That realy looks like a fine concept -- sad in a way I was not able to spark enough responses, or the responses was to hostil -- or is it spelled hostyle, well realy I don't care but arogant and indeed dirty , and from those "responses" it was not easy to go from boatsbuilding ,to producing advances carpentry -- something I allway's hoped it would have continued with, while no one realy wanted to buy small beautifull wooden boats. Like this my last one ;
Bo one would belive, that that boat, was 100 pct. digital projected, the buildimg mold sliced from the 3D drawing and the planks unfolded from the 3d drawing -- but it was. And after 4 projects at the workshops for arts and crafts, where in the end I realised the need and use for a lattrice calculated from the 3D model, --- then who eould emagine the fiercefull response , publishing this fantastic new method would recruit.
But there are lots of people who simply hate to see others florish with their creativity, and even in this distant tread, traces of that poison restand.
Nice gadgeds -- sad only, that 3dh in fact can bring so much more when you understand how it work.
Tes -- how it work. Ant above you can check how architects realised 3dh, that was some winning project by an architect who untill then made something that couldn't be further away from the 3dh concept, -- but the foult here, is how 3dh is only realised as a sort of surface thing, in fact this structure is as primitive a 3dh can be. Emagine when it reach inverts into the structure, and destill floor and wall foundations ; when you realise that, then it is not difficult to realise, that one need only one material to biold a house -- and if you know that 3dh are frames cut from sheet materials, then you also know it is the perfect testbench, for develobing new efficient materials.
I see the connection in how he is approaching the two ideas.
1. breaking forms down into digestible linework.
2. creating efficiencies in realizing the results.
In the case of the paintings I first see his particular "perspective" as it has been influenced by his use of polyline 3dh work. Mass and void interpretations of imagery, but also reminiscienses of black and white photography and screenprinting and their street art re imaging tool, the stencil
stenciling as graffitti is about efficiency and mass production (they are often cut by cnc laser cutter as well) and a stylized functional approach to an art end product.
the link i posted is that same approach harnessed into furniture making utilising the efficiencies and flexibility of CNC.
3dh style constructions he's posted appear, to me, to have polyline/mass and void aesthetics, and at the same time being the embodiment of industrial production techniques (like untothislast) that I relate to stenciling and silkscreening... and to his approach to his particular style of Public Art.
I could be wrong but thats the best I can do without really spending time hammering it out... clear enough?
It become a facination very easy -- when you has it so, that surface is not enough, and seen floors and walls , grow as by magic, by magic simply as this way it's newer been done -- but not just that ; to be able to envision 3D , one has to have a clue about recurtion and when you has that, the limitations crumbled.
I like practic examples as above, but with my technical demands, I also know that the engines need their own engine bed -- that this must fit tight, that fuel tanks must be hollowed into the lattrice and it is possible, even the seat the floors just everything wikk be there in the lattricem and ubcover the exact engine bed fit, when the frames are assembled -- but I also know that in the same way you can generate an intire building structurem even mold the walls from given curves so oabekubg are just olacing the oabels --- Gee how entlightning one hundred orojects woukd have been, gee what reasing would kuck you off your feets, understanding these ussues by visual, -- and how sad things then turn out to work.
Maybe you think it shuld b easy to simply relace the rigid olf boat frames with something smarter and not so labor demanding -- but belive me, thousands tried -- Only with computer, the endless calculations could be made it ti work -- and it work suprisingly efficient. But calculations not possible by hust a olain P.C. and a simple 3D CAD program --- those magic don't stop there, and that is what mage me sad,when some fame hounting architectsm grad´sped my results, and won competitions, that othervise, would make the bread for my family, by my efford --- but that is not how scsdemics snd crediss work ; even you can prove to have been their first, and proven the step by step reaching this incradible simple system
My aproach was Positive -- I culd not emagine anyone robbing my bread from my mouth, and gas such a fierce crowd to protect the "bo, a borroving a borow so many fine gentlemen, forgot to give a recive.
Could I have started a small workshop with a huge N.C. router covering a standard sheet -- I know I culd, if it havn't been for those evil clowns.
"PS what kind of bread do you like? i like sprouted hemp bread"
What is that line an answer for ? Tell me, it's just an evil joke you find funny , right ?
About idears, -- the math. is not an idea. 3dh is, and it was published in papers just like goods of intelectural property must be, to be owned by the one who publish. But why is is that even you state ;generative modeling is all so powerful, not at all limited to this 3dh " , then you don't point to another replacement for 3dh, it shuld be easy to invent new building methods, esp. methods that take the 3d model and calculate it into real building parts, methods that point further and suggest a testbench for develobing new materials.
Has you even tried to look into some of those Yahoo groups, where I show 3dh solving various problems ?
"LEAVE PER--CORELL ALONE (s)HE's NOT WELL RIGHT NOW, LEAVE PER--CORELL ALONE !!!
Is this realy the only answer you can give after all the questions I made, you can't give an example of a building system that maneage what 3dh can, none of the words about sheet materials as the perfect testbench for develobing new materials make you reflect, -- is it becaurse 3dh realy are the only fact suggestion and you hate it is not you but me, who spended a decade develobing it ?
Antisthenes you havn't contribuated with nothing but the useal class bully dirtthrowing, and has not answered one single question, further up this tread I wrote this ;
"I asked so many times --- tell me a better way, show me a way to project in 3D with the computer all young people todsy can use, and point me in the direction of a different lattrice, that the same computer can generate and a simple N.C. cutter can maneage the manufactoring of .... before you start throwing mud again."
Antisthetis instead of drumming together to yet another harasment campain, wouldn't it be better if you answered that simple question ?
I asked so many times --- tell me a better way, show me a way to project in 3D with the computer all young people todsy can use, and point me in the direction of a different lattrice, that the same computer can generate and a simple N.C. cutter can maneage the manufactoring of ....
What is wrong btw. --- it was like you became very angry after I put in images of the boats I build and pointed to the Yahoo groups that would answer your question, why is you angry just becaurse I can paint nice paintings and build nice boats, program design tools to route the water streem -- but after I did that, you turned on your class bully agenda, why ; don't you like nice things or don't you like individuals that has those skills ?
Antisthenes just agrea to it, -- you hate the fact that Per Corell can paint, you hate that someone can figure out a new brilliant method that mean he must be an AutoCAD and Lisp guru to write the code. You just hate when some guy who can start with a bunch of planks and end up with the most beautifull small boat of his own design -- you hate guy's who as soon they find new land, can find niches they can develob further into beautifull designs and brilliant idears and methods -- you simply hate such guy's , right ; then why not agrea to it when it is so obvious in what you write.
But what is it that make you hate it and me so much, -- so much that you are willing to be uncovered in your hate ; when I ask for a better method I can do that again and again without you make one single suggestion, is that becaurse you can not make any better suggestion ?
human rights are universal, you don't think a corporation would have got a hold of your idea? you are thinking about a old model that is now broken me thinks.
Antisthemes the best thing that could happen , would be just that. Belive me I want new strong houses, that they stop using the computer just to re-write things as how they allway's was done, only faster but in the exact same way, -- where are "the new" in that.
But I can only do this much to promote a method that will be further develobed -- or maybe realising 3D in this way will spark develobment of far smoother methods -- all I do is count up the gains doing things in a different way, but please reconise that I don't just say "think if" I say "with this" , bside I only point to a fre of the possible positive side effects, such as how handy it is in a project, that you has a foundation to build upon -- like when develobing new materials, with this it is enough that it cover a sheet form as sheet materials can be made in many way's and from many materials. Also when I discuss the details about 3dh we often end up with the assembly slots -- there I use to point out how smart it will be, to replace the intire slot with a dampening fitting that will make a structure earthquake safe. -- I mean when we has computers, we can calculate the density of the damoing material from soft to harder, the further down the structure we are, the less weight is to be handled by each assembly slot aso.
So this attitude I got btw. by realising, how some people vaste their lifr for some patent rights -- instead of develobing further if it was such good an idea.
See this is, but allready I can critic so many architects, who either from the start misunderstood the lattrice -- like that clumpsy pavilion you know -- to architects who don't has a clue but see how cool it looks, and then they mistreat it as some kind of surface spetacular pattern, where it realy are here, to build the foundations for a number of both cheap and strong houses.
to be honest i struggle just to read what you write and i have no time to put forth the effort. if i did i would correct it and ask you if that is what you meant but i am busy and don't have that time.
IP and Copyrights would only hold up knowledge that all persons could otherwise benefit from. Have you thought about it best being put into the creative commons?
"Have you thought about it best being put into the creative commons? "
For me it is just a new way to put things together, it work smooth from 3D drawing to getting the thing acturly made, where what I hate about how so much are done, is how there are a "translation" between the drawings and before the parts can be manufactored and put together, then with this , tou just know that what you draw 3D can be made into a latrice with the exact measures and then covered with a surface, and that way be made into a box structure. This one is by choice drawn simple, but it would be no problem, to have engine beds, cargo room and volumes for fuel tanks -- but if I had drawn that, the program would stop ;
By publishing it like I has done, I can be sure that some day the method will start show it's potentials, I find painting more fun now, and just want architects and designers realise, that we can make a revolution in architecture. Realy I only ask a line of credits, that must be quite natural spending some 12-15 years , all depending how you count it, with it.
it is a simply engineered system of creating models through a computer where only one type of material is used for building many houses that are supposed to be stronger and more efficient to build and manufacture
3dh seems like something from 1994
i don't suppose a corporation would buy into this idea mainly because the houses would be ugly, don't you think?
Guess most houses will be ugly if you strip the paneling -- 1994 they was only talking about polymeshes, and that was a dead end . in fact develobment of 3dh was sparked by the problem that with a computer it was easy to generate surfaces such as polymeshes, but that was like saying a house shuld consist of a thin shell, 3dh then offered the foundations to panel .
Ugly ? well my experience is that you will newer be able to deliver something ,not just one out of a million think is ugly -- beside anyone who read what I say , know 3dh is perfect for dovering with panels, they can be unfolded strait from the 3d model, It is vorse with a few of the metal claddet houses you think is cutting efge and all that, as they has foundations that is fiddled on site. 3dh is genuine all way thru bur right, it is the basic structure that is the important issue, not the panels that cover it -- panels can cover so much, and a lot of the buildings you would think of, such as the museum in bilbaoo, would look very ugly without the clotches.
Blackhrp -- I simply can't nderstand you use the argument ugly ; what house is not ugly when halve finished and standing by it's framework ?
If you seen Disney new concert hall before iy was paneled, you would run screaming away, becaurse that displayed a mess of fiddled steel stringers, as were there no system, then if there are it cirtainly are not calculated by computer -- maybe there are fine renderings of it, but that is only the surface , the image you see. underneath those panels, there are layer after layer to be able to make a foundation, and it do not look good. -- I say if that building shuld be judged from how it looks withou the clotches, you would worry heavily about the state of architecture.
Also you say 1994 -- what design are you pointing at ; I display hundreds of examples in my Yahoo groups, but again and again I repeat, that 3dh form anything -- do that f-117 look's very 90's like, do these other designs looks very 90's like -- well then you misunderstood everything, as 3dh don't care what form it replace.
Finaly the most imporant thing Logistics ; you blackharp as an archiect, instantly must reconise, that 3dh is logistic heaven . Just every small piece are registrated, the sum of weight is calculated, what it will cost to have the frames cut , can be calculated exactly --- as an architect both you and Antithetis , like most of other architects I told about 3dh, shuld have instantly have apriciated a method that finaly write out the bill to the exact amount -- a method that will yield the weight of all foundations used and the area of the panels that can be cut exactly, from the same 3D model, that the framework structure is generated from, --- Today you can call the workshop and ask the cost pr. cut feet, and that way five a precice estimate -- offcaurse becaurse when projecting as I say is 100 oct. digital calculating the cost for materials and manufactoring the assembly is allmost easier than calculatinf the cost.
The best thing about all this is, that this 3dh method is not restricted to AutoCAD or any other particular program -- and understanding the simple trick of how to generate a structure from just planes, work with any average CAD program --- but best of all is that it worked to develob a concept, so a computerprogram can calculate the building structure ; what you gou's don't know, is the trouble and the mess in all architecture schools in the early 90', where poly meshes was the new God, and everything shuld be made as cones and sliced cylindre, and everyone forgot, that any building structure needed an internal structure. 3dh was made to perform an internal structure for anything you can model , but sadly I did not even I develobed it, get the chance to prove what it still today can perform . You see most who borrowed the concept, only understood it as a substitude for the polymeshes, not as the structure that could hold fragile polymeshes in the air.
Sorry the long text, but when people don't follow the links I must answer here, what could be seen in the images, the very different images I made, to experiment with what 3dh could conform.
"It is a simply engineered system of creating models through a computer where only one type of material is used for building many houses that are supposed to be stronger and more efficient to build and manufacture"
You are quite right -- also some of the best inventions are those, where you would think "it is so simple that even I could have figured that out"
But no one did back then -- everyone was busy with polymeshes, and did not realise that there is a difference on what fly around without gravity on the screen, need a structure, a strong foundation to be taken out into the real. -But like with boats, you can to a cirtain size do things the egg-shell way, make the shell do the forces, and it work to cirtain degree's but become more and more expensive while the foults become bigger and bigger. -- Still ehrn you look to any object of some size, it it the ribs that make it happen, those who studied this, also know that first a rib, then a stringer paralell to the panels attached the rib, make an even strongr and strong-flexible structure. And best of all, the Box structure, what is what 3dh generate in one go.
But back then no one cared about structure. and I fear today some of the same entrance is repeating itself --- what architecture missed in the meanwhile, was the structural beauty, the fact that a lattrice looks quite fancy with it's own patterns. But 3dh was not allowed, honest credits for a great idea was the vorse thing of all, and stararchitects was allowed to "borrow" without fine arts critics blew the whissle to tell it was stolen goods ; it was like an idea of if we down here allow our gods to rob the most innovative, we also would get a penny fighting our own rights for our own IP.
--- I mean anyone know I from the start happilt shared this great idea, just asking a line of credit, a fact that uncovered a few trolls , who would love to see someone harrased and robbed -- and best in public while the spectators to scared to protest.
"3dh seems like something from 1994"
Yes that fit near -- I tried to solve the problems I saw others at the acadamy had , with these lame poly meshes ; I was a boatsbuilder before, and knew exactly what was missing. I studied programming and architecture, and develobed in fact only what those people was asking. In fact they described very clearly, what would make it work, but they newer realised that tou can also be an architect, building a new building method, that a designer can also design design tools. And then they hated me for mastering the computer I guess.
"i don't suppose a corporation would buy into this idea mainly because the houses would be ugly, don't you think?"
Again that word "ugly" -- as the painters say, there are no ugly color. But if you want to build an ugly house 3dh will build the most uglly house you can emagine, but it will also build the most beautifull house you can emagine --- there 3dh work just like bricks do, and it don't unprove the brick, if I build an ugly house with bricks, do it ?
Thank you SDR --- but the basic question still remain ; how to go from virtural model on the screen to build works.
Sorry I know I am tiresom, but how far has design come realy. We still often need to "translate" that drawing before the building parts can be manufactored -- that mean we often don't profit from the real power of the computer, as if the drawisn could go directly to the mashin that cut or "make" the building part, then we could build so much more efficient.
-- Now there are a gab between the drawing and the manufactoring as I see it -- and that is the real potential for methods such as 3dh, as they allow you to use the standard computer and the standard 3D program and the result are each building frame -- beside offcaurse the unique idea with 3dh, to work from only two work planes to design 3D things.
Thank's for your patience !
Thank you Antisthenes --- but the basic question still remain ; why do we emagine so much as surface, how come we progressed so little from the startpoint , the polymesh structures , those also being pure surface.
Even above it looks like "just" a more advanced surface, it's the shell the surface being form , no structure it's as if structure is of no interest.
The two first structures in the pdf also are shell, surface fabric. Sorry to add I find it difficult to name it Geometry -- offcaurse I know it is, but it is shell, surface curved and calculated but still bound in the essence of polymesh structures.
So where are the advanteage --- it's like the old sailers rule, allway's one hand on the ship ,it's like we fear 3d don't work and the advanteage allway's restricted by the form growing from what is -- that nit to be thrown overboard we hold on to what we know, gee even our designs even how automated they progress, mirror our limitations.
I am sorry I has to say this, but I, myself, my person , all that is irevalent in this. And this is how it is in all my works, it's the design, the idea the thing, method, everything but "myself" that I talk about.
This shuld be obvious but I am sorry I has to enforce this ; please allway's keep "me" out of this. I love to talk about my works but they are not me ,offcaurse "I" am allway's very much into what I do but what I do is my way to erase "me". So please newer think that if I write something ,that I do so to point to myself or I try plaster my ego onto the issue -- If I put in an image of some beautifull boat I designed and build, then others maybe do so to brag their ego. But I don't , I maybe do it as an argument to say I know what I talk about.
Please Antisthenes ,I am allmost afrait to say that I understand the algorithms and know how recursive functions work, as you maybe misunderstand it --- but even there are a "script" to generate those forms, it still don't answer the question, how to make a direct link ,from projecting to production.
3dh gerative design w/ Grasshopper
for your consideration
http://www.untothislast.co.uk/
bleiver, what is that connection?
generative modeling is all so powerful, not at all limited to this 3dh pattern but it was a good example, the chaos that has followed was unexpected
That realy looks like a fine concept -- sad in a way I was not able to spark enough responses, or the responses was to hostil -- or is it spelled hostyle, well realy I don't care but arogant and indeed dirty , and from those "responses" it was not easy to go from boatsbuilding ,to producing advances carpentry -- something I allway's hoped it would have continued with, while no one realy wanted to buy small beautifull wooden boats. Like this my last one ;
Bo one would belive, that that boat, was 100 pct. digital projected, the buildimg mold sliced from the 3D drawing and the planks unfolded from the 3d drawing -- but it was. And after 4 projects at the workshops for arts and crafts, where in the end I realised the need and use for a lattrice calculated from the 3D model, --- then who eould emagine the fiercefull response , publishing this fantastic new method would recruit.
But there are lots of people who simply hate to see others florish with their creativity, and even in this distant tread, traces of that poison restand.
Nice gadgeds -- sad only, that 3dh in fact can bring so much more when you understand how it work.
how it works
Tes -- how it work. Ant above you can check how architects realised 3dh, that was some winning project by an architect who untill then made something that couldn't be further away from the 3dh concept, -- but the foult here, is how 3dh is only realised as a sort of surface thing, in fact this structure is as primitive a 3dh can be. Emagine when it reach inverts into the structure, and destill floor and wall foundations ; when you realise that, then it is not difficult to realise, that one need only one material to biold a house -- and if you know that 3dh are frames cut from sheet materials, then you also know it is the perfect testbench, for develobing new efficient materials.
Guess you guy's are prone to be con it that person can just spell right.
I see the connection in how he is approaching the two ideas.
1. breaking forms down into digestible linework.
2. creating efficiencies in realizing the results.
In the case of the paintings I first see his particular "perspective" as it has been influenced by his use of polyline 3dh work. Mass and void interpretations of imagery, but also reminiscienses of black and white photography and screenprinting and their street art re imaging tool, the stencil
stenciling as graffitti is about efficiency and mass production (they are often cut by cnc laser cutter as well) and a stylized functional approach to an art end product.
the link i posted is that same approach harnessed into furniture making utilising the efficiencies and flexibility of CNC.
3dh style constructions he's posted appear, to me, to have polyline/mass and void aesthetics, and at the same time being the embodiment of industrial production techniques (like untothislast) that I relate to stenciling and silkscreening... and to his approach to his particular style of Public Art.
I could be wrong but thats the best I can do without really spending time hammering it out... clear enough?
It become a facination very easy -- when you has it so, that surface is not enough, and seen floors and walls , grow as by magic, by magic simply as this way it's newer been done -- but not just that ; to be able to envision 3D , one has to have a clue about recurtion and when you has that, the limitations crumbled.
I like practic examples as above, but with my technical demands, I also know that the engines need their own engine bed -- that this must fit tight, that fuel tanks must be hollowed into the lattrice and it is possible, even the seat the floors just everything wikk be there in the lattricem and ubcover the exact engine bed fit, when the frames are assembled -- but I also know that in the same way you can generate an intire building structurem even mold the walls from given curves so oabekubg are just olacing the oabels --- Gee how entlightning one hundred orojects woukd have been, gee what reasing would kuck you off your feets, understanding these ussues by visual, -- and how sad things then turn out to work.
Maybe you think it shuld b easy to simply relace the rigid olf boat frames with something smarter and not so labor demanding -- but belive me, thousands tried -- Only with computer, the endless calculations could be made it ti work -- and it work suprisingly efficient. But calculations not possible by hust a olain P.C. and a simple 3D CAD program --- those magic don't stop there, and that is what mage me sad,when some fame hounting architectsm grad´sped my results, and won competitions, that othervise, would make the bread for my family, by my efford --- but that is not how scsdemics snd crediss work ; even you can prove to have been their first, and proven the step by step reaching this incradible simple system
My aproach was Positive -- I culd not emagine anyone robbing my bread from my mouth, and gas such a fierce crowd to protect the "bo, a borroving a borow so many fine gentlemen, forgot to give a recive.
Could I have started a small workshop with a huge N.C. router covering a standard sheet -- I know I culd, if it havn't been for those evil clowns.
it is just lazy to leave out the o i could or spiteful?
i don't think you really believe in a 'force of evil'
if you are done now we can get back on topic?
ideas can not be owned. see: the laws of mathematics
PS what kind of bread do you like? i like sprouted hemp bread
, , , , , , , --- -- , --
LEAVE PER--CORELL ALONE (s)HE's NOT WELL RIGHT NOW, LEAVE PER--CORELL ALONE !!!
"PS what kind of bread do you like? i like sprouted hemp bread"
What is that line an answer for ? Tell me, it's just an evil joke you find funny , right ?
About idears, -- the math. is not an idea. 3dh is, and it was published in papers just like goods of intelectural property must be, to be owned by the one who publish. But why is is that even you state ;generative modeling is all so powerful, not at all limited to this 3dh " , then you don't point to another replacement for 3dh, it shuld be easy to invent new building methods, esp. methods that take the 3d model and calculate it into real building parts, methods that point further and suggest a testbench for develobing new materials.
Has you even tried to look into some of those Yahoo groups, where I show 3dh solving various problems ?
"LEAVE PER--CORELL ALONE (s)HE's NOT WELL RIGHT NOW, LEAVE PER--CORELL ALONE !!!
Is this realy the only answer you can give after all the questions I made, you can't give an example of a building system that maneage what 3dh can, none of the words about sheet materials as the perfect testbench for develobing new materials make you reflect, -- is it becaurse 3dh realy are the only fact suggestion and you hate it is not you but me, who spended a decade develobing it ?
Antisthenes you havn't contribuated with nothing but the useal class bully dirtthrowing, and has not answered one single question, further up this tread I wrote this ;
"I asked so many times --- tell me a better way, show me a way to project in 3D with the computer all young people todsy can use, and point me in the direction of a different lattrice, that the same computer can generate and a simple N.C. cutter can maneage the manufactoring of .... before you start throwing mud again."
Antisthetis instead of drumming together to yet another harasment campain, wouldn't it be better if you answered that simple question ?
I asked so many times --- tell me a better way, show me a way to project in 3D with the computer all young people todsy can use, and point me in the direction of a different lattrice, that the same computer can generate and a simple N.C. cutter can maneage the manufactoring of ....
What is wrong btw. --- it was like you became very angry after I put in images of the boats I build and pointed to the Yahoo groups that would answer your question, why is you angry just becaurse I can paint nice paintings and build nice boats, program design tools to route the water streem -- but after I did that, you turned on your class bully agenda, why ; don't you like nice things or don't you like individuals that has those skills ?
Antisthenes just agrea to it, -- you hate the fact that Per Corell can paint, you hate that someone can figure out a new brilliant method that mean he must be an AutoCAD and Lisp guru to write the code. You just hate when some guy who can start with a bunch of planks and end up with the most beautifull small boat of his own design -- you hate guy's who as soon they find new land, can find niches they can develob further into beautifull designs and brilliant idears and methods -- you simply hate such guy's , right ; then why not agrea to it when it is so obvious in what you write.
But what is it that make you hate it and me so much, -- so much that you are willing to be uncovered in your hate ; when I ask for a better method I can do that again and again without you make one single suggestion, is that becaurse you can not make any better suggestion ?
hard to answer a question when you don't make any effort on your part to make it easy or even worth reading what you write.
serious man IP is a human rights violation think about it.
Please don't say you care about other people's rights .
human rights are universal, you don't think a corporation would have got a hold of your idea? you are thinking about a old model that is now broken me thinks.
que clavados mano..... its just rock and roll
Antisthemes the best thing that could happen , would be just that. Belive me I want new strong houses, that they stop using the computer just to re-write things as how they allway's was done, only faster but in the exact same way, -- where are "the new" in that.
But I can only do this much to promote a method that will be further develobed -- or maybe realising 3D in this way will spark develobment of far smoother methods -- all I do is count up the gains doing things in a different way, but please reconise that I don't just say "think if" I say "with this" , bside I only point to a fre of the possible positive side effects, such as how handy it is in a project, that you has a foundation to build upon -- like when develobing new materials, with this it is enough that it cover a sheet form as sheet materials can be made in many way's and from many materials. Also when I discuss the details about 3dh we often end up with the assembly slots -- there I use to point out how smart it will be, to replace the intire slot with a dampening fitting that will make a structure earthquake safe. -- I mean when we has computers, we can calculate the density of the damoing material from soft to harder, the further down the structure we are, the less weight is to be handled by each assembly slot aso.
So this attitude I got btw. by realising, how some people vaste their lifr for some patent rights -- instead of develobing further if it was such good an idea.
See this is, but allready I can critic so many architects, who either from the start misunderstood the lattrice -- like that clumpsy pavilion you know -- to architects who don't has a clue but see how cool it looks, and then they mistreat it as some kind of surface spetacular pattern, where it realy are here, to build the foundations for a number of both cheap and strong houses.
to be honest i struggle just to read what you write and i have no time to put forth the effort. if i did i would correct it and ask you if that is what you meant but i am busy and don't have that time.
maybe i can better type in your native language?
IP and Copyrights would only hold up knowledge that all persons could otherwise benefit from. Have you thought about it best being put into the creative commons?
i have been reading this 3dh conversation for soooooo long, in maaaaaaaaaaany threads
can someone tel me wat it does, in 1 sentence?
and, why did we turn from grasshopper (amazing) to 3dh?
i have been reading this 3dh conversation for soooooo long, in maaaaaaaaaaany threads
can someone tel me wat it does, in 1 sentence?
and, why did we turn from grasshopper (amazing) to 3dh?
"Have you thought about it best being put into the creative commons? "
For me it is just a new way to put things together, it work smooth from 3D drawing to getting the thing acturly made, where what I hate about how so much are done, is how there are a "translation" between the drawings and before the parts can be manufactored and put together, then with this , tou just know that what you draw 3D can be made into a latrice with the exact measures and then covered with a surface, and that way be made into a box structure. This one is by choice drawn simple, but it would be no problem, to have engine beds, cargo room and volumes for fuel tanks -- but if I had drawn that, the program would stop ;
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/350/f117fsk9.jpg
By publishing it like I has done, I can be sure that some day the method will start show it's potentials, I find painting more fun now, and just want architects and designers realise, that we can make a revolution in architecture. Realy I only ask a line of credits, that must be quite natural spending some 12-15 years , all depending how you count it, with it.
it is a simply engineered system of creating models through a computer where only one type of material is used for building many houses that are supposed to be stronger and more efficient to build and manufacture
3dh seems like something from 1994
i don't suppose a corporation would buy into this idea mainly because the houses would be ugly, don't you think?
Guess most houses will be ugly if you strip the paneling -- 1994 they was only talking about polymeshes, and that was a dead end . in fact develobment of 3dh was sparked by the problem that with a computer it was easy to generate surfaces such as polymeshes, but that was like saying a house shuld consist of a thin shell, 3dh then offered the foundations to panel .
Ugly ? well my experience is that you will newer be able to deliver something ,not just one out of a million think is ugly -- beside anyone who read what I say , know 3dh is perfect for dovering with panels, they can be unfolded strait from the 3d model, It is vorse with a few of the metal claddet houses you think is cutting efge and all that, as they has foundations that is fiddled on site. 3dh is genuine all way thru bur right, it is the basic structure that is the important issue, not the panels that cover it -- panels can cover so much, and a lot of the buildings you would think of, such as the museum in bilbaoo, would look very ugly without the clotches.
Blackhrp -- I simply can't nderstand you use the argument ugly ; what house is not ugly when halve finished and standing by it's framework ?
If you seen Disney new concert hall before iy was paneled, you would run screaming away, becaurse that displayed a mess of fiddled steel stringers, as were there no system, then if there are it cirtainly are not calculated by computer -- maybe there are fine renderings of it, but that is only the surface , the image you see. underneath those panels, there are layer after layer to be able to make a foundation, and it do not look good. -- I say if that building shuld be judged from how it looks withou the clotches, you would worry heavily about the state of architecture.
Also you say 1994 -- what design are you pointing at ; I display hundreds of examples in my Yahoo groups, but again and again I repeat, that 3dh form anything -- do that f-117 look's very 90's like, do these other designs looks very 90's like -- well then you misunderstood everything, as 3dh don't care what form it replace.
Finaly the most imporant thing Logistics ; you blackharp as an archiect, instantly must reconise, that 3dh is logistic heaven . Just every small piece are registrated, the sum of weight is calculated, what it will cost to have the frames cut , can be calculated exactly --- as an architect both you and Antithetis , like most of other architects I told about 3dh, shuld have instantly have apriciated a method that finaly write out the bill to the exact amount -- a method that will yield the weight of all foundations used and the area of the panels that can be cut exactly, from the same 3D model, that the framework structure is generated from, --- Today you can call the workshop and ask the cost pr. cut feet, and that way five a precice estimate -- offcaurse becaurse when projecting as I say is 100 oct. digital calculating the cost for materials and manufactoring the assembly is allmost easier than calculatinf the cost.
The best thing about all this is, that this 3dh method is not restricted to AutoCAD or any other particular program -- and understanding the simple trick of how to generate a structure from just planes, work with any average CAD program --- but best of all is that it worked to develob a concept, so a computerprogram can calculate the building structure ; what you gou's don't know, is the trouble and the mess in all architecture schools in the early 90', where poly meshes was the new God, and everything shuld be made as cones and sliced cylindre, and everyone forgot, that any building structure needed an internal structure. 3dh was made to perform an internal structure for anything you can model , but sadly I did not even I develobed it, get the chance to prove what it still today can perform . You see most who borrowed the concept, only understood it as a substitude for the polymeshes, not as the structure that could hold fragile polymeshes in the air.
Sorry the long text, but when people don't follow the links I must answer here, what could be seen in the images, the very different images I made, to experiment with what 3dh could conform.
"It is a simply engineered system of creating models through a computer where only one type of material is used for building many houses that are supposed to be stronger and more efficient to build and manufacture"
You are quite right -- also some of the best inventions are those, where you would think "it is so simple that even I could have figured that out"
But no one did back then -- everyone was busy with polymeshes, and did not realise that there is a difference on what fly around without gravity on the screen, need a structure, a strong foundation to be taken out into the real. -But like with boats, you can to a cirtain size do things the egg-shell way, make the shell do the forces, and it work to cirtain degree's but become more and more expensive while the foults become bigger and bigger. -- Still ehrn you look to any object of some size, it it the ribs that make it happen, those who studied this, also know that first a rib, then a stringer paralell to the panels attached the rib, make an even strongr and strong-flexible structure. And best of all, the Box structure, what is what 3dh generate in one go.
But back then no one cared about structure. and I fear today some of the same entrance is repeating itself --- what architecture missed in the meanwhile, was the structural beauty, the fact that a lattrice looks quite fancy with it's own patterns. But 3dh was not allowed, honest credits for a great idea was the vorse thing of all, and stararchitects was allowed to "borrow" without fine arts critics blew the whissle to tell it was stolen goods ; it was like an idea of if we down here allow our gods to rob the most innovative, we also would get a penny fighting our own rights for our own IP.
--- I mean anyone know I from the start happilt shared this great idea, just asking a line of credit, a fact that uncovered a few trolls , who would love to see someone harrased and robbed -- and best in public while the spectators to scared to protest.
"3dh seems like something from 1994"
Yes that fit near -- I tried to solve the problems I saw others at the acadamy had , with these lame poly meshes ; I was a boatsbuilder before, and knew exactly what was missing. I studied programming and architecture, and develobed in fact only what those people was asking. In fact they described very clearly, what would make it work, but they newer realised that tou can also be an architect, building a new building method, that a designer can also design design tools. And then they hated me for mastering the computer I guess.
"i don't suppose a corporation would buy into this idea mainly because the houses would be ugly, don't you think?"
Again that word "ugly" -- as the painters say, there are no ugly color. But if you want to build an ugly house 3dh will build the most uglly house you can emagine, but it will also build the most beautifull house you can emagine --- there 3dh work just like bricks do, and it don't unprove the brick, if I build an ugly house with bricks, do it ?
Thank you SDR --- but the basic question still remain ; how to go from virtural model on the screen to build works.
Sorry I know I am tiresom, but how far has design come realy. We still often need to "translate" that drawing before the building parts can be manufactored -- that mean we often don't profit from the real power of the computer, as if the drawisn could go directly to the mashin that cut or "make" the building part, then we could build so much more efficient.
-- Now there are a gab between the drawing and the manufactoring as I see it -- and that is the real potential for methods such as 3dh, as they allow you to use the standard computer and the standard 3D program and the result are each building frame -- beside offcaurse the unique idea with 3dh, to work from only two work planes to design 3D things.
Thank's for your patience !
from aag08proceedings-papers_and_poster_abstracts.pdf
The proceedings for the Advances in Architectural Geometry conference are now available. link
Thank you Antisthenes --- but the basic question still remain ; why do we emagine so much as surface, how come we progressed so little from the startpoint , the polymesh structures , those also being pure surface.
Even above it looks like "just" a more advanced surface, it's the shell the surface being form , no structure it's as if structure is of no interest.
The two first structures in the pdf also are shell, surface fabric. Sorry to add I find it difficult to name it Geometry -- offcaurse I know it is, but it is shell, surface curved and calculated but still bound in the essence of polymesh structures.
So where are the advanteage --- it's like the old sailers rule, allway's one hand on the ship ,it's like we fear 3d don't work and the advanteage allway's restricted by the form growing from what is -- that nit to be thrown overboard we hold on to what we know, gee even our designs even how automated they progress, mirror our limitations.
what you write makes little to no sense to me.
you have a question, well the answers are there if you look read the whole abstract from the proceedings, if you want.
can you be ok about being agnostic and apply yourself?
I am sorry I has to say this, but I, myself, my person , all that is irevalent in this. And this is how it is in all my works, it's the design, the idea the thing, method, everything but "myself" that I talk about.
This shuld be obvious but I am sorry I has to enforce this ; please allway's keep "me" out of this. I love to talk about my works but they are not me ,offcaurse "I" am allway's very much into what I do but what I do is my way to erase "me". So please newer think that if I write something ,that I do so to point to myself or I try plaster my ego onto the issue -- If I put in an image of some beautifull boat I designed and build, then others maybe do so to brag their ego. But I don't , I maybe do it as an argument to say I know what I talk about.
Please Antisthenes ,I am allmost afrait to say that I understand the algorithms and know how recursive functions work, as you maybe misunderstand it --- but even there are a "script" to generate those forms, it still don't answer the question, how to make a direct link ,from projecting to production.
details
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.