Hi
Anyway the point is, that I allready knew there was not any chance for me in that contest, I only used it to document the method, you see with these big open contests they keep the papers and return the graphics, and just that I joined the contest prove that I was "selling" this method in year 2000, now Im'e still looking for older documenting and there are other contests I joined later in these I also made sure to make a thruout description of the method in both graphics and text.
I see contests as that, but with that one where the name is best translated "Our Digital future within architecture, I still wonder how such more sci-fiction like project making not one single suggestion in any application , could win. --- I mean did you read about how you make power for a highrise , you make the structure rock and use piezo electric by that swinging in the wind --- realy if power shuld be made by "pietzo electric gaskets" as suggested in that paper , then people would get seasick
Urbandesign you could show another link to your computer class, it is a first price in the same contest where I prove 3D-H , --- you see the contest was about "Our Digital future" and it was an architect contest. I participated with a new method that allow you to generate building parts from a Solid model "with a press of a button" , maby to difficult a subject for most with no CAD experience and esp. at that time ,but the graphics I posted could proberly in poictures show what is difficult to explain without knowing CAD, ---- anyway here are the link, the concept are very simular to that of NOX before 3D-H ;
And no this is not sci-fiction it is dead serious and won that contest, even personaly I fail to see the leads I fail to see how this can hepl us in the nsw digital world compared an actural suggestion that is based in reality , but that proberly are my foult, make your own mind ;
What is it you want more than something that must be true or else it would never fit into a computer, make the wonders provide the vision ,ale it come true ?
What is it you want more than something that must be true or else it would never fit into a computer, make the wonders provide the vision make it come true ?
What shuld be wromg making the walls and floors in same instant as cutting the frame
great inventors have the ability to document and date their work. all you have managed to provide - ever - is some "fancy" graphics with no technical data, formulas, proof that you can date to a time, day, month, year when this supposed great thing arrived in that thick cranium you call a skull.
prove it beyond some graphic musings, poor;y done graphics at that, or shut-up and move on. i grow tired of your insolence.
Computer graphics is just proving on a screen, by proven math. how things behave in real world, for you an architect drawing can be a copy of the paper drawing as before computers on a screen for others there are no doubt a simulation in real time work on a screen , I proven allright, I participated in lots of architect contests describing the method displaying the graphics, for you this is about patent rights -- no need how can you close your eyes for what you are discussing words is nothing picture are everything.
Btw --- why do you make a paralell to "great inventors" Im'te just a designer who provide the tools , this lame building show _NOTHING_ towards the Unlimited options , --- btw I never heard a proto type are asked for a patent, still didn't I again and again tell why ?
betadinesutures It _must_ be so that when the true vision and the splendid new options show, that it will be a protective inventor that make it come true ?
You can't emagine that when something realy visionary show, that the guy who develob it want to publish and just be the one that made it happen ?
I proven allright but not to collect credit in the form of money , well it would be allright, but just the credit is enough .
Now I made it different than writing down on a piece of paper that this window must be ordered, that it is this standard block from this factory ,but this will work perfect for any of my structures , you can subtract a Solid the size any window frame, and know that the framework will fit around , but do your block inserts "prove" any buildings ?
Please for every time I put in a graphic and the text discussing it I prove my right, but in the real world you see, an inventor is a guy who most often have very little fun, it's all about words and paper, a patent also stop your creativity, why is it you think it is such great idea to try stop my progress, why do you think it is so great an idea to make sure the guy who develobed this, must fight his rights instead of being able to progress with maby an even better idea ?
That\s up to you to prove, But to do that you must unprove the very computer in front of you, you must prove that they was not in space you must unprove any computer designed object, as if this do not work the plain math. don't work ,the intire drafting and lofting do not work , and you must prove that 3D and computer graphics have no reson to be in architecture --- when you done all that please don't try prove this as your project, as people will think will just think you don't know anything about computers ,architecture or arts.
Have you even understood the context, what do you think is the best vision ,mine or the one I comment.
wisof your arguments is like " well then fill in a gallon of benzin into a horse and let's see how many wheels it will grow and how many miles it will walk , go build your damned automobile but how will you make sure the horse can reach the pedals !!!!!!
Realy what is your "prove" ,that words is everything and pictures nothing ?
Hi
raji don\t we all ,but it seem that there are more and more to do all these small things that take the time theat shuld be used for something more creative, but I agrea that I best like to decide myself what to spend my time with
Like making the comment I did with Alvaro\s pavilion , that\s the sort of things I rather replace with pointing to what other forms what fantastic shapes can be performed with the method, dealing with those fantastic details things like that, develobing further.
So you think there are nothing to argue comparing the same form when you "see" it in two different way's , that the "feel" of the "material" or the understanding of the structure can not be argued --- ofcaurse not when words are only used the way it have been in this discussion ,you see most arguments have not been dealing with the fantastic options ,the words been only used for trying to shoot this thing down , offcaurse they are in an inviroment where it is about evil mind and harming tallented artists as much as possible, you think you join the safe lead by doing so yourself. That praising the settled crowd is what academics is about, offcaurse it is, true, not to give the credit to the living and progressive but to the dead or settled, art is something in the museums and most artists are dead , so are innovative mind. -- we don't want any of that right ?
Now not one single word have been vasted for a positive argument, don't this show just everything about academics, that words must replace the pictures that you can show a red spot on a canvas and it will be art, but if a real innovative thought and some real creativity go into it, it is filth words that become the arguments not fine pictures .
Guess what is wrong is, that you don't like new and true visionary to replace the old celebrated academics, Now look a t the pover in graphics ,try make an ansver when I put up two pictures but remember it was you that didn't find it funny to even "ansver" the argument that is putting these two pictures on the same page ;
Now do yourself the faviour to make an argument on that.
Hi
Yes but it also are clear as a line, what this is about.
A bright idea that give all the oppotunity that was never there, a method to form and create spaces and instantly produce the actural structure , this is than tried shot down by amature inventors that say art must be "this" or "that" and that a fantastic tool they do not need or are not capable of getting the idea for themself ,then academics show it's true pover.
Or is fact that you all joined up showing no guts in your words showing what you learned and that will color your perception of art and what we can expect academics, to accept being art a poverfull well fed elite that replace foul words with innovativi mind, -- a red spot on a canvas see that's art, where a fantastic new method yield the filth of your mind Romans. Show what "Art" is about in your mind celebrating the old ones those who even hate the computer, celebrating those that is so stuck in their mind, that they care nothing about the new jobs, the new safe houses, the new architecture, the bread for the real artists in the time. ----- those who dare and maneage to put up a true well descripted new tool. Na architecture must be words art something on a flat piece of paper othervise it is not the works we celebrate ,right Romans ?
Now these are arguments, words are nothing picture are everything make a comment not just filth ,
Becaurse it seem we speak two different languages, but in this discussion words seem to count more than pictures --- but isn't the picture more clear than the words, that this is not about realising what a revolution a new method will be ,isn't it clear how new clotches are hung on old lame steel profile structures and that architecture are stuck in old way's of thinking nomatter how fancy the clotches are that it is what is underneath that make the real vision. Also Frensh it was easyer for you to "ansver" with a question ,one that show you will not ansver ; must I retype my "question" ,the language I use to prove some innovative mind, before you realise you replaced pictures with words, must I place the two pictures again and again before you "ansver" with something relevant, such as if you even realised what a direct-Link method will mean, or do you beforehand hate it so much that nomatter what it contribute it must be met with another academic question, showing what academica do in arts when true visions show ;To protect the settled computer haters those stuck in 80' architecture those who hate computers to the degree, that they are the same ones who allway's went against any visionary idea, --- must I again place the two pictures before you get the guts to _ansver the questions I put forth ?
Now please remember what my attitude is, to add a tool that offer fantastic possibilities , a tool that overcome the limitations tradisional projecting met, a tool that make you realise that a building must be structure not just fancy clotches but thruout undrestanding and detail.
----- Now _that_ is what is met with the responses you see in this tread, responses that tell more about academics than my works.
It seem no one understand what such tool mean in terms of a new architecture and academics seem to fight the facts about credit, but this is not what you think it is it is much more it is innovative and visionary ,anyone who worked with an architect application will reconise this anyone looking for fact new tools will welcome a new method, guess who will not.
Hi Per
Now as your idea is out there, it seems that not only Lars Spuybroek (NOX) used it (old thief...) but also Juergen Mayer H (old bastard) has stolen it.
So soon h3d will be realized in Sevilla, Spain....
Btw ------- Wouldn't it be an idea, to realise this seriously and state the fact who spended round 10 years develobing this ?
U see if you think this is what you can achive using thei method, well then you havn't seen anything yet, as I said the applications are endless in numbers , you can emagine everything fromn motorbikes to aeroplanes beside building structures, this will create the new jobs , maby it would be a good idea to realise and agrea in words. U see after 10 years with just this, I realy liked to get the credit and go on.
I say that this project even better than the previous I seen will profit even more the more detail is put into it. An engineer will instantly question the amount of areas in the sheet materials , when combining several frameworks is discovered then , then first then will the real beauty show only this is my vision. Detail allway's was good within architecture and maby the world shuld be glad, that I restrict my own Van.R. inspired style ,still this only show the flexibility in this method you could plaster in framework for a bench ,into framework for a wall make it hollow do it as many times you want shuldn't this be a succes ;))
But Yes this jurgen mayer thing is the best 3D-H structure I seen others perform, --- wonder about this guy are better in mind then the rest of the crowd well they show their true value don't they ?
Wisof I will spare you for the graphic blown into your face, but I think you shuld follow the link and see an academic monument I perces , it is the Epidiaskop I expect to use presenting graphics and visions when credit turn real . first please check a genuine Leitz 800/400 mm. Epidiaskop said to be an academic monument ;
It take big size diapositive film making people say "why do we need 3D when we have this" It do the same with the 800 mm. if it is just printed on paper, blow it up in perfect quality from oversize A4 .
That would be something of a roadshow ,just wait till I add a bit polerised light and a poverfull ultraviolet lamp in the monster.
the graphic blown into my face? I followed the link, looked at the final boards, and saw for myself that the winning entry by Juergen Mayer has nothing to do with h3d. So I am wondering, why that shape has been hed'ed.
look man, there is something I do not understand about you. You have great enthusiasm for this, when people offer suggestions or give you criticism, you talk nonsense and post the same meaningless images. The more you post the same image, the less it means.
you have posted here to an audience of designers. you are asking these designers to use your method. people have responded. many people think your method is doing the exact opposite of what you propose it does. I agree with them. like I have said before, I wanted to see if you had anything more to say, but with every post you say the same thing, and you post images that say nothing.
why do I feel I need to spend my time discussing this? maybe is that you are so damn stubborn about it. it is amusing, but isn't there something else you could put your energy towards? maybe I should do the same . . .
Maby you havn't realised the difference between how fact today's architect applications work and how this work. If you feel like that I wonder if read what I spoken. If you realy inderstand the fact that with this you go strait from drawing to production, that that production is not 2o different specialy compoments put together but just one plain material worked with the simplest N.C. manufactoring avaible, a cheap allready here technike.
It is none of my vorry if you havn't opened your mind this must be your problem -- but have you asked yourself if your perception can be real, have you asked yourself that simple question , what if I am right and this guy realy are on to something --- well it maby is not your favorite occupation but are you compleatly blind to the fact that others acturly think this is a fantastic option. Ok if your buisness are Web design I understand your frustration as how can anyone who is not a web designer use the designer title ,but realy I am I am a guy who ontop a lofe long sucesfull creative practic that never failed came up with the ansver , the one that know CAD from 16 years of experience know AutoCAD in and out do application programming for the fun of itm --- build you a boat if that is what practic experience do it single man if what you want to determine are focus and I make it beautifull ---- now tell me one reson I shuld this wrong and I tell you 10 why your perception could be off track by so simple things as your own expertations .
Maby there are a natural reson that you only want words and allready hate pictures ,now how close was that if not close enough you maby love your own pictures but hate others, but I stay with the words, that your occupation don't allow you to understand math by vision don't need a new method, so critic are cheap for you, --- you know in other groups say about architecture those who rule are ultra conservativ who rather talk about Bush than architecture, why shuld it be different here , what protect this group against a right wing attack on communist architects hippies, maby you are just some of these , you seem to have no interest in a promising new building technike as the pictures tell you nothing , you don't comment the facts I tell as if you don't know what CAD is about, you hate pictures , what is your real cause when you can't even say "well if such a method was possible it cirtainly would be apriciated but ---- Oh no this is not how you make your words realy the more angry guy's like you get, the better I know I focused right.
Why wisof is this more important , if the thing have been 3D-H'd or not ?
More important than looking at the picture and se if 3D-H isn't just the perfect solution for this check how 3D-H make this into a better wonder oh no you don't even see that, fact this will be as strong as hell and easyer to perform than a lame computer mesh oh no none of your concern --- that is not important, the actural facts shown in the graphic simply don't talk to you, you don't even look for the way 3D-H made this better, no that is of no interest, why is that shuldn't this be an interesting issue more interesting than what you wondered ?
Beside what suggestions are you talking about -- a few repeated again and again that they made such , now please tell me just one relevant suggestion just one or if so many as you say made unansvered suggestions tell me 3 of these, ---- I will keep asking untill you given me 3 that must be fair.
it seems to me that you might be the perfect complement to these people given your interest in architecture, your skill in boat building, and your willingness to dream of big ideas.
i look forward to seeing a rendering of the freedom ship in 3D-H
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
Hi
Anyway the point is, that I allready knew there was not any chance for me in that contest, I only used it to document the method, you see with these big open contests they keep the papers and return the graphics, and just that I joined the contest prove that I was "selling" this method in year 2000, now Im'e still looking for older documenting and there are other contests I joined later in these I also made sure to make a thruout description of the method in both graphics and text.
I see contests as that, but with that one where the name is best translated "Our Digital future within architecture, I still wonder how such more sci-fiction like project making not one single suggestion in any application , could win. --- I mean did you read about how you make power for a highrise , you make the structure rock and use piezo electric by that swinging in the wind --- realy if power shuld be made by "pietzo electric gaskets" as suggested in that paper , then people would get seasick
nice, must show my Computers Class
lol
Hi
Urbandesign you could show another link to your computer class, it is a first price in the same contest where I prove 3D-H , --- you see the contest was about "Our Digital future" and it was an architect contest. I participated with a new method that allow you to generate building parts from a Solid model "with a press of a button" , maby to difficult a subject for most with no CAD experience and esp. at that time ,but the graphics I posted could proberly in poictures show what is difficult to explain without knowing CAD, ---- anyway here are the link, the concept are very simular to that of NOX before 3D-H ;
And no this is not sci-fiction it is dead serious and won that contest, even personaly I fail to see the leads I fail to see how this can hepl us in the nsw digital world compared an actural suggestion that is based in reality , but that proberly are my foult, make your own mind ;
http://www.kollision.dk/nwol/index.html
this thread should be the next pamphlet architecture. somebody give per holl's number.
then again, it could be printed on tissue and made into a roll of toilet paper. somebody give per charmin's number.
alvaro siza wouldn't agree with the toilet paper idea.
i wonder what happened there. i am with per..
CRAP...momentum that was totally worth the scroll....next..next..next
Hi
Now I guess it is time to explain why the credit must be given to the right master.
Hi
A better viev of the first graphics ;
home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/lade-2.jpg
no credit until you prove it.
Yes but prove what
What is it you want more than something that must be true or else it would never fit into a computer, make the wonders provide the vision ,ale it come true ?
What is it you want more than something that must be true or else it would never fit into a computer, make the wonders provide the vision make it come true ?
What shuld be wromg making the walls and floors in same instant as cutting the frame
great inventors have the ability to document and date their work. all you have managed to provide - ever - is some "fancy" graphics with no technical data, formulas, proof that you can date to a time, day, month, year when this supposed great thing arrived in that thick cranium you call a skull.
prove it beyond some graphic musings, poor;y done graphics at that, or shut-up and move on. i grow tired of your insolence.
Hi
Computer graphics is just proving on a screen, by proven math. how things behave in real world, for you an architect drawing can be a copy of the paper drawing as before computers on a screen for others there are no doubt a simulation in real time work on a screen , I proven allright, I participated in lots of architect contests describing the method displaying the graphics, for you this is about patent rights -- no need how can you close your eyes for what you are discussing words is nothing picture are everything.
Btw --- why do you make a paralell to "great inventors" Im'te just a designer who provide the tools , this lame building show _NOTHING_ towards the Unlimited options , --- btw I never heard a proto type are asked for a patent, still didn't I again and again tell why ?
betadinesutures It _must_ be so that when the true vision and the splendid new options show, that it will be a protective inventor that make it come true ?
You can't emagine that when something realy visionary show, that the guy who develob it want to publish and just be the one that made it happen ?
I proven allright but not to collect credit in the form of money , well it would be allright, but just the credit is enough .
Now I made it different than writing down on a piece of paper that this window must be ordered, that it is this standard block from this factory ,but this will work perfect for any of my structures , you can subtract a Solid the size any window frame, and know that the framework will fit around , but do your block inserts "prove" any buildings ?
Please for every time I put in a graphic and the text discussing it I prove my right, but in the real world you see, an inventor is a guy who most often have very little fun, it's all about words and paper, a patent also stop your creativity, why is it you think it is such great idea to try stop my progress, why do you think it is so great an idea to make sure the guy who develobed this, must fight his rights instead of being able to progress with maby an even better idea ?
you did not develop anything, and have proven nothing
That\s up to you to prove, But to do that you must unprove the very computer in front of you, you must prove that they was not in space you must unprove any computer designed object, as if this do not work the plain math. don't work ,the intire drafting and lofting do not work , and you must prove that 3D and computer graphics have no reson to be in architecture --- when you done all that please don't try prove this as your project, as people will think will just think you don't know anything about computers ,architecture or arts.
Have you even understood the context, what do you think is the best vision ,mine or the one I comment.
YEAH! I'm 630!
wisof your arguments is like " well then fill in a gallon of benzin into a horse and let's see how many wheels it will grow and how many miles it will walk , go build your damned automobile but how will you make sure the horse can reach the pedals !!!!!!
Realy what is your "prove" ,that words is everything and pictures nothing ?
Per, you need something to do with your time, don't you?
Hi
raji don\t we all ,but it seem that there are more and more to do all these small things that take the time theat shuld be used for something more creative, but I agrea that I best like to decide myself what to spend my time with
Like making the comment I did with Alvaro\s pavilion , that\s the sort of things I rather replace with pointing to what other forms what fantastic shapes can be performed with the method, dealing with those fantastic details things like that, develobing further.
Hi
So what happened Romans ,out of arguments ?
Pictures are everything words are nothing !
No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous.
Henry Adams (1838 - 1918)
Hi
sorry per, your pictures suck. I've never seen so many renderings that say so little over and over again.
there is nothing to argue here.
Hi
So you think there are nothing to argue comparing the same form when you "see" it in two different way's , that the "feel" of the "material" or the understanding of the structure can not be argued --- ofcaurse not when words are only used the way it have been in this discussion ,you see most arguments have not been dealing with the fantastic options ,the words been only used for trying to shoot this thing down , offcaurse they are in an inviroment where it is about evil mind and harming tallented artists as much as possible, you think you join the safe lead by doing so yourself. That praising the settled crowd is what academics is about, offcaurse it is, true, not to give the credit to the living and progressive but to the dead or settled, art is something in the museums and most artists are dead , so are innovative mind. -- we don't want any of that right ?
Now not one single word have been vasted for a positive argument, don't this show just everything about academics, that words must replace the pictures that you can show a red spot on a canvas and it will be art, but if a real innovative thought and some real creativity go into it, it is filth words that become the arguments not fine pictures .
Guess what is wrong is, that you don't like new and true visionary to replace the old celebrated academics, Now look a t the pover in graphics ,try make an ansver when I put up two pictures but remember it was you that didn't find it funny to even "ansver" the argument that is putting these two pictures on the same page ;
Now do yourself the faviour to make an argument on that.
this place is like the Twilight Zone or Hotel California...
More like the Overlook Hotel from The Shining...
Hi
Yes but it also are clear as a line, what this is about.
A bright idea that give all the oppotunity that was never there, a method to form and create spaces and instantly produce the actural structure , this is than tried shot down by amature inventors that say art must be "this" or "that" and that a fantastic tool they do not need or are not capable of getting the idea for themself ,then academics show it's true pover.
Or is fact that you all joined up showing no guts in your words showing what you learned and that will color your perception of art and what we can expect academics, to accept being art a poverfull well fed elite that replace foul words with innovativi mind, -- a red spot on a canvas see that's art, where a fantastic new method yield the filth of your mind Romans. Show what "Art" is about in your mind celebrating the old ones those who even hate the computer, celebrating those that is so stuck in their mind, that they care nothing about the new jobs, the new safe houses, the new architecture, the bread for the real artists in the time. ----- those who dare and maneage to put up a true well descripted new tool. Na architecture must be words art something on a flat piece of paper othervise it is not the works we celebrate ,right Romans ?
Now these are arguments, words are nothing picture are everything make a comment not just filth ,
Why make a comment if you disconsider words so much?
Becaurse it seem we speak two different languages, but in this discussion words seem to count more than pictures --- but isn't the picture more clear than the words, that this is not about realising what a revolution a new method will be ,isn't it clear how new clotches are hung on old lame steel profile structures and that architecture are stuck in old way's of thinking nomatter how fancy the clotches are that it is what is underneath that make the real vision. Also Frensh it was easyer for you to "ansver" with a question ,one that show you will not ansver ; must I retype my "question" ,the language I use to prove some innovative mind, before you realise you replaced pictures with words, must I place the two pictures again and again before you "ansver" with something relevant, such as if you even realised what a direct-Link method will mean, or do you beforehand hate it so much that nomatter what it contribute it must be met with another academic question, showing what academica do in arts when true visions show ;To protect the settled computer haters those stuck in 80' architecture those who hate computers to the degree, that they are the same ones who allway's went against any visionary idea, --- must I again place the two pictures before you get the guts to _ansver the questions I put forth ?
you may put it again
Now please remember what my attitude is, to add a tool that offer fantastic possibilities , a tool that overcome the limitations tradisional projecting met, a tool that make you realise that a building must be structure not just fancy clotches but thruout undrestanding and detail.
----- Now _that_ is what is met with the responses you see in this tread, responses that tell more about academics than my works.
It seem no one understand what such tool mean in terms of a new architecture and academics seem to fight the facts about credit, but this is not what you think it is it is much more it is innovative and visionary ,anyone who worked with an architect application will reconise this anyone looking for fact new tools will welcome a new method, guess who will not.
Remember all your ansvers been about a new perception a new architecture and the credit.
Hi Per
Now as your idea is out there, it seems that not only Lars Spuybroek (NOX) used it (old thief...) but also Juergen Mayer H (old bastard) has stolen it.
So soon h3d will be realized in Sevilla, Spain....
(info about the comp.)
But look at the bright side, we @ archinect will know, that it was u who started it...
Hi
Yes--- since I published it at an open architect contest in denmark year 2000 :))
------- A contest about "the digital building"
Btw ------- Wouldn't it be an idea, to realise this seriously and state the fact who spended round 10 years develobing this ?
U see if you think this is what you can achive using thei method, well then you havn't seen anything yet, as I said the applications are endless in numbers , you can emagine everything fromn motorbikes to aeroplanes beside building structures, this will create the new jobs , maby it would be a good idea to realise and agrea in words. U see after 10 years with just this, I realy liked to get the credit and go on.
P.s.
I say that this project even better than the previous I seen will profit even more the more detail is put into it. An engineer will instantly question the amount of areas in the sheet materials , when combining several frameworks is discovered then , then first then will the real beauty show only this is my vision. Detail allway's was good within architecture and maby the world shuld be glad, that I restrict my own Van.R. inspired style ,still this only show the flexibility in this method you could plaster in framework for a bench ,into framework for a wall make it hollow do it as many times you want shuldn't this be a succes ;))
But Yes this jurgen mayer thing is the best 3D-H structure I seen others perform, --- wonder about this guy are better in mind then the rest of the crowd well they show their true value don't they ?
urbanisto, where did you find that image? the boards they posted for the competition have similar shapes, but they have not been h3d'ed.
Hi
Wisof I will spare you for the graphic blown into your face, but I think you shuld follow the link and see an academic monument I perces , it is the Epidiaskop I expect to use presenting graphics and visions when credit turn real . first please check a genuine Leitz 800/400 mm. Epidiaskop said to be an academic monument ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Epidiaskop-1.jpg
It take big size diapositive film making people say "why do we need 3D when we have this" It do the same with the 800 mm. if it is just printed on paper, blow it up in perfect quality from oversize A4 .
That would be something of a roadshow ,just wait till I add a bit polerised light and a poverfull ultraviolet lamp in the monster.
the graphic blown into my face? I followed the link, looked at the final boards, and saw for myself that the winning entry by Juergen Mayer has nothing to do with h3d. So I am wondering, why that shape has been hed'ed.
look man, there is something I do not understand about you. You have great enthusiasm for this, when people offer suggestions or give you criticism, you talk nonsense and post the same meaningless images. The more you post the same image, the less it means.
you have posted here to an audience of designers. you are asking these designers to use your method. people have responded. many people think your method is doing the exact opposite of what you propose it does. I agree with them. like I have said before, I wanted to see if you had anything more to say, but with every post you say the same thing, and you post images that say nothing.
why do I feel I need to spend my time discussing this? maybe is that you are so damn stubborn about it. it is amusing, but isn't there something else you could put your energy towards? maybe I should do the same . . .
Maby you havn't realised the difference between how fact today's architect applications work and how this work. If you feel like that I wonder if read what I spoken. If you realy inderstand the fact that with this you go strait from drawing to production, that that production is not 2o different specialy compoments put together but just one plain material worked with the simplest N.C. manufactoring avaible, a cheap allready here technike.
It is none of my vorry if you havn't opened your mind this must be your problem -- but have you asked yourself if your perception can be real, have you asked yourself that simple question , what if I am right and this guy realy are on to something --- well it maby is not your favorite occupation but are you compleatly blind to the fact that others acturly think this is a fantastic option. Ok if your buisness are Web design I understand your frustration as how can anyone who is not a web designer use the designer title ,but realy I am I am a guy who ontop a lofe long sucesfull creative practic that never failed came up with the ansver , the one that know CAD from 16 years of experience know AutoCAD in and out do application programming for the fun of itm --- build you a boat if that is what practic experience do it single man if what you want to determine are focus and I make it beautifull ---- now tell me one reson I shuld this wrong and I tell you 10 why your perception could be off track by so simple things as your own expertations .
Maby there are a natural reson that you only want words and allready hate pictures ,now how close was that if not close enough you maby love your own pictures but hate others, but I stay with the words, that your occupation don't allow you to understand math by vision don't need a new method, so critic are cheap for you, --- you know in other groups say about architecture those who rule are ultra conservativ who rather talk about Bush than architecture, why shuld it be different here , what protect this group against a right wing attack on communist architects hippies, maby you are just some of these , you seem to have no interest in a promising new building technike as the pictures tell you nothing , you don't comment the facts I tell as if you don't know what CAD is about, you hate pictures , what is your real cause when you can't even say "well if such a method was possible it cirtainly would be apriciated but ---- Oh no this is not how you make your words realy the more angry guy's like you get, the better I know I focused right.
Why wisof is this more important , if the thing have been 3D-H'd or not ?
More important than looking at the picture and se if 3D-H isn't just the perfect solution for this check how 3D-H make this into a better wonder oh no you don't even see that, fact this will be as strong as hell and easyer to perform than a lame computer mesh oh no none of your concern --- that is not important, the actural facts shown in the graphic simply don't talk to you, you don't even look for the way 3D-H made this better, no that is of no interest, why is that shuldn't this be an interesting issue more interesting than what you wondered ?
Beside what suggestions are you talking about -- a few repeated again and again that they made such , now please tell me just one relevant suggestion just one or if so many as you say made unansvered suggestions tell me 3 of these, ---- I will keep asking untill you given me 3 that must be fair.
Per,
have you seen the freedom ship?
http://www.freedomship.com/freedomship/gallery/gallery.shtml
it seems to me that you might be the perfect complement to these people given your interest in architecture, your skill in boat building, and your willingness to dream of big ideas.
i look forward to seeing a rendering of the freedom ship in 3D-H
good luck
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.