeah thats not serious architecture...
also, no need to go out of the states to see what architecture can be.... is not of lack of travel, is more lack of knowledge of what is architecture after the Modernists "...getting steel members cut like that would cost alot of money I'm sure..."
Seattle, Washington, PUBLIC LIBRARY, made by a crazy architectural firm maybe: 11,900 m2 (128090 ft2) of facade, 6,500 panels, 30,000 profiles, also made and calculated with software which is only good to be playing with your surfaces i guess....
ignorance, i guess, is not the key to freedom, so here it is my 2 cents to this thread
MAD, that's angriest post I've ever seen from you.
The steel members in the OP curve in three dimensions. The members in seattle are cut straight and dont bend at all.
The beautiful wavy roof you posted has thin tube members that only curve in two dimensions and are small enough to be bent with a pipe bender in a shop.
None of the stuff you posted involves in anyway cnc millied parts designed using generative component software.
I'm all for pushing designs to the limit and doing fancy stuff in rhino but I get really tired of people focusing so hard on that image they forget how to properly detail their awesome wavy shape and it stays just that, an image until a consultant (whose way smarter) comes and makes it work.
yeah i might went a little bit over board with my answer, maybe it was a long day and i had no humor for bull and/or answers which didnt really knew about the topic...but u right i also sometimes just throw in stupid-joke answers to some treads...still im telling you im not telling you that i think this projects are done CNC milled just because i say so... i took the data out of the book cause i remembered it was in there...
and i tried to post examples i know the work was done actually at the architects office (i dunno for OMA, but i know for H&dM the whole drawing and detailing and all the pieces were done at the studio, and just transfered the data straight into the machines of the consultant), i think im also in your side of pushing limits, and sometimes consultants are not way smarter, just more experienced... i think is not architecture is not a matter of who is more smarter, but who can recognize opportunities, even if it is with a construction process using waste tires in tijuana (as TOROLAB) or "explosion modeling" of your metal facade system as ASYMPTOTE in the Netherlands...
i think i was just trying to make people see that the use of rhino, maya, GC, or whatever is not more than just tools which can make easier or not our job, without really mattering what "style" of architecture it is.
sometimes i wonder why no one complains when movie industry gets better resources for special FX, but everyone jumps when a new way of making architecture emerges... why dont we keep making black and white movies w/no sound then
and not specifically to you APURIMAC is just an open comment into this thread, and no aggression involved, just trying to make my point
MAD, my point is not so much to slam parametric software in general, where i in fact see a lot of potential, but was really targeted specifically at the diagram posted above and perhaps to a lesser extent at the people that see this type of generative formalism as an end in itself. from what i see in the diagram above, there is a surface that in a few steps has generic steel sections imposed on it. somehow i doubt that any type of real loading was factored in, any sort of material properties were considered, or perhaps on a larger level, the reasons for creating a surface with that geometry in the first place, hence in my opinion, it is simply a wavy ass surface. the steps between the diagram above and the finished buildings i find much more interesting. these steps may involve grasshopper, they may not, but too often, particularly with students, there becomes a fixation on the form, or worse, the software itself, that does not allow them to actually create architecture. i'm not in the pencil and t-square crowd, i am only questioning if this use of digital technology enhances architecture or is merely a distraction, even on the starchitect projects you posted above, but perhaps that is a topic for a different thread.
I feel there are two relative threads when a tool is introduced into the practice of architecture. When I say tool I mean anything from a pencil, plumb, t-square, mayline, to CAD, Generative / Parametric Software...what have you...
On the one hand, yes, things get "easier." But maybe it is more a matter of time... new tools makes things faster. So this leads us into our own second thread. This one is about complexity. Sometimes in the same amount of time we can achieve something more "complex" in the broadest sense of the word. And this is not without its pitfalls. While it pushes the limits of already existing technologies, it also generates some limits that might not yet be attainable ... maybe even SHOULD not be attainable...but this all depends on the context of the project and output that is being tested.
I remember a lecture by Tom Barker where he mentioned that masters level academia is developing things that in 20 years might be possible. Of course, some schools are integrating immediate constructibility into their programs, which I applaud. But I also do not scoff at certain applications of new tools.
My workflow is mostly using scripting. Now that I am teaching it I found a need for beginning students to be able to touch their scripted works. This definitely constrains the scripts to the fabrication side of things, but still, some very interesting things were achieved, and for the students, I think outputting a tactile object made a huge difference.
That being said, grasshopper is pretty exciting. It is quite early in development, but already the possibilities are very interesting. I think parametrics and generation are a mode of thinking, independent of the tools. I think Grasshopper is offering a nice way to build relationships between pieces of data that, while still a ways away from satisfying the most graphically oriented user, is a clear way to build parametrics into a project. I highly recommend a test drive.
never having used it, i will admit my ignorance, but that being said, why would i use grasshopper when i could use a program like digital project or catia which marries the parametric process with real world materials?
cause its simpler.., simple as that... why to use CATIA for a small house?, use CATIA hen doing an airport, a Guggenheim in Bilbao or finishing SAGRADA FAMILIA, i dont say dont use CATIA or Digital Project, but as any oher drawing tool, you have to also recognize which one is the adequate tool for each project.
thats the beauty of having so many options...
AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, Rhino, 3dStudio, Maya, Lightwave, CATIA, Vectorworks, MiniCAD, Photshop, illustrator, sketchup, Dig. Project, Top Solid, G.E., Solid Works, paracloud, ecotect, andon and on an on....
the ugly is to narrow ourselves into thinking one tool is the sole solution to everything
Robert McNeel and Associates has also launched Grasshopper, a highly innovative visual-programming system for generating parametric, dynamic geometry which runs in its popular Rhino modelling too. Grasshopper is free
RhinoScript & Grasshopper mmmm
where is that 3dh guy now?
Nice stuff
dude
Per is gonna kick your ass, grasshopper
So much fun.
Antisthenes -
I think the correct venacular is..where is that 3dh guy now BITCH?
RhinoScript Slap Down
BRING IT ON!
haha
ya Rhino is slapping everybody(corporation wise) down.
im sure PER was in the development team for GRASSHOPPER yeah sure....
anyways, leaving the triviality outisde this thread.... i would say i played the other day a lil' bit with grasshopper.... for those interested in rhino scripting etc. this is a biiiig leap forward... grasshopper just made hours of text script so much easier.... next time kids in architecture school would be generating shapes, structures and components in 2 weeks....
go on and try rhino + grasshopper!!!
Antisth yes, RHINO is kicking ass, and BIM?? f^*k BIM u can always outsource that part of the job!
but what does it mean?
it means you can make a wavy ass surface. big flippin' deal. go make some architecture, kids.
it means you can fabricate the complex(or not so) structural elements in any design from the model
this is beyond BIM, it's BOM² or something
"it means you can make a wavy ass surface. big flippin' deal. go make some architecture, kids."
jafidler, im sure you are talking about architecture in the US...go travel and see whats going on outside - people are actually integrating 'wavy ass' surfaces into architectures.
getting steel members cut like that would cost alot of money I'm sure.
sod, i've actually worked for one of the better offices in india, but point well taken, if you can turn that wavy ass surface into something more than a wavy ass surface, more power to you. perhaps apu's point is closer to what i was getting at, imposing imaginary steel sections onto a surface is still not architecture.
Thats disgusting how closely that resembles some jury presentations, you get 100000000000000 bonus points for the lens flare.
apurimac - it's not made out of steel - it's made out of chipboard with a giant laser cutter.
...which i'm sure will hold up very well when it rains...
sealed in water proof zero VOC paint?
actually grasshopper makes in a very time-efficient way the right dimension of complex-geometry elements which can go from simple louvers to structural elements, instead of an almost "handcrafted" way you can instead have a very accurate 3d model of your elements, cut and assembled with higher precision which will reflect into your costs in terms of material waste and time in execution, more than that, it gives the opportunity to anyone to play with 'parametrics', without having to know how to script in softwares of generative components like rhino, maya or any other you can think of, to say differently, to try different options in your design, what if one element is rotated 45 instead of 90 and how the other elements related to this will react... parametric has nothing to do with funky, wavy or bloby shapes, is just another method to do architecture, as respectable as those who still use pastel, watercolors and a compass and ruler to design curves in plan because "it brings movement to your designs"
"it means you can make a wavy ass surface. big flippin' deal. go make some architecture, kids."
SOUTHERN CROSS STATION, "a wavy ass surface" but if u ask me pretty serious piece of ARCHITECTURE
"...i've actually worked for one of the better offices in india, but point well taken, if you can turn that wavy ass surface into something more than a wavy ass surface, more power to you. ...imposing imaginary steel sections onto a surface is still not architecture..."
also i guess this is not serious Architecture done by a serious Architecture office....
the Alianz Arena is a building covered by 64,000 m2 (688890 ft2), of pneumatic EFTE membranes, with parametric software(parameters include the profile of the building, the area to cover, resistance of the material max length of the structural elements, etc) which calculated inside an architectural office in Basel all the exact measures of pneumatic panels and steel profiles which held them all together, sealing ventilation and air supply systems in a period of just 15 months. yeah thats not serious architecture...
also, no need to go out of the states to see what architecture can be.... is not of lack of travel, is more lack of knowledge of what is architecture after the Modernists
"...getting steel members cut like that would cost alot of money I'm sure..."
Seattle, Washington, PUBLIC LIBRARY, made by a crazy architectural firm maybe: 11,900 m2 (128090 ft2) of facade, 6,500 panels, 30,000 profiles, also made and calculated with software which is only good to be playing with your surfaces i guess....
ignorance, i guess, is not the key to freedom, so here it is my 2 cents to this thread
MAD, that's angriest post I've ever seen from you.
The steel members in the OP curve in three dimensions. The members in seattle are cut straight and dont bend at all.
The beautiful wavy roof you posted has thin tube members that only curve in two dimensions and are small enough to be bent with a pipe bender in a shop.
None of the stuff you posted involves in anyway cnc millied parts designed using generative component software.
I'm all for pushing designs to the limit and doing fancy stuff in rhino but I get really tired of people focusing so hard on that image they forget how to properly detail their awesome wavy shape and it stays just that, an image until a consultant (whose way smarter) comes and makes it work.
they all involve CNC milled parts, and generative component software, and im not the one saying that, u can go to my refference: Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design (Architectural Design).
yeah i might went a little bit over board with my answer, maybe it was a long day and i had no humor for bull and/or answers which didnt really knew about the topic...but u right i also sometimes just throw in stupid-joke answers to some treads...still im telling you im not telling you that i think this projects are done CNC milled just because i say so... i took the data out of the book cause i remembered it was in there...
and i tried to post examples i know the work was done actually at the architects office (i dunno for OMA, but i know for H&dM the whole drawing and detailing and all the pieces were done at the studio, and just transfered the data straight into the machines of the consultant), i think im also in your side of pushing limits, and sometimes consultants are not way smarter, just more experienced... i think is not architecture is not a matter of who is more smarter, but who can recognize opportunities, even if it is with a construction process using waste tires in tijuana (as TOROLAB) or "explosion modeling" of your metal facade system as ASYMPTOTE in the Netherlands...
i think i was just trying to make people see that the use of rhino, maya, GC, or whatever is not more than just tools which can make easier or not our job, without really mattering what "style" of architecture it is.
sometimes i wonder why no one complains when movie industry gets better resources for special FX, but everyone jumps when a new way of making architecture emerges... why dont we keep making black and white movies w/no sound then
and not specifically to you APURIMAC is just an open comment into this thread, and no aggression involved, just trying to make my point
peace my dear co-archinecters...
MAD, my point is not so much to slam parametric software in general, where i in fact see a lot of potential, but was really targeted specifically at the diagram posted above and perhaps to a lesser extent at the people that see this type of generative formalism as an end in itself. from what i see in the diagram above, there is a surface that in a few steps has generic steel sections imposed on it. somehow i doubt that any type of real loading was factored in, any sort of material properties were considered, or perhaps on a larger level, the reasons for creating a surface with that geometry in the first place, hence in my opinion, it is simply a wavy ass surface. the steps between the diagram above and the finished buildings i find much more interesting. these steps may involve grasshopper, they may not, but too often, particularly with students, there becomes a fixation on the form, or worse, the software itself, that does not allow them to actually create architecture. i'm not in the pencil and t-square crowd, i am only questioning if this use of digital technology enhances architecture or is merely a distraction, even on the starchitect projects you posted above, but perhaps that is a topic for a different thread.
MADianito word! you just schooled all the grasshopper hatters :D
that image is only one of hundreds i could have posted of stuff created with grasshopper get over it and get to the source and learn more
ignorance is pure weakness
"digital makes hard stuff easier."
I feel there are two relative threads when a tool is introduced into the practice of architecture. When I say tool I mean anything from a pencil, plumb, t-square, mayline, to CAD, Generative / Parametric Software...what have you...
On the one hand, yes, things get "easier." But maybe it is more a matter of time... new tools makes things faster. So this leads us into our own second thread. This one is about complexity. Sometimes in the same amount of time we can achieve something more "complex" in the broadest sense of the word. And this is not without its pitfalls. While it pushes the limits of already existing technologies, it also generates some limits that might not yet be attainable ... maybe even SHOULD not be attainable...but this all depends on the context of the project and output that is being tested.
I remember a lecture by Tom Barker where he mentioned that masters level academia is developing things that in 20 years might be possible. Of course, some schools are integrating immediate constructibility into their programs, which I applaud. But I also do not scoff at certain applications of new tools.
My workflow is mostly using scripting. Now that I am teaching it I found a need for beginning students to be able to touch their scripted works. This definitely constrains the scripts to the fabrication side of things, but still, some very interesting things were achieved, and for the students, I think outputting a tactile object made a huge difference.
That being said, grasshopper is pretty exciting. It is quite early in development, but already the possibilities are very interesting. I think parametrics and generation are a mode of thinking, independent of the tools. I think Grasshopper is offering a nice way to build relationships between pieces of data that, while still a ways away from satisfying the most graphically oriented user, is a clear way to build parametrics into a project. I highly recommend a test drive.
never having used it, i will admit my ignorance, but that being said, why would i use grasshopper when i could use a program like digital project or catia which marries the parametric process with real world materials?
because you are 'building relationships' and looking for alternatives to things that have too high of a barrier for the average architect.
cause its simpler.., simple as that... why to use CATIA for a small house?, use CATIA hen doing an airport, a Guggenheim in Bilbao or finishing SAGRADA FAMILIA, i dont say dont use CATIA or Digital Project, but as any oher drawing tool, you have to also recognize which one is the adequate tool for each project.
thats the beauty of having so many options...
AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, Rhino, 3dStudio, Maya, Lightwave, CATIA, Vectorworks, MiniCAD, Photshop, illustrator, sketchup, Dig. Project, Top Solid, G.E., Solid Works, paracloud, ecotect, andon and on an on....
the ugly is to narrow ourselves into thinking one tool is the sole solution to everything
please then, post some of that "better stuff" made with grasshopper..
paracloud is a rhino plugin
better according to who?
go to the page use it and get back to us, it's new , don't be afraid to take risk, you will be rewarded and fulfilled.
Architectural tools finding new home
Robert McNeel and Associates has also launched Grasshopper, a highly innovative visual-programming system for generating parametric, dynamic geometry which runs in its popular Rhino modelling too. Grasshopper is free
check out the videos...
http://grasshopper.rhino3d.com/
Antisthenes:
I started to play with Grasshopper, love it. how did you get your beams to lay/extrude perpendicular to the skin/surface
MADianito: I agree with you on all levels. thanks for preaching to truth!. what do you think is the main difference between grasshopper and DP/Catia?
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.