per your work is mostly incomprehensible, and at best banal.
How many times can people show you that the ideas you are playing with have been done, and in fact are being developed in the real world; actually friggin built by real people; and what they are doing is awesome.
So to be nice, there is some merit to the concept, if not your particular version of it. I mean your ideas might be a good start to something but you treat them like they are a finished product; when they clearly are not. Fish or cut bait time, dude.
And in any case the point of using computers in the avant garde now is that they allow you to be irrational and still produce amazing (buildable!) work. In comparison (and based on your illustrations) your ideas are falling well behind the starting line, look rather old-fashioned and are poorly conceived, never executed. Step up to the plate man; listen to the comments of the others on this site and move on. Then come back when you have things sorted.
man, I can't believe i am writing here at all, but i was starting to have nightmares. Hope this will work as a catharsis.
"Hi all you fancy graphics lovers" is a great title for a totally worthless thread. Per - you crack me up BIGTIME. I always get a good laugh when I read your stuff. Keep it up.
3D models are good representations of 'things' - - - What those things prove (for themselves or otherwise) is yet to be determined.
What do you WANT it to say? A lot of buildings lately seem to be saying: "look at me, I am a complex computer model that got built - burn on all you all, they actually built my flamboyant aaaaass!" If you are down with that than it is all good.
Sorry I must vaste your time once again but the last few posts realy ask an ansver --- Please consider that I display a very humble aproach, the rest is what some in the tread put into my mouth but I don't say those words, the concept are very plain ---- it is about providing a way to make Solid modeling work to a result. A lot od you make much more fancy graphics but do it reflect in reality is there a relevant digital way to bring it from the screen into reality ?
This is all 3D-H is about, to offer a new way, a way that work so that it promise 3 times the strength of the lame plywood panels and the cheap special fittings ; please realise that here there simply are no special fittings no lame craftmanship, and it do the whole process you don't need to fiddle you don't need to bend, don't need to bend heavy steel profiles that othervise carry that shape in fact not to be bended .
---- Maby I must explain this with another detail ; steel profiles have just that shape as it run out of the mashin in strait lines, and the clever thing about these profiles are just the "H" or "T" shape that make the profile aproach so enginous ; then why are your mind restricted so when you ask a curved form, then you fight and force the very materials you made "H" shape just to enforce it. Tread it like a lump of timber, don't you se my point how can that aproach be clever ?
True new materials need new way's but before develobing new methods, please take the time to master the old way's the proud crafts where a dovetail or a grove is the _only_ way to show a decent craftmanship . Then when you tried to use a hammer master a chissel know the fact limitations, don't you think that _then_ is when to think about how to solve the problems millions of craftmen allway's wished for better and more relevant tools , that when you build a boat when you build a house, that then you know why there must be a better way to perform a shed ---- now if you want some progress, do you then think the poor guy who need a new shed think in carbon fiber or do you think he think in what materials he can get ; well that will often be sheet materials not advanced new petrochemics beside, do you realy think plastics will be the new materials I don't think so but I don't need to vorry, as both plastic and metal and composites go in sheets.
And yes it is difficult when first you need to do 20 mens job, master crafts and computers, and ontop be able to figure out a bright idea, but isn't it your claims that are wrong, you know Designers are not supermen.
Thanks for the nice response.
Per - I will try to be helpful...I think one of the problems you've encountered while trying to make your point, is your sole dependency on computer modeling to prove what you claim to be the revolutionary physical - built - qualities of your theory. Coupled with the, let me be honest, less than proficient rendering skills (your lighting, mapping as sub-par) presented here, i can see why you are not taken seriously by many "archinecters"; my suggestion would be to produce real built samples -cabins, boats- of your method in action. I also think that this would help you in perfecting your thoughts and put them into practice. I hope this helps.
Hi
Consider that you can generate an full assembly in say 10 mm. steel sheet ----- how robust would you thing using the honeycomb mesh as just reinforcement flling up the cubes with concrete. make precut holes to fill with real reinforcement rods , gee don't you realise this will be ten times stronger ,you hippies can't compare Romans.
Listen just emagine any of my designs emagine it in splendid 16 mm. solid steel sheet cut with laser cutter.
Now how many applications would I need to prove, you gentlemen don't even belive the calculation ability of your own computers, you think 3D is 2D and that it matter nothing to be able to build earthquake safe damned cheaper than what a regular cardhouse ; if these was just designed a bit clever, with solid cubes ala. 3D-H ,then you could throw an atomic bomb inside, all you needed to do restoring, was to fill in new concrete.
Did you mean to say cathouse rather than cardhouse?
You see - then - the "throwing" atomic bomb /codified/ language really closes the deal for me with the honeycomb – now no longer an imagined fantasy which has haunted my dreams – but a living breathing organism.
Eh that's up to your choice, I just say this is better --- sorry but it must be relevant, I think the towers shuld be rebuild that with skilled artists projecting each strong as the gates before hell, ALL assembled to perform floors and walls, shaped by a real skilled artist ,now that will be nice.
And I can say so in this discussion.
Hi
Those who complain are right quite a few models is done very simple very fast, --- I could repeat that it is a challance to keep things simple to point to the method but you are right that what you se right away, is that many of these forms is not produced for an actural use in real, many are just a shape to show the flexibility of the method, but you se no one ever asked me to project a building detailed projected ,and I guess I must agrea that while there most often lack the detail is no real architectural aproach and while most objects are there just to show the overall idea, then I missed an important point.
But I will try explain it in another way ,sorry I need to use so many words but for me it is quite early in the morning, but last time I participated in a contest with a worked thru project I got it returned with the most idiotic complain < they said that the arears was first not calculated, when I pointed to the text where it was ,this was not enough as the sum and the different arears shuld have been filled in, on a specific piece of paper ( guess this was to keep amatures away from participating in this contest ) ---- anyway it was true that I did not fill out the yellow piece of paper but when I pointed out, that I gave much more informations about the same arears on one of the main pages I was informed that this was "not enough" . Now only very few bothered to outline any project with computer aid, so when I pressed and told that it seem silli to ask arears on a yellow piece of paper and return 3 month of work as it "was not enough" that in a computer drawn project there are a garentie about calculating arears ,that while the figures was there even not on the specified piece of yellow paper, then the fact that this was a 100 pct. digital drawine even 3D, shuld indicate that arears was recalculated ten times, ---- but no, if you don't use a pencil to calculate the arear but use a computer then a project in denmark don't ansver the qualifikations.
But you are right --- I shuld focus more on detail and forget about promoting the method, this will make much nicer graphics --- still don't forget these are all 3D there are a difference, a very important one, as you can walk around any of the forms.
The latest graphic btw. are not what any one of you guessed, there are a story about it, a sad one in some sense, but that will be to many words sorry.
I find it very important how you se a structure. If you "se" the structure as the outher limits the panels that form and cover what's underneath, emagine you must process a Solid shape that will work with an instant prototyping printer, --- at first you would think the outher limits are what count but wouldn't it be nice if the whole thing was a waffle structure inside, wouldn't it be a compleat other world to envision the thing as what it consist rather than what just the outher limits displace.
Ofcaurse internal boxes in such layer by layer structure will ask some sort of leak holes so the plastic unhardened can ecape, but is it realy so difficult to emagine reinforcement steel in holed sheet be the product , that there are other way's to make reinforcement steel than the way this been done for a hundred years, that while modern projecting with computers offer a handfull of new options, you can also ensure that to remove any doiubt, you can subtract cylinder holes for regular reinforcement rods transverse the waffle structure being the result of a clever slicing of sections , that will form the shape.
--------- Difficult to follow ; well there simply are so many applications, where each of you focus on one small detail you think will ruin the concept, now most often in all these applications, I found that just that detail open for several new aproaches, that the promise of making true 3D projecting must overcome the small doubt leave room for what the tradisional technikes had plenty of, --- further refining and using this to develob new way's that there cirtainly are a call for.
Please look again, wouldn't you think that just a bit efford could solve the doubts you think in theory is a problem ; well most often these doubts is no problem in 16 mm. steel sheet, we already weld things together.
Hi
Now the various suggestions about mapping and better surfaces are fact, beside the last graphics is by almost garentie compleatly different than most ?any here seem to emagine --- well what happen in copenhagen modern architecture versus presavation of old city do have an angle as this is how I envisioned the skilled dutch architect who made somthing everyone se as spetacular ,,, well in the end this very different project offering expensive penthouses at the behave of "cheap flats for standard danes" well a better translation will be avaible, anyway maby double as many flats and at a cheap rent would not be turned down while then somthing better is made in terms of architecture, the art you know.
It turned up a one way dialog where local groups many architects and artists in this local arear, old hippies and sad academics but generaly a nice population who also have children using the local scools looking for the local work ,many well skilled well educated still the city hall thought different they wanted spetacular grandoure speaches, praising the spetacular and the next social thing round politics. Turned down even a real spetacular project but still a compressed piece of architecture totaly different from the historic buildings.
Now how badly hurd did you think I se this project ; splendid forms but to high and to different yet.
Anyway I handed you a new graphic and you could not know, this was about spetacular versus the new jobs the cheap flats not the expensive ones the city hall wanted but what this local arear requier, now there are a wish for copying same fasion same style, building "dutch houses" everywhere a lost arear want some attention, architecture pr. tonn.
No one blaim at mayer he want a splendid row of banquets ,true but why not put the right interiours in the envelobe make that prgress do some nice houses, but in a way that make sense in terms of new jobs and cheap flats, ------ You Romans couldn't know that this next fancy new graphics, is a perseption a sort of sketch , while progressing back and forth about if christianshavn realy needed more rich man penthouses if the founds for cheap housing realy reflect in this spetacular, but in building technikes old fasion, assembly of today's steel profiles and glass panels this times jetting winds down from the most windy corner in the harbour; http://www.berlingske.dk/kobenhavn/artikel:aiid=485348:fid=100100416/
This 3d-h system you've "developed" is interesting to me for 2 reasons. First, you created a ridged frame yes, however it seems so tightly packed with members its as close to being solid as one can get without being solid. This brings me to the next point, where is the structural efficiancy in this? I can only hope its in the material - some sort of light weight compsite, like a big shipping crate. Then I would begin to see some merit. But if you evison traditional materials, I would have to say your cathedral looking hip roof structure at the begining of this insane thread could be stick framed by carpenters and sheated, creating a ridgid diaphram much more effectively than 3d-h, which I still dont quite understand what it is. Are you trying to hint at a glazed skin so all these holes bring in light? Are you planning on having 20m of snow pile up on that hip roof thing?
Hi
You still need to build a structure nomatter what building you want, today you do so in 20 different steel profiles, with expensive standard fittings it barely fir in a computer, and when it do it make Lego houses if you build round with the most advanced, the rooms still also form round where making the structure the right scale in a strong assembly, is now the option, this do the whole in just one material , happen to be the cheapest and most flecible H beams even happen to be made from 3 pieces of sheet steel, then why shuldn't somthing better be avaible, now we have computers.
You seem to forget, that one day there will be a need for a method that di it at a third the cost, as by then you Romans vasted the money on spetacular talks about the mechanics you don't even maneage to emagine, --- even this was the vision you rather replace words with skills, gee you can do so in a cave do you realy think the cavemen had a bad social life ??
Please I worked with wood, sheets of plywood, boats plotters , design discussions with bragging nutheads ,fakes dry usenet fanatics but only very few brave artists on this board ; most everyone taking this as a agenda of proving you learned the bad behaviour needed in a pyramide ---- You Romans can't use an adge ,don't know that a cabinet scraper exist and why it's not made from butter then you don't se the paralell between spetacular architecture in copenhagen, then you claim you know how a building, a craft any structure are made, guess you read about it on the usenet --- please ; can't you emagine that the frames I point, can be any thickness, I don't think you opened your mind as even I again and again show that this is not the thing you se you will not se it.
Realy if you take _any_ building site there will be a time where the snow will enter, but as you are not so clever that you can se that it is a brilliant idea --- most hands-on would, then NO . No as this is what skilled craftmen are allowed, nothing further than yourself, no one must be genious.
Anyway I got it ; you with your skills can't grasp it SO it not be, as no one must show the skills no one must make the computer work different, than copying how steel beams was fiddled a hundred years ago ;))
Next thing you will say, is as Frensh engineers in 1889 develobed the first metal form concrete formwork, then we must not progress the new options doing it better and heavily more flexible covering spacecraft design aswell as sheds while "we allready have efficient methodt" True most are moe than 100 years old.
I better point to the applications so far ; make a framework in polystyrene wrap it with carbon fiber cover it with epoxy , flush with acetone so you remove the 3D-H frames ,I bet this will be the strongest structure in many applications, beside it will be light and being hollow you can use that volume for many porpus. second you can make the framework act as a reinforcement member, like the reinforcement rods you use in concrete, but this time you already shaped the form you also by side effect have the option to transverse the cut frames in drawing, with subtracted holes for tradisional reinforcement beside holes that will minimise the use of steel , this way you can shape any structure in concrete, without thinking about how to shape before putting in the concrete. Rapid prototyping ,now even this technike only make prototypes and never will allov for a production and in that way acturly just support an old technike by providing the prototype piece, then 3D-H make this even better as pressing a button will produce en inner cube structure case this is what you want. Now maby it is difficult to envision 16 mm. steel sheet but when you do, please consider how the floors how just attaching all frames to ground, make movement impossible, how forces in this particular structure are distribuated oll over the structure how it is impossible for the floors to fall, when there are no hangers that will give in --- wasn't this just the weak point in the towers ? that the outher shell and the floors asked a hanger, an attachment that produce just that spot where the forces focus to break the bolts.
Now emagine there was no hangers no bolts would the floors then fall ansver that question.
When we used to work with 3d-h, we just popped in those cardboard frames by hand. That was back when it used to be real easy for the mnfcr. Too bad those cardboard guys made the thing this big hassle. Instead of turning them out in 4's, they left a crease over the notch divider. Made our job even harder.
We moved on to the next step in 3d-h. Before, guys just would complain that the "method" was the "craftsman". We told them they should take pride in their work. A fellow spat at me. The whole group went up onto the roof then, to smoke. We knew they we're doing it. We were helpless to stop them. Now, we sometimes say that 3d-h will, "drive some to the roof".
We continued with highspeed 3d-h. Now it was just the two of us. Long days, I'll say. Productive. Back then, I took my meals across the street at a small sandwich shop. They had pastrami, tuna melts, battered cod.
An incident earlier today: Took my lunch at Vuillard's this afternoon. Will the sun ever come out again? Cold asparagus soup and some crisp bread. Started through yesterday's 3D-h notes. Was on the verge of something when, outside, an irate fellow sent a stone chess piece crashing through the window. Glass everywhere, notes scattered.
Later in the afternoon met with Lady Lillian. The old matron inquired about 3D-h. Was wearing a brilliant wide brim hat with a trundle button stem and blue tulip. Offered Turkish wafers and Rooibus tea. Seemed interested and promises to meet next week when she is not so under the weather.
"Now emagine there was no hangers no bolts would the floors then fall ansver that question."
polystyrene framework, carbon fiber, epoxy, acetone all would fail under the same heat as in "the towers" (cleanup would be snap, though--i'll give you that. a giant 3d-h spatula is all you'd need)
and THAT'S how you answer a question.
it seems that the inefficiency you point out in steel beams (combining 3 separate pieces of sheet steel (which, by the way, you might want to do a little more research on)) shows up in a much greater way in your 3d-h -- just look at the amount and number of different materials you are using for structure.
"polystyrene framework, carbon fiber, epoxy, acetone all would fail under the same heat as in "the towers" (cleanup would be snap, though--i'll give you that. a giant 3d-h spatula is all you'd need)
and THAT'S how you answer a question."
Exactly -- you forget that this is just an application. That this is said in a context that deal with how this concept respond in many applications for many uses ,still this example that will produce the strongest structure _without_ assembly slots ; but in this discussion I must rely that you acturly se before you, the very thick , in one piece, lightweight "tube" structure. Surely space crafts are better made in metal we all know that, we all know the limitations in just petrochemics but that don't keep 3D-H to offer just any cube-frame-honeycomb structure, this time I bet you never thought about that application ,but please emagine that --- and when you done please tell me the trouble you have, producing a simular structure same materials, same strength -
"it seems that the inefficiency you point out in steel beams (combining 3 separate pieces of sheet steel (which, by the way, you might want to do a little more research on)) shows up in a much greater way in your 3d-h -- just look at the amount and number of different materials you are using for structure.
your turn."
Now it will be difficult for me, to bend a heavy H beam to follow the shape of my boats. H steel realy are quite unhandy except for building boxes or producing something that don't acturly profit from the reson profile steel is shaped to fit. It will never build round unless you take out it's actural "H's profile ness of it and make it into somehting that realy are no H profile any longer. I find no argument in what you say there are no argument to ansver , realy all you say is that you didn't open your mind.
Why I can say , well from what others said and the _way you say what you say. It seem like you talk with closed eyes sort of say.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
maybe its the bad texture mapping...
Hi
On the other hand, to perfect LeCorb would think it is real
This was pretty much the best thread on the entire Internet already. And I think it just got a lot better.
That rendering is FANTASTIC.
i like the green grass disk thing on the bottom. . .
Silent Disapproval Robot: we need you here.
holy f*ck.
this thread is mind-numbing.
per your work is mostly incomprehensible, and at best banal.
How many times can people show you that the ideas you are playing with have been done, and in fact are being developed in the real world; actually friggin built by real people; and what they are doing is awesome.
So to be nice, there is some merit to the concept, if not your particular version of it. I mean your ideas might be a good start to something but you treat them like they are a finished product; when they clearly are not. Fish or cut bait time, dude.
And in any case the point of using computers in the avant garde now is that they allow you to be irrational and still produce amazing (buildable!) work. In comparison (and based on your illustrations) your ideas are falling well behind the starting line, look rather old-fashioned and are poorly conceived, never executed. Step up to the plate man; listen to the comments of the others on this site and move on. Then come back when you have things sorted.
man, I can't believe i am writing here at all, but i was starting to have nightmares. Hope this will work as a catharsis.
f*ck!
per corell is one of the most entertaining personalities on archinect
"Hi all you fancy graphics lovers" is a great title for a totally worthless thread. Per - you crack me up BIGTIME. I always get a good laugh when I read your stuff. Keep it up.
3D models are good representations of 'things' - - - What those things prove (for themselves or otherwise) is yet to be determined.
What do you WANT it to say? A lot of buildings lately seem to be saying: "look at me, I am a complex computer model that got built - burn on all you all, they actually built my flamboyant aaaaass!" If you are down with that than it is all good.
This thread is like a spot on the face of a pubescent adolescent. Full of puss, slightly painful but you can’t help but stare and play with it.
As a designer and not an Architect, we salute you. If you were an Architect we would break your balls Soprano style.
Sorry I must vaste your time once again but the last few posts realy ask an ansver --- Please consider that I display a very humble aproach, the rest is what some in the tread put into my mouth but I don't say those words, the concept are very plain ---- it is about providing a way to make Solid modeling work to a result. A lot od you make much more fancy graphics but do it reflect in reality is there a relevant digital way to bring it from the screen into reality ?
This is all 3D-H is about, to offer a new way, a way that work so that it promise 3 times the strength of the lame plywood panels and the cheap special fittings ; please realise that here there simply are no special fittings no lame craftmanship, and it do the whole process you don't need to fiddle you don't need to bend, don't need to bend heavy steel profiles that othervise carry that shape in fact not to be bended .
---- Maby I must explain this with another detail ; steel profiles have just that shape as it run out of the mashin in strait lines, and the clever thing about these profiles are just the "H" or "T" shape that make the profile aproach so enginous ; then why are your mind restricted so when you ask a curved form, then you fight and force the very materials you made "H" shape just to enforce it. Tread it like a lump of timber, don't you se my point how can that aproach be clever ?
True new materials need new way's but before develobing new methods, please take the time to master the old way's the proud crafts where a dovetail or a grove is the _only_ way to show a decent craftmanship . Then when you tried to use a hammer master a chissel know the fact limitations, don't you think that _then_ is when to think about how to solve the problems millions of craftmen allway's wished for better and more relevant tools , that when you build a boat when you build a house, that then you know why there must be a better way to perform a shed ---- now if you want some progress, do you then think the poor guy who need a new shed think in carbon fiber or do you think he think in what materials he can get ; well that will often be sheet materials not advanced new petrochemics beside, do you realy think plastics will be the new materials I don't think so but I don't need to vorry, as both plastic and metal and composites go in sheets.
And yes it is difficult when first you need to do 20 mens job, master crafts and computers, and ontop be able to figure out a bright idea, but isn't it your claims that are wrong, you know Designers are not supermen.
Thanks for the nice response.
big deal!
Per - I will try to be helpful...I think one of the problems you've encountered while trying to make your point, is your sole dependency on computer modeling to prove what you claim to be the revolutionary physical - built - qualities of your theory. Coupled with the, let me be honest, less than proficient rendering skills (your lighting, mapping as sub-par) presented here, i can see why you are not taken seriously by many "archinecters"; my suggestion would be to produce real built samples -cabins, boats- of your method in action. I also think that this would help you in perfecting your thoughts and put them into practice. I hope this helps.
Hi
Consider that you can generate an full assembly in say 10 mm. steel sheet ----- how robust would you thing using the honeycomb mesh as just reinforcement flling up the cubes with concrete. make precut holes to fill with real reinforcement rods , gee don't you realise this will be ten times stronger ,you hippies can't compare Romans.
Listen just emagine any of my designs emagine it in splendid 16 mm. solid steel sheet cut with laser cutter.
Now how many applications would I need to prove, you gentlemen don't even belive the calculation ability of your own computers, you think 3D is 2D and that it matter nothing to be able to build earthquake safe damned cheaper than what a regular cardhouse ; if these was just designed a bit clever, with solid cubes ala. 3D-H ,then you could throw an atomic bomb inside, all you needed to do restoring, was to fill in new concrete.
GENTLE PERMAN
Did you mean to say cathouse rather than cardhouse?
You see - then - the "throwing" atomic bomb /codified/ language really closes the deal for me with the honeycomb – now no longer an imagined fantasy which has haunted my dreams – but a living breathing organism.
I mean orgasm … sorry …
Eh that's up to your choice, I just say this is better --- sorry but it must be relevant, I think the towers shuld be rebuild that with skilled artists projecting each strong as the gates before hell, ALL assembled to perform floors and walls, shaped by a real skilled artist ,now that will be nice.
And I can say so in this discussion.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/hus-1-7.jpg
PER IS MY MOST FAVORITE PERSONALITY IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE INTERNET.
A rising star.
You're there, all you need is the name:
PerWorks, ArchiPer, Perphosis, PER-PLEX, Periphery, Perlimpsest, TerraPer, Pervert, Pervasive, Juxtaper, hyPERbole, (per)spective...
...PERgatory
wait, wait! PerForm. Its perfect!
per, who makes people like you?
that rendering looks like a highschoolers attempt at 3d studio.
but other then that i think you are great and you should strive to rise to the top.
when the going get tough...
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha!
Hi!
IS THIS XEFIROTARCH?
wow...
Hi
Those who complain are right quite a few models is done very simple very fast, --- I could repeat that it is a challance to keep things simple to point to the method but you are right that what you se right away, is that many of these forms is not produced for an actural use in real, many are just a shape to show the flexibility of the method, but you se no one ever asked me to project a building detailed projected ,and I guess I must agrea that while there most often lack the detail is no real architectural aproach and while most objects are there just to show the overall idea, then I missed an important point.
But I will try explain it in another way ,sorry I need to use so many words but for me it is quite early in the morning, but last time I participated in a contest with a worked thru project I got it returned with the most idiotic complain < they said that the arears was first not calculated, when I pointed to the text where it was ,this was not enough as the sum and the different arears shuld have been filled in, on a specific piece of paper ( guess this was to keep amatures away from participating in this contest ) ---- anyway it was true that I did not fill out the yellow piece of paper but when I pointed out, that I gave much more informations about the same arears on one of the main pages I was informed that this was "not enough" . Now only very few bothered to outline any project with computer aid, so when I pressed and told that it seem silli to ask arears on a yellow piece of paper and return 3 month of work as it "was not enough" that in a computer drawn project there are a garentie about calculating arears ,that while the figures was there even not on the specified piece of yellow paper, then the fact that this was a 100 pct. digital drawine even 3D, shuld indicate that arears was recalculated ten times, ---- but no, if you don't use a pencil to calculate the arear but use a computer then a project in denmark don't ansver the qualifikations.
But you are right --- I shuld focus more on detail and forget about promoting the method, this will make much nicer graphics --- still don't forget these are all 3D there are a difference, a very important one, as you can walk around any of the forms.
The latest graphic btw. are not what any one of you guessed, there are a story about it, a sad one in some sense, but that will be to many words sorry.
this thread is legendary
Hi
I find it very important how you se a structure. If you "se" the structure as the outher limits the panels that form and cover what's underneath, emagine you must process a Solid shape that will work with an instant prototyping printer, --- at first you would think the outher limits are what count but wouldn't it be nice if the whole thing was a waffle structure inside, wouldn't it be a compleat other world to envision the thing as what it consist rather than what just the outher limits displace.
Ofcaurse internal boxes in such layer by layer structure will ask some sort of leak holes so the plastic unhardened can ecape, but is it realy so difficult to emagine reinforcement steel in holed sheet be the product , that there are other way's to make reinforcement steel than the way this been done for a hundred years, that while modern projecting with computers offer a handfull of new options, you can also ensure that to remove any doiubt, you can subtract cylinder holes for regular reinforcement rods transverse the waffle structure being the result of a clever slicing of sections , that will form the shape.
--------- Difficult to follow ; well there simply are so many applications, where each of you focus on one small detail you think will ruin the concept, now most often in all these applications, I found that just that detail open for several new aproaches, that the promise of making true 3D projecting must overcome the small doubt leave room for what the tradisional technikes had plenty of, --- further refining and using this to develob new way's that there cirtainly are a call for.
Please look again, wouldn't you think that just a bit efford could solve the doubts you think in theory is a problem ; well most often these doubts is no problem in 16 mm. steel sheet, we already weld things together.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
i "se"
Hi
Now the various suggestions about mapping and better surfaces are fact, beside the last graphics is by almost garentie compleatly different than most ?any here seem to emagine --- well what happen in copenhagen modern architecture versus presavation of old city do have an angle as this is how I envisioned the skilled dutch architect who made somthing everyone se as spetacular ,,, well in the end this very different project offering expensive penthouses at the behave of "cheap flats for standard danes" well a better translation will be avaible, anyway maby double as many flats and at a cheap rent would not be turned down while then somthing better is made in terms of architecture, the art you know.
It turned up a one way dialog where local groups many architects and artists in this local arear, old hippies and sad academics but generaly a nice population who also have children using the local scools looking for the local work ,many well skilled well educated still the city hall thought different they wanted spetacular grandoure speaches, praising the spetacular and the next social thing round politics. Turned down even a real spetacular project but still a compressed piece of architecture totaly different from the historic buildings.
Now how badly hurd did you think I se this project ; splendid forms but to high and to different yet.
Anyway I handed you a new graphic and you could not know, this was about spetacular versus the new jobs the cheap flats not the expensive ones the city hall wanted but what this local arear requier, now there are a wish for copying same fasion same style, building "dutch houses" everywhere a lost arear want some attention, architecture pr. tonn.
No one blaim at mayer he want a splendid row of banquets ,true but why not put the right interiours in the envelobe make that prgress do some nice houses, but in a way that make sense in terms of new jobs and cheap flats, ------ You Romans couldn't know that this next fancy new graphics, is a perseption a sort of sketch , while progressing back and forth about if christianshavn realy needed more rich man penthouses if the founds for cheap housing realy reflect in this spetacular, but in building technikes old fasion, assembly of today's steel profiles and glass panels this times jetting winds down from the most windy corner in the harbour;
http://www.berlingske.dk/kobenhavn/artikel:aiid=485348:fid=100100416/
My reflection this project being under heavy local fire ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/hus-1-5-a.jpg
Per-
This 3d-h system you've "developed" is interesting to me for 2 reasons. First, you created a ridged frame yes, however it seems so tightly packed with members its as close to being solid as one can get without being solid. This brings me to the next point, where is the structural efficiancy in this? I can only hope its in the material - some sort of light weight compsite, like a big shipping crate. Then I would begin to see some merit. But if you evison traditional materials, I would have to say your cathedral looking hip roof structure at the begining of this insane thread could be stick framed by carpenters and sheated, creating a ridgid diaphram much more effectively than 3d-h, which I still dont quite understand what it is. Are you trying to hint at a glazed skin so all these holes bring in light? Are you planning on having 20m of snow pile up on that hip roof thing?
Hi
You still need to build a structure nomatter what building you want, today you do so in 20 different steel profiles, with expensive standard fittings it barely fir in a computer, and when it do it make Lego houses if you build round with the most advanced, the rooms still also form round where making the structure the right scale in a strong assembly, is now the option, this do the whole in just one material , happen to be the cheapest and most flecible H beams even happen to be made from 3 pieces of sheet steel, then why shuldn't somthing better be avaible, now we have computers.
You seem to forget, that one day there will be a need for a method that di it at a third the cost, as by then you Romans vasted the money on spetacular talks about the mechanics you don't even maneage to emagine, --- even this was the vision you rather replace words with skills, gee you can do so in a cave do you realy think the cavemen had a bad social life ??
Please I worked with wood, sheets of plywood, boats plotters , design discussions with bragging nutheads ,fakes dry usenet fanatics but only very few brave artists on this board ; most everyone taking this as a agenda of proving you learned the bad behaviour needed in a pyramide ---- You Romans can't use an adge ,don't know that a cabinet scraper exist and why it's not made from butter then you don't se the paralell between spetacular architecture in copenhagen, then you claim you know how a building, a craft any structure are made, guess you read about it on the usenet --- please ; can't you emagine that the frames I point, can be any thickness, I don't think you opened your mind as even I again and again show that this is not the thing you se you will not se it.
Realy if you take _any_ building site there will be a time where the snow will enter, but as you are not so clever that you can se that it is a brilliant idea --- most hands-on would, then NO . No as this is what skilled craftmen are allowed, nothing further than yourself, no one must be genious.
There are another application here ;
There are another application here ;
Yet another ;
Anyway I got it ; you with your skills can't grasp it SO it not be, as no one must show the skills no one must make the computer work different, than copying how steel beams was fiddled a hundred years ago ;))
Next thing you will say, is as Frensh engineers in 1889 develobed the first metal form concrete formwork, then we must not progress the new options doing it better and heavily more flexible covering spacecraft design aswell as sheds while "we allready have efficient methodt" True most are moe than 100 years old.
Ok -I stand corrected.
Answer the question
Hi
I better point to the applications so far ; make a framework in polystyrene wrap it with carbon fiber cover it with epoxy , flush with acetone so you remove the 3D-H frames ,I bet this will be the strongest structure in many applications, beside it will be light and being hollow you can use that volume for many porpus. second you can make the framework act as a reinforcement member, like the reinforcement rods you use in concrete, but this time you already shaped the form you also by side effect have the option to transverse the cut frames in drawing, with subtracted holes for tradisional reinforcement beside holes that will minimise the use of steel , this way you can shape any structure in concrete, without thinking about how to shape before putting in the concrete. Rapid prototyping ,now even this technike only make prototypes and never will allov for a production and in that way acturly just support an old technike by providing the prototype piece, then 3D-H make this even better as pressing a button will produce en inner cube structure case this is what you want. Now maby it is difficult to envision 16 mm. steel sheet but when you do, please consider how the floors how just attaching all frames to ground, make movement impossible, how forces in this particular structure are distribuated oll over the structure how it is impossible for the floors to fall, when there are no hangers that will give in --- wasn't this just the weak point in the towers ? that the outher shell and the floors asked a hanger, an attachment that produce just that spot where the forces focus to break the bolts.
Now emagine there was no hangers no bolts would the floors then fall ansver that question.
Well, if SDR does'nt disapprove, who am I to poo poo Per.
When we used to work with 3d-h, we just popped in those cardboard frames by hand. That was back when it used to be real easy for the mnfcr. Too bad those cardboard guys made the thing this big hassle. Instead of turning them out in 4's, they left a crease over the notch divider. Made our job even harder.
We moved on to the next step in 3d-h. Before, guys just would complain that the "method" was the "craftsman". We told them they should take pride in their work. A fellow spat at me. The whole group went up onto the roof then, to smoke. We knew they we're doing it. We were helpless to stop them. Now, we sometimes say that 3d-h will, "drive some to the roof".
We continued with highspeed 3d-h. Now it was just the two of us. Long days, I'll say. Productive. Back then, I took my meals across the street at a small sandwich shop. They had pastrami, tuna melts, battered cod.
3d-h was booming.
Hi
This is sweet
Minutes since my last post...
An incident earlier today: Took my lunch at Vuillard's this afternoon. Will the sun ever come out again? Cold asparagus soup and some crisp bread. Started through yesterday's 3D-h notes. Was on the verge of something when, outside, an irate fellow sent a stone chess piece crashing through the window. Glass everywhere, notes scattered.
Later in the afternoon met with Lady Lillian. The old matron inquired about 3D-h. Was wearing a brilliant wide brim hat with a trundle button stem and blue tulip. Offered Turkish wafers and Rooibus tea. Seemed interested and promises to meet next week when she is not so under the weather.
3D-h may be closer than we know...
earlier today I enjoyed a McGriddle while discussing the finer points of Shingo-time.
"Now emagine there was no hangers no bolts would the floors then fall ansver that question."
polystyrene framework, carbon fiber, epoxy, acetone all would fail under the same heat as in "the towers" (cleanup would be snap, though--i'll give you that. a giant 3d-h spatula is all you'd need)
and THAT'S how you answer a question.
it seems that the inefficiency you point out in steel beams (combining 3 separate pieces of sheet steel (which, by the way, you might want to do a little more research on)) shows up in a much greater way in your 3d-h -- just look at the amount and number of different materials you are using for structure.
your turn.
ah, crap. did i just join in?!
Per's stuff is strangely familiar . . .
new forum for Per - only discussions? vote here:
Hi
"polystyrene framework, carbon fiber, epoxy, acetone all would fail under the same heat as in "the towers" (cleanup would be snap, though--i'll give you that. a giant 3d-h spatula is all you'd need)
and THAT'S how you answer a question."
Exactly -- you forget that this is just an application. That this is said in a context that deal with how this concept respond in many applications for many uses ,still this example that will produce the strongest structure _without_ assembly slots ; but in this discussion I must rely that you acturly se before you, the very thick , in one piece, lightweight "tube" structure. Surely space crafts are better made in metal we all know that, we all know the limitations in just petrochemics but that don't keep 3D-H to offer just any cube-frame-honeycomb structure, this time I bet you never thought about that application ,but please emagine that --- and when you done please tell me the trouble you have, producing a simular structure same materials, same strength -
"it seems that the inefficiency you point out in steel beams (combining 3 separate pieces of sheet steel (which, by the way, you might want to do a little more research on)) shows up in a much greater way in your 3d-h -- just look at the amount and number of different materials you are using for structure.
your turn."
Now it will be difficult for me, to bend a heavy H beam to follow the shape of my boats. H steel realy are quite unhandy except for building boxes or producing something that don't acturly profit from the reson profile steel is shaped to fit. It will never build round unless you take out it's actural "H's profile ness of it and make it into somehting that realy are no H profile any longer. I find no argument in what you say there are no argument to ansver , realy all you say is that you didn't open your mind.
Why I can say , well from what others said and the _way you say what you say. It seem like you talk with closed eyes sort of say.
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.