Realy 3D-HoneyComb cheat your mind, guess you wouldn't think a section in an XXXX structure will look like this, now what do you think about strength when it acturly don't perform as you thought
Check the link to se one frame moved out
( true it _is_ to tight -- don't need that many frames)
i don't talk about my work because i am not a shameless self promoter, seeking to beat everyone about the head trying to prove something seemingly important to no but yourself. have some dignity, move on.
In Reply to: HONEYCOMB STRUCTURES posted by Buzy Bee on November 07, 2002 at 08:07:14:
Honeycomb structures is what me and Perl are all about! I have been defending this idea for a long time, together with Perl. All others on this site seem to be somewhat umbiguous or indiferent with regards to its possibilities!
I will let Perl answer your questions.
Mr. Nelson
Architect
It is obvious that when say 100 different people have a look at this actural new way to make the computer outline a framework ,without you having to bother assembling any of the tradisional things you use for any of the structures it replace, some don\t even follow the links ,some se the idear right away, some get offended that now the discussion in an architect group is pictures not words, --- but realy most response are positive, many comment and say they find it exiting ,but for some reson the same lot of jokers ,seem to be that bored with themself and acturly don\t know anything about either architecture or crafts ----- some se only what they want to se so they don't look at the graphics or pretend they do and ask as they did not, but what I find is that more and more understand my claims when I say, that this 3D-HoneyComb replace 20 different beams and profiles, expensive special fittings with one plain material that acturly fit, with today's expertations about computerised manufactoring.
Also it's been a few years and my arguments became better ,where sorry to say it seem a few made it their goal fighting what they can't understand.
Now this is the web, and every now and then some of the jokers tell how little they know ,and hopefully you who read this, also "read" the tone , se in these discussions how my competitors fear no mean except being positive and opening their mind, --- it is somtimes quite sick but also sometimes quite nice to recive response.
But just go a few mails back ; "Brim" said "rock on Per", so I thought I would publish a very interesting old tradisional gadged that _anyone_ with just a bit interest in enginering would find interesting, esp. as it can be cut with a water or laser cutter and realy is an exiting detail with use today --- unless knowleage simply are lost and no one can ansver what is missing, the vedge that by forcing the pieces apart, acturly tigh them together.
Now did "Betadinusaur" ansver anything about this even being in the discussion ,no. Not even second time where he told he have no humor.
Bad Betadinusaur is only looking for words to twist instead of commenting the 3 different graphics I placed since, ----- there shuld be enough just in the Funkis building, but instead Betadinusaur start talking about dignity ; now my dear artists yet another restriction are forced from "above" from bored Usenet ; now we must show no humor and must show "dignity" ----- Realy what a lame argument, please look around the architectural or arts world and point to some "dignity".
Now to ansver your question I think Mr.Nelson is a supporter.
oh.. and I see that we are all still nothing more than Romans... gee, and I never been to Rome! ...lol .. man, Per, its been a long time since this 3d honeycombe madness started and your graphics are still horrendous.. and your english is even worse than before..
um.., well, mine is not much better either...:-)
Well it have been going on for way many more years, you se yot no one made another method that by a press of a button generate a material that fill out a structure with an assembly framework that can acturly be produced strait from CAD drawing . Only other alternative is to rewrite old fasion methods into fast computer code, use a number of strait profiles and expensive special fittings, as you know a 3D/H fit exactly under any computer mesh and make CAD into somthing that is not first transfered into paper or need to be handled by skilled craftmen who then fiddle the forms into somthing that can acturly be assembled, what is in the 3D drawing of a 3D-H is an exact 3D drawing of the actural assembly, now a primitive computer mesh offering only a Dome with no thought of the structure to hold it in the air, is somthing quite different, but if you want such one, nothing is better than a reliable framework, to hold it in the air.
Per, these red drawings are a lot better, I think they convey your idea a lot better than the previous ones. The monochromie emphasyze on the structural aspect on the projects, and it doesn't look as simple as before. You shoul keep on showing stuff like that, and explain how better it is now in your point of view. I particularly like the last one (and I'm serious now...)
you know what? maybe your ideas are interesting -i've got no idea and, frankly, i'm not that interested in revolutionary softwares... i'm just an architecture student-... since the old days when I started to read your messages on that Yahoo group you have been really enthusiastic -as someone said- with your 3d-H... but you've a got a communication problem..
a) you never listen, in Archinect or any other forum, you just keep posting the same links since -at least- January 2003.. I bet the 'fancy graphic' industry has debeloped some new products since then.. maybe you should improve your own softwares too... a year and a half is enough time..
b) i know you're not english or american -neither am I- but if you're trying to sell something to an english speaking crowd, the least you could do -and, again, a year and a half is enough time too- is to take some english classes... that would help you a lot, me thinks...
anyway.. have fun.. the net -Archinect and elsewhere- is yours... :p
Anyway it been a few hundreds 3D drawings more, so maby you shuld check how sheet material make a better alternative in many other applications like these, where it have not been about rewriting the old methods but develobing new ;
Medit, you seem to have got the point, -----I just want to add that I develobed the 3D-H concept for much longer than that ,and please remember that even you think some of the drawings are lame they acturly point to a new method that go strait from CAD drawing to laser or water cutter and as I am not an architect I can only deliver the idea ,a new form language, and the first true Direct Link building method. -------- Such one don't spell in words it change the world.
Even somthings in the world never change, architecture still hold on to the last straw asking the skilled craftman make the 2D sketch into reality. Now please remember that fact when yoy read ansvers that do not deal with the method , not one single ansver I ever had, acturly refered the method in today's architect applications and how there are a world of difference in pressing a button and having a cheap framework generated, not one single ansver dealed with the fact, that where this method been underway for just 8 years ,then the tradisional methods been refined by thousands for decades.
So look at what it contain, look at the promises and new options, emagine the savings, --- but ofcaurse it is a thread, every real new visionary method is that ; you know they also said ships out of iron could not float and things heavier than air could not fly.
Frensh -------- Please understand my problem ; I am a designer not an architect.
I know you read this before, but I just develob the method ,still the responses deal with the designs, ----- again and again I put forth that this is about changing the view about looking in another direction, the one the computer provide with cheap new manufactoring methods.
I rather have real skilled artists to realise what fantastic options these are, as I know my own limitations. This is just a tool but cirtanly a tool that is different than just rewriting the old methods, this and not the actural drawings are my messeage.
funny that you quote Mc Luhan...
You know then, that your attitude, drawings and discourse are all tied together to form the only existing and real instance, or actualisation of your idea, thus BEING your idea on this world at least, which is the only one that I'm concerned about. You can't keep on saying that you don't know how to draw because you are a designer, it's paradoxical. Especially if you've read Mc Luhan, even if it's just that sentence. You don't have to believe that "the medium is the massage" but you have to acknowledge the fact that our only experience of the message is what you let us know of it...
Acturly I spended 3 years at the architect acadamy , I was looking for a book and was directed to the computer workshop, when I asked for the manual I was told that if I could find it myself ,could start a computer and leave the teachers alone, I could do as I pleased --- It was 3 month before they found out I was not even registrated as student but at that time it was to late as I got the lot working and knew how to maneage, after that I joined some students and acturly had some succes in contests ------ if I say arts and crafts you proberly better understand my attitude, but when somone look at the boats I build and I say that for me they are nothing but a bunch of planks it is very difficult to explain that even you se a wonderfull designed boat, then when the one who build it made the finish, then it's on to next project, ------ I been around designers for some years to, acturly some of the real top ones ,but none of them knew anything about computers, acturly I known so many architects and designers who are afrait of computers, that I think there are a job to do, changing the attitude of architects and designers.
You se even today here in this contry, they still talk about things that happened 60 years ago, as if we gave in then and made it all into social skills and copying what was created then instead of spending the creativity on today's tools ; I master those tools of yestoday had my own workshop with heavy mashines, and I made a lot of furniture and boats --- but Im'e not finished yet, I belive in creativity and visions.
With the honeycomb concept, is it possible to eliminate interior columns over 4to7 33'-0" bays, putting all structure (minus what may be used at stair towers) at the exterior?
asuming per has a software that can create these questionably visual graphics masterpieces, has anyone considered how exact these would be fabricated? are they TJI's? are they glu-lams? i mean they can't really be fabricated any other way, unless of course you go to metal, but he almost always renders them in a wood. the entire process seems so rudimentary, the graphics are bad, the software he has neither given a name or provided a way to purchase it - although he continues to call it a tool for anyones use - the system seems simplistic, not simple, simplistic, it takes no other material, building system or human scale into account. how does this system work with masonry construction? how are doors, windows, mechanical systems integrated? i have seen similar ideas as have others, and all of those examples show other materials, Per's system exists in vaccum. no more riddles, answer the question[s].
oh and yes i am a Roman, and a Dutchman, and American...for whatever that's worth...
A description realy shuld be enough ; you are used to the CAD model as Solid entities just boxes and backgrounds ,textures and lights ,but most models in a rendering carry no interiours no floors nothing, but the outher surfaces.
Opposite this the basic for a 3D-H framework ask you to make the building hollow, union the floors do as much as possible of the interiours as, when "pressing the button" what will be generated, is where sections cross the Unioned and subtracted Solids.
This also mean, --- if you check those few structures where window openings are placed or rather subtracted, that standard window frames will fit exactly into the holes left in the framework where a Solid block the same dimentions of the window frame are subtracted the original Solid model.
The same go with door frames, stairway's that is left as an accurate foundation if you before generating the framework, already subtracted a stairs model.
Materials are ---- cast concrete, plywood sheets, steel sheets as all depending on the scale of the framework there must be a multible of way's fabricating the "sheet material", ---- you can even fill the cubes with concrete using the framework as mold and as all cubes have same measures two sides and even 90 deg inbetween, you can fill out the cubes with ready made "bricks" , but as the framework is generated exact inside a Solid, -- then use standard geometrics where you know the unfolded surfaces or paneling, please think about this, as you are not bound in various organic forms but can make the exact foundations, with a lot of detail from also standard cubes boxes and vedges now you know what can hold them in the air.
Scale is the desicion of the designer, taking into account the strength of the material and attitude of the structure, ------- how can I restrict that ?
Btw. you can even automaticly replace all assembly notches --- places where two frames intersect, and replace the material there, with a universal cross join, you already do so using rigid strait steel profiles, with 3D-H you can cut out an exact huge lump and even have the holes to hold the cross fitting marked and even cut with the laser or water, or pounching mashin.
What's good about it, is that it promise a house that is not the most lame plybox and the cheapest craftmanship, as this is so much different and only the quality of the materials -- the skills of the designer, make the limits.
Betadinusaur what is the real advanteage is how different this method work, ------ how you don't sketch a building with how "things alway's been made" in your mind, but you also compleatly change your choice of materials, no more profiles, special fittings brick walls, and then it is not the tradisional crafts just written into computer code, but a compleatly new aproach that will unfold so many side effects so many new options, ------- then develobing some of the new gadgeds to bring a building the shape of a lion at the cost of a garage ; isn't that where the new jobs and the promising new architecture shuld show in a new form language ?
Gustav ;"With the honeycomb concept, is it possible to eliminate interior columns over 4to7 33'-0" bays, putting all structure (minus what may be used at stair towers) at the exterior?"
Yes you don't "think" the structure as we are used to, ------ but even the stairs will show ,not the actural step but the frames that will support the stairs. Having a wall and a roof beam with how this othervise been made change compleatly when the frame run up the wall and with no knee continue up being the foundation for the roof panels, also when going into detail you se how what was before hundreds of different building compoments is now just frames, how what was before multible materials to form a structure ,what is needed to hold that structure together and make it work together with compleatly different other building compoments --- that's where you suddenly realise how different it is when you don't split up a roof beam in multible compoments each solving their enginering porpous but replace it all with one type of material.
Please if I went into detail I would soon be lost in detail but there are no magic new gadgeds in making a halve notch ,and if you would think such one would be difficult when acturly assembling the framework, then replace it ,make a standard AutoCAD block with the holes for a corner bracked --- they all be alike all over the structure, unless you projected it to be different.
"This also mean, --- if you check those few structures where window openings are placed or rather subtracted, that standard window frames will fit exactly into the holes left in the framework where a Solid block the same dimentions of the window frame are subtracted the original Solid model."
So, the structure is exposed on the outside, tracing the outer surface and the windows are placed somewhere in the center of the wall, forming a flat surface. What about the cold bridges? How do you deal with the expansion of the steel structure when it is so exposed to climate changes, compared to the window frames?
"The same go with door frames, stairway's that is left as an accurate foundation if you before generating the framework, already subtracted a stairs model."
Ok, since the doorframes are aligned to the grid, I guess they have to be rotated 45 degrees as well?
"you can fill out the cubes with ready made "bricks" , but as the framework is generated exact inside a Solid, -- then use standard geometrics where you know the unfolded surfaces or paneling"
Ah, tesselation, but then with an ingenious universal detail joining the skin and the structure? Or do I smell some "bending and fiddling"?
"different building compoments is now just frames"
No, the different structural elements are now just frames, there's more in a building than only the structure. How do you transport your 100 m long steel beams to the site? Are they assembled on site?
Most water cutter workplane don\t expand more than 5 by 8 meters, ------- except in shipyards where quite bigger sheets are cut exact to fit , but what about a steel ship ---- don't you think the frames and sheets there will cause some trouble ? Realy you have all the choice you want, long steel frames you se all over the place, why is it a huge steel tanker don't fall apart, there are often more frames in such one than any of the small transvers pieces in a 3D-H .
No there are no fiddeling doing an exact mold in 3D-H ,the resulting structure will fit exactly with the projected measures ,but what about 3D meshes and strings don't you think much more "talk against" that concept, well ask in an architect school or look at the various projects cut in paper from 10 years ago and you know that much more fiddeling is needed there. Realy to project a building where you know that all you have on the screen is just a zero thickness computer mesh and no structure or any garentie that these strings can be held in the air, that I find quite a lot more "experimenting" than providing the actural impac of the framework that will support such zero thickness shell ------ even then they fiddeled them in 4 layers, made 500 tonn walls just to hold tiny sheets in the air, what a vaste when you think about, that after that, they had to build yet another house inside, to offer the walls ,floors and spaces.
Is that tiny shell realy so important, is only what meet your eyes what count what's the difference in a super tanker in steel and a steel 3D-H structure.
I don't know anything about hull construction, I'm not a shipbuilder. Maybe you can explain to us how you prevent these problems, because it is a problem in architecture. I'm not interested in how other projects have failed, only why 3D-H doesn't. In the meantime consider this structure:
My concern is the structure and the material ,problem is that unless you develob in new directions you will not se the different results underway, sheet material is very interesting as with just one simple mashin, you can shape and replace much of what othervise ask a very complicated manufactoring , ----- but please don't think I mean that all building mass shuld be replaced with intergrated framework, solutions in one field could show quite good results in others and the reson I think intergrated frames would work well in small housing shuld be obvious ,but true it also mean that you accept the concept and emagine a few of the basic problems been solved ; there are maby four or five solutions coing the assembly notches and only time can tell some of the problems with some of these ,and maby it is simply better to replace the simple notch with a standard fitting, these things need to be develobed and tested.
About contests, ---- the best option would be a small group of designers making a suggestion.
Now if somone find it an idea to have a nice design that oposed paper is digital projected better than anything while it instantly bring the actural simple building frame, if what you want is not the most complicated but the simplest digital manufactoring mashines and can make you an original chair or an original cottage at a third the cost four times stronger, if you are not lazy and scturly don\t want a nice cheap house, or think others shuld profit, then you don\t want the future, ---- that part of it, as even knowing the very best new method that bring you a house the shape of a lion while damn't develobing those new jobs ; where do you think you shuld find progress if you don't even dare invest -------- listen in theori it would cost a third but maby the production is not there, but some are and what architecture need, is a new form language .
This is what architecture is about for me if the actural avaible tools are avaible or not, if architecture applications produce paper or actural building compoments, if it do is it clever or stupid.
3D-HoneyComb is not stupid, as it just avait rules and develobment, this will make the gates before hell, but it also will build the wonders of heaven.
Ok I say sorry ; "sorry it is Digital"
You only been hijacked if you invest in the right thing, then my best gurentie is, that what I project solve all problems in other aproaches, the concept of forming the structure as Solids shaped as the actural walls and make the thousands of points frames or sheets intergrate what make it strong even simpler than how you bang plywood box walls ,onto lame framework in timbers so low qiality, that I could find a place to use it as paper, there alway\s be a use for paper you se.
So it will come as I already been told that gy garentie you will se it everywhere in various applications added many side effect gadgeds, making the simplest manufactiored honeycomb structure an promising alternative as then you only need plain sheet materials.
STATELY, PLUMP BUCK MULLIGAN CAME FROM THE STAIRHEAD, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressing gown, ungirdled, was sustained gently-behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:
-- Introibo ad altare Dei.
Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called up coarsely:
-- Come up, Kinch. Come up, you fearful jesuit.
Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding country and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.
Buck Mulligan peeped an instant under the mirror and then covered the bowl smartly.
-- Back to barracks, he said sternly.
He added in a preacher's tone:
-- For this, O dearly beloved, is the genuine Christine: body and soul and blood and ouns. Slow music, please. Shut your eyes, gents. One moment. A little trouble about those white corpuscles. Silence, all.
He peered sideways up and gave a long low whistle of call, then paused awhile in rapt attention, his even white teeth glistening here and there with gold points. Chrysostomos. Two strong shrill whistles answered through the calm.
-- Thanks, old chap, he cried briskly. That will do nicely. Switch off the current, will you?
He skipped off the gunrest and looked gravely at his watcher, gathering about his legs the loose folds of his gown. The plump shadowed face and sullen oval jowl recalled a prelate, patron of arts in the middle ages. A pleasant smile broke quietly over his lips.
-- The mockery of it, he said gaily. Your absurd name, an ancient Greek.
He pointed his finger in friendly jest and went over to the parapet, laughing to himself. Stephen Dedalus stepped up, followed him wearily half way and sat down on the edge of the gunrest, watching him still as he propped his mirror on the parapet, dipped the brush in the bowl and lathered cheeks and neck.
Buck Mulligan's gay voice went on.
-- My name is absurd too: Malachi Mulligan, two dactyls. But it has a Hellenic ring, hasn't it? Tripping and sunny like the buck himself. We must go to Athens. Will you come if I can get the aunt to fork out twenty quid?
He laid the brush aside and, laughing with delight, cried:
At the age of 20 she arived back at her villeage, 1930' it was not a common sight to se a young woman ariving on a Harley Davison at her parents house after moving on to the big city, not often this was made with style but I guess this go with the family. My mothers sister who you se in this picture proberly was the first girl who would ride a motor cycle here in denmark.
Ofcaurse this is off topic in this group, but isn't it just a nice picture, sure there are a few more and they are even better ,but I am a bit aware just to put them public.
Are you sure that photo is in Denmark? The buildings look like they are in Poland or former East Prussia.
I hate to bring this up, what about fire proofing required by code? Will fireproofing pose a problem with any of your details? With the nice joints your talking about, it would be a pity to cover them with some sprayed on cementitious fire proofing.
You se there are a number plate on that bike. Anyway there are a lot more ,but isn't we all living in america I mean there wasn't that many who had a Harley Davison in denmark at those times so it is easily investigated beside as I said there are quite a lot other pictures but they carry other qualities.
Now I ask you to use your emagination and this time for real;
Emagine you place two sections next to eachother with more space to the next couple, you sort of double up all frames and remember this will be cut exact measures and added assembly locks that help welding the now square frames together.
Now fill the tubes with water.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
Hi
Sorry that shuld have been "the more the pieces are forced apart, the tighter they get".
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/ls1.jpg
Hi
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Funkis-2.jpg[/img]
Then check this ;
Hi
Sorry again misspelled;
Hi
Maby if you want to se just before it started making trouble at the link ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Funkis-2.jpg
[img]http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/ls1.jpg[img]
Hi
guess no one would think this is the same
There it was
i think about 150 of per's 172 posts have been in this topic...hmmm
Hi
Well atleast I talk about my work not others
Hi
Realy 3D-HoneyComb cheat your mind, guess you wouldn't think a section in an XXXX structure will look like this, now what do you think about strength when it acturly don't perform as you thought
Check the link to se one frame moved out
( true it _is_ to tight -- don't need that many frames)
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Funkis-3.jpg
i don't talk about my work because i am not a shameless self promoter, seeking to beat everyone about the head trying to prove something seemingly important to no but yourself. have some dignity, move on.
Per,
who is Mr. Nelson?
In Reply to: HONEYCOMB STRUCTURES posted by Buzy Bee on November 07, 2002 at 08:07:14:
Honeycomb structures is what me and Perl are all about! I have been defending this idea for a long time, together with Perl. All others on this site seem to be somewhat umbiguous or indiferent with regards to its possibilities!
I will let Perl answer your questions.
Mr. Nelson
Architect
Hi
It is obvious that when say 100 different people have a look at this actural new way to make the computer outline a framework ,without you having to bother assembling any of the tradisional things you use for any of the structures it replace, some don\t even follow the links ,some se the idear right away, some get offended that now the discussion in an architect group is pictures not words, --- but realy most response are positive, many comment and say they find it exiting ,but for some reson the same lot of jokers ,seem to be that bored with themself and acturly don\t know anything about either architecture or crafts ----- some se only what they want to se so they don't look at the graphics or pretend they do and ask as they did not, but what I find is that more and more understand my claims when I say, that this 3D-HoneyComb replace 20 different beams and profiles, expensive special fittings with one plain material that acturly fit, with today's expertations about computerised manufactoring.
Also it's been a few years and my arguments became better ,where sorry to say it seem a few made it their goal fighting what they can't understand.
Now this is the web, and every now and then some of the jokers tell how little they know ,and hopefully you who read this, also "read" the tone , se in these discussions how my competitors fear no mean except being positive and opening their mind, --- it is somtimes quite sick but also sometimes quite nice to recive response.
But just go a few mails back ; "Brim" said "rock on Per", so I thought I would publish a very interesting old tradisional gadged that _anyone_ with just a bit interest in enginering would find interesting, esp. as it can be cut with a water or laser cutter and realy is an exiting detail with use today --- unless knowleage simply are lost and no one can ansver what is missing, the vedge that by forcing the pieces apart, acturly tigh them together.
Now did "Betadinusaur" ansver anything about this even being in the discussion ,no. Not even second time where he told he have no humor.
Bad Betadinusaur is only looking for words to twist instead of commenting the 3 different graphics I placed since, ----- there shuld be enough just in the Funkis building, but instead Betadinusaur start talking about dignity ; now my dear artists yet another restriction are forced from "above" from bored Usenet ; now we must show no humor and must show "dignity" ----- Realy what a lame argument, please look around the architectural or arts world and point to some "dignity".
Now to ansver your question I think Mr.Nelson is a supporter.
god... lol, the old Per in Archinect!... man, I thought you were in jail!... or was it a lunatic asylum?...
oh.. and I see that we are all still nothing more than Romans... gee, and I never been to Rome! ...lol .. man, Per, its been a long time since this 3d honeycombe madness started and your graphics are still horrendous.. and your english is even worse than before..
um.., well, mine is not much better either...:-)
Hi
Well it have been going on for way many more years, you se yot no one made another method that by a press of a button generate a material that fill out a structure with an assembly framework that can acturly be produced strait from CAD drawing . Only other alternative is to rewrite old fasion methods into fast computer code, use a number of strait profiles and expensive special fittings, as you know a 3D/H fit exactly under any computer mesh and make CAD into somthing that is not first transfered into paper or need to be handled by skilled craftmen who then fiddle the forms into somthing that can acturly be assembled, what is in the 3D drawing of a 3D-H is an exact 3D drawing of the actural assembly, now a primitive computer mesh offering only a Dome with no thought of the structure to hold it in the air, is somthing quite different, but if you want such one, nothing is better than a reliable framework, to hold it in the air.
Per, these red drawings are a lot better, I think they convey your idea a lot better than the previous ones. The monochromie emphasyze on the structural aspect on the projects, and it doesn't look as simple as before. You shoul keep on showing stuff like that, and explain how better it is now in your point of view. I particularly like the last one (and I'm serious now...)
you know what? maybe your ideas are interesting -i've got no idea and, frankly, i'm not that interested in revolutionary softwares... i'm just an architecture student-... since the old days when I started to read your messages on that Yahoo group you have been really enthusiastic -as someone said- with your 3d-H... but you've a got a communication problem..
a) you never listen, in Archinect or any other forum, you just keep posting the same links since -at least- January 2003.. I bet the 'fancy graphic' industry has debeloped some new products since then.. maybe you should improve your own softwares too... a year and a half is enough time..
b) i know you're not english or american -neither am I- but if you're trying to sell something to an english speaking crowd, the least you could do -and, again, a year and a half is enough time too- is to take some english classes... that would help you a lot, me thinks...
anyway.. have fun.. the net -Archinect and elsewhere- is yours... :p
Anyway it been a few hundreds 3D drawings more, so maby you shuld check how sheet material make a better alternative in many other applications like these, where it have not been about rewriting the old methods but develobing new ;
Hi
Medit, you seem to have got the point, -----I just want to add that I develobed the 3D-H concept for much longer than that ,and please remember that even you think some of the drawings are lame they acturly point to a new method that go strait from CAD drawing to laser or water cutter and as I am not an architect I can only deliver the idea ,a new form language, and the first true Direct Link building method. -------- Such one don't spell in words it change the world.
Even somthings in the world never change, architecture still hold on to the last straw asking the skilled craftman make the 2D sketch into reality. Now please remember that fact when yoy read ansvers that do not deal with the method , not one single ansver I ever had, acturly refered the method in today's architect applications and how there are a world of difference in pressing a button and having a cheap framework generated, not one single ansver dealed with the fact, that where this method been underway for just 8 years ,then the tradisional methods been refined by thousands for decades.
So look at what it contain, look at the promises and new options, emagine the savings, --- but ofcaurse it is a thread, every real new visionary method is that ; you know they also said ships out of iron could not float and things heavier than air could not fly.
The Romans
Hi
Frensh -------- Please understand my problem ; I am a designer not an architect.
I know you read this before, but I just develob the method ,still the responses deal with the designs, ----- again and again I put forth that this is about changing the view about looking in another direction, the one the computer provide with cheap new manufactoring methods.
I rather have real skilled artists to realise what fantastic options these are, as I know my own limitations. This is just a tool but cirtanly a tool that is different than just rewriting the old methods, this and not the actural drawings are my messeage.
funny that you quote Mc Luhan...
You know then, that your attitude, drawings and discourse are all tied together to form the only existing and real instance, or actualisation of your idea, thus BEING your idea on this world at least, which is the only one that I'm concerned about. You can't keep on saying that you don't know how to draw because you are a designer, it's paradoxical. Especially if you've read Mc Luhan, even if it's just that sentence. You don't have to believe that "the medium is the massage" but you have to acknowledge the fact that our only experience of the message is what you let us know of it...
Hi
Acturly I spended 3 years at the architect acadamy , I was looking for a book and was directed to the computer workshop, when I asked for the manual I was told that if I could find it myself ,could start a computer and leave the teachers alone, I could do as I pleased --- It was 3 month before they found out I was not even registrated as student but at that time it was to late as I got the lot working and knew how to maneage, after that I joined some students and acturly had some succes in contests ------ if I say arts and crafts you proberly better understand my attitude, but when somone look at the boats I build and I say that for me they are nothing but a bunch of planks it is very difficult to explain that even you se a wonderfull designed boat, then when the one who build it made the finish, then it's on to next project, ------ I been around designers for some years to, acturly some of the real top ones ,but none of them knew anything about computers, acturly I known so many architects and designers who are afrait of computers, that I think there are a job to do, changing the attitude of architects and designers.
You se even today here in this contry, they still talk about things that happened 60 years ago, as if we gave in then and made it all into social skills and copying what was created then instead of spending the creativity on today's tools ; I master those tools of yestoday had my own workshop with heavy mashines, and I made a lot of furniture and boats --- but Im'e not finished yet, I belive in creativity and visions.
Hi
Frensh "funny that you quote Mc Luhan..."
I don't know this guy....
....yug siht wonk t'nod I
"...nahul cM etouq uoy taht ynnuf" hsnerF
iH
With the honeycomb concept, is it possible to eliminate interior columns over 4to7 33'-0" bays, putting all structure (minus what may be used at stair towers) at the exterior?
even a renderfarm full of those bad boys would suck.
asuming per has a software that can create these questionably visual graphics masterpieces, has anyone considered how exact these would be fabricated? are they TJI's? are they glu-lams? i mean they can't really be fabricated any other way, unless of course you go to metal, but he almost always renders them in a wood. the entire process seems so rudimentary, the graphics are bad, the software he has neither given a name or provided a way to purchase it - although he continues to call it a tool for anyones use - the system seems simplistic, not simple, simplistic, it takes no other material, building system or human scale into account. how does this system work with masonry construction? how are doors, windows, mechanical systems integrated? i have seen similar ideas as have others, and all of those examples show other materials, Per's system exists in vaccum. no more riddles, answer the question[s].
oh and yes i am a Roman, and a Dutchman, and American...for whatever that's worth...
Hi
A description realy shuld be enough ; you are used to the CAD model as Solid entities just boxes and backgrounds ,textures and lights ,but most models in a rendering carry no interiours no floors nothing, but the outher surfaces.
Opposite this the basic for a 3D-H framework ask you to make the building hollow, union the floors do as much as possible of the interiours as, when "pressing the button" what will be generated, is where sections cross the Unioned and subtracted Solids.
This also mean, --- if you check those few structures where window openings are placed or rather subtracted, that standard window frames will fit exactly into the holes left in the framework where a Solid block the same dimentions of the window frame are subtracted the original Solid model.
The same go with door frames, stairway's that is left as an accurate foundation if you before generating the framework, already subtracted a stairs model.
Materials are ---- cast concrete, plywood sheets, steel sheets as all depending on the scale of the framework there must be a multible of way's fabricating the "sheet material", ---- you can even fill the cubes with concrete using the framework as mold and as all cubes have same measures two sides and even 90 deg inbetween, you can fill out the cubes with ready made "bricks" , but as the framework is generated exact inside a Solid, -- then use standard geometrics where you know the unfolded surfaces or paneling, please think about this, as you are not bound in various organic forms but can make the exact foundations, with a lot of detail from also standard cubes boxes and vedges now you know what can hold them in the air.
Scale is the desicion of the designer, taking into account the strength of the material and attitude of the structure, ------- how can I restrict that ?
Btw. you can even automaticly replace all assembly notches --- places where two frames intersect, and replace the material there, with a universal cross join, you already do so using rigid strait steel profiles, with 3D-H you can cut out an exact huge lump and even have the holes to hold the cross fitting marked and even cut with the laser or water, or pounching mashin.
What's good about it, is that it promise a house that is not the most lame plybox and the cheapest craftmanship, as this is so much different and only the quality of the materials -- the skills of the designer, make the limits.
Betadinusaur what is the real advanteage is how different this method work, ------ how you don't sketch a building with how "things alway's been made" in your mind, but you also compleatly change your choice of materials, no more profiles, special fittings brick walls, and then it is not the tradisional crafts just written into computer code, but a compleatly new aproach that will unfold so many side effects so many new options, ------- then develobing some of the new gadgeds to bring a building the shape of a lion at the cost of a garage ; isn't that where the new jobs and the promising new architecture shuld show in a new form language ?
Hi
Gustav ;"With the honeycomb concept, is it possible to eliminate interior columns over 4to7 33'-0" bays, putting all structure (minus what may be used at stair towers) at the exterior?"
Yes you don't "think" the structure as we are used to, ------ but even the stairs will show ,not the actural step but the frames that will support the stairs. Having a wall and a roof beam with how this othervise been made change compleatly when the frame run up the wall and with no knee continue up being the foundation for the roof panels, also when going into detail you se how what was before hundreds of different building compoments is now just frames, how what was before multible materials to form a structure ,what is needed to hold that structure together and make it work together with compleatly different other building compoments --- that's where you suddenly realise how different it is when you don't split up a roof beam in multible compoments each solving their enginering porpous but replace it all with one type of material.
Please if I went into detail I would soon be lost in detail but there are no magic new gadgeds in making a halve notch ,and if you would think such one would be difficult when acturly assembling the framework, then replace it ,make a standard AutoCAD block with the holes for a corner bracked --- they all be alike all over the structure, unless you projected it to be different.
Gustav, ------- even the stairs,
"This also mean, --- if you check those few structures where window openings are placed or rather subtracted, that standard window frames will fit exactly into the holes left in the framework where a Solid block the same dimentions of the window frame are subtracted the original Solid model."
So, the structure is exposed on the outside, tracing the outer surface and the windows are placed somewhere in the center of the wall, forming a flat surface. What about the cold bridges? How do you deal with the expansion of the steel structure when it is so exposed to climate changes, compared to the window frames?
"The same go with door frames, stairway's that is left as an accurate foundation if you before generating the framework, already subtracted a stairs model."
Ok, since the doorframes are aligned to the grid, I guess they have to be rotated 45 degrees as well?
"you can fill out the cubes with ready made "bricks" , but as the framework is generated exact inside a Solid, -- then use standard geometrics where you know the unfolded surfaces or paneling"
Ah, tesselation, but then with an ingenious universal detail joining the skin and the structure? Or do I smell some "bending and fiddling"?
"different building compoments is now just frames"
No, the different structural elements are now just frames, there's more in a building than only the structure. How do you transport your 100 m long steel beams to the site? Are they assembled on site?
Ah, back to Wolf Eyes...
Hi
Most water cutter workplane don\t expand more than 5 by 8 meters, ------- except in shipyards where quite bigger sheets are cut exact to fit , but what about a steel ship ---- don't you think the frames and sheets there will cause some trouble ? Realy you have all the choice you want, long steel frames you se all over the place, why is it a huge steel tanker don't fall apart, there are often more frames in such one than any of the small transvers pieces in a 3D-H .
No there are no fiddeling doing an exact mold in 3D-H ,the resulting structure will fit exactly with the projected measures ,but what about 3D meshes and strings don't you think much more "talk against" that concept, well ask in an architect school or look at the various projects cut in paper from 10 years ago and you know that much more fiddeling is needed there. Realy to project a building where you know that all you have on the screen is just a zero thickness computer mesh and no structure or any garentie that these strings can be held in the air, that I find quite a lot more "experimenting" than providing the actural impac of the framework that will support such zero thickness shell ------ even then they fiddeled them in 4 layers, made 500 tonn walls just to hold tiny sheets in the air, what a vaste when you think about, that after that, they had to build yet another house inside, to offer the walls ,floors and spaces.
Is that tiny shell realy so important, is only what meet your eyes what count what's the difference in a super tanker in steel and a steel 3D-H structure.
Hi
Btw ------- Isn't that much modern architecture so angled and curved anyway, that they would be much more quiet in 3D-H.
I mean some highrise are sketched so, that you realy wonder if the rigid tradisional lattriceworks is enough to hold the angled walls in the air.
hi per.
I don't know anything about hull construction, I'm not a shipbuilder. Maybe you can explain to us how you prevent these problems, because it is a problem in architecture. I'm not interested in how other projects have failed, only why 3D-H doesn't. In the meantime consider this structure:
Per, did you submit your work to Arch. Record for the upcoming Avant-Garde issue yet? DO IT!
Hi
a/f this is just so nice.
My concern is the structure and the material ,problem is that unless you develob in new directions you will not se the different results underway, sheet material is very interesting as with just one simple mashin, you can shape and replace much of what othervise ask a very complicated manufactoring , ----- but please don't think I mean that all building mass shuld be replaced with intergrated framework, solutions in one field could show quite good results in others and the reson I think intergrated frames would work well in small housing shuld be obvious ,but true it also mean that you accept the concept and emagine a few of the basic problems been solved ; there are maby four or five solutions coing the assembly notches and only time can tell some of the problems with some of these ,and maby it is simply better to replace the simple notch with a standard fitting, these things need to be develobed and tested.
About contests, ---- the best option would be a small group of designers making a suggestion.
Hi
Pimp can you direct to an address ?
Hi
Now if somone find it an idea to have a nice design that oposed paper is digital projected better than anything while it instantly bring the actural simple building frame, if what you want is not the most complicated but the simplest digital manufactoring mashines and can make you an original chair or an original cottage at a third the cost four times stronger, if you are not lazy and scturly don\t want a nice cheap house, or think others shuld profit, then you don\t want the future, ---- that part of it, as even knowing the very best new method that bring you a house the shape of a lion while damn't develobing those new jobs ; where do you think you shuld find progress if you don't even dare invest -------- listen in theori it would cost a third but maby the production is not there, but some are and what architecture need, is a new form language .
This is what architecture is about for me if the actural avaible tools are avaible or not, if architecture applications produce paper or actural building compoments, if it do is it clever or stupid.
3D-HoneyComb is not stupid, as it just avait rules and develobment, this will make the gates before hell, but it also will build the wonders of heaven.
Ok I say sorry ; "sorry it is Digital"
we've been hijacked!
Hi
You only been hijacked if you invest in the right thing, then my best gurentie is, that what I project solve all problems in other aproaches, the concept of forming the structure as Solids shaped as the actural walls and make the thousands of points frames or sheets intergrate what make it strong even simpler than how you bang plywood box walls ,onto lame framework in timbers so low qiality, that I could find a place to use it as paper, there alway\s be a use for paper you se.
So it will come as I already been told that gy garentie you will se it everywhere in various applications added many side effect gadgeds, making the simplest manufactiored honeycomb structure an promising alternative as then you only need plain sheet materials.
Does Per get a T-shirt if he hits 200?
for Per;
STATELY, PLUMP BUCK MULLIGAN CAME FROM THE STAIRHEAD, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressing gown, ungirdled, was sustained gently-behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:
-- Introibo ad altare Dei.
Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called up coarsely:
-- Come up, Kinch. Come up, you fearful jesuit.
Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding country and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.
Buck Mulligan peeped an instant under the mirror and then covered the bowl smartly.
-- Back to barracks, he said sternly.
He added in a preacher's tone:
-- For this, O dearly beloved, is the genuine Christine: body and soul and blood and ouns. Slow music, please. Shut your eyes, gents. One moment. A little trouble about those white corpuscles. Silence, all.
He peered sideways up and gave a long low whistle of call, then paused awhile in rapt attention, his even white teeth glistening here and there with gold points. Chrysostomos. Two strong shrill whistles answered through the calm.
-- Thanks, old chap, he cried briskly. That will do nicely. Switch off the current, will you?
He skipped off the gunrest and looked gravely at his watcher, gathering about his legs the loose folds of his gown. The plump shadowed face and sullen oval jowl recalled a prelate, patron of arts in the middle ages. A pleasant smile broke quietly over his lips.
-- The mockery of it, he said gaily. Your absurd name, an ancient Greek.
He pointed his finger in friendly jest and went over to the parapet, laughing to himself. Stephen Dedalus stepped up, followed him wearily half way and sat down on the edge of the gunrest, watching him still as he propped his mirror on the parapet, dipped the brush in the bowl and lathered cheeks and neck.
Buck Mulligan's gay voice went on.
-- My name is absurd too: Malachi Mulligan, two dactyls. But it has a Hellenic ring, hasn't it? Tripping and sunny like the buck himself. We must go to Athens. Will you come if I can get the aunt to fork out twenty quid?
He laid the brush aside and, laughing with delight, cried:
-- Will he come? The jejune jesuit.
Ceasing, he began to shave with care.
-- Tell me, Mulligan, Stephen said quietly.
-- Yes, my love?
Hi
At the age of 20 she arived back at her villeage, 1930' it was not a common sight to se a young woman ariving on a Harley Davison at her parents house after moving on to the big city, not often this was made with style but I guess this go with the family. My mothers sister who you se in this picture proberly was the first girl who would ride a motor cycle here in denmark.
Ofcaurse this is off topic in this group, but isn't it just a nice picture, sure there are a few more and they are even better ,but I am a bit aware just to put them public.
Are you sure that photo is in Denmark? The buildings look like they are in Poland or former East Prussia.
I hate to bring this up, what about fire proofing required by code? Will fireproofing pose a problem with any of your details? With the nice joints your talking about, it would be a pity to cover them with some sprayed on cementitious fire proofing.
Hi
You se there are a number plate on that bike. Anyway there are a lot more ,but isn't we all living in america I mean there wasn't that many who had a Harley Davison in denmark at those times so it is easily investigated beside as I said there are quite a lot other pictures but they carry other qualities.
Now I ask you to use your emagination and this time for real;
Emagine you place two sections next to eachother with more space to the next couple, you sort of double up all frames and remember this will be cut exact measures and added assembly locks that help welding the now square frames together.
Now fill the tubes with water.
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.