I think the almighty Per -and his Roman evil detractors- have completed the longest thread in the last 2 years... more than 500 posts... I can only remember in the old pimpin' archinect the Philip RK Nixon and the "what's the hottest film scene ever" as the only threads that tortuously long..
we Romans should realize how epic this 3d-nigHtmare has become...
Laser and vater cutting is so cheap that you don't produce huge washers by pounching them anymore, even the round hole in the middle of a huge washer is today cut not drilled, --- now today's architecture hopefully is not everything avaible tomorrow agfallx what level must someone meet to compare, is it enough to know one fifth cement and 4 fifth sand or must you not use concrete but know burned chalk and okker color , do I transcript if I tell you I master to use a shipsbuilder adge can do the intire set of drawings for a boat , atleast allow me to call myself naval architect, you realy want to se then make a search about Cyber-Boat . Now what is architecture you claim it is social skills I say the applications I do in Lisp acturly are the ones architects use --- do you question that I am autorasid Develober on AutoCAD platform , well traveling the newsgroups it seem my skills are higher than medium even I still use a stone age language, what btw do you think is required for modern filosofy architecture ; to be able to write a recursive fundtion ,no sadly not fact is that to write architect applications all you need is some dusty Lisp.
Now how much progress do you think it is, pulling out a square wall, realy no one had the guts to ansver my critics about architect applications, maby the reson is that I know more. Did that slip your mind ?
Now can anyone tell a simpler way to calculate cost than calculating how many feet at a particular cost plus cost of calculated kilo sheet materials ?
Writing applications this is a very nice feature, as it is easy to calculate both. ------ Sure it is different than adding each post for inserted blocks with maby multible blocka each asking their bill agfailx do you even reconise the difference, how much different it is to calculate the cost of material and cut feet ,compared adding sums of extracted individual bills for various different objects all produced different places at different prices , Well if you would even listen I could tell how sq.feet cost can show so low I even recalculate myself saying "this can't be trur, but it is. Ontop it is easy changing options and checking what it would mean with sheet material covering the _intire_ structure in terms of cost.
Don't try that with a tradisional architect application made for the old Lego thinking way. And please remember there are nothing wrong with everything changing fundamentaly in architecture, it did goung from bricks to concrete it is different from steel ,you can't compare this with a program for straw houses and even ice cubes in theory shuld be perfect, things don't work so smooth as with one method one type of material . his is btw not my foult. the things they are changing.
No, Per, knowing Lisp and having boat-building experience is not enough. You may be an AutoCAD developer, but it seems that you spend more time arguing in forums than learning about architecture. Architecture is more than a clever tool.
Have you read any books on architecture? What are some of them? What are some of the best buildings you know of, other than your own projects?
With regard to your last question (the one I don't have the guts to answer) - I'm afraid I just don't understand. What do you mean by 'architect applications'? If you explain, I'll answer.
Again look at your own words, do they reflect the wish to create something beautifull yes or no, do you mind my choice well maby we speak about two very different things and you are the one not talking about architecture.
No, that won't do either, Per. You cannot avoid my question by refusing to believe that I know anything about architecture. You talk a lot about creating something beautiful, but when people criticise your renderings for being crude, you say 'Oh well, its about the idea not the image.'
Answer the questions:
1. what are some books on architecture you have read?
2. what are some of the best buildings you know?
per ... your prolix posts reek of spelling mistakes. May I suggest studying for the Test Of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). You can find information on the TOEFL here.
Hi the best book about architecture I read is Pionire der Sowjetishen architectur the best building --- sorry there are a few but I guess most are placed in brazil.
Anyway what values are left in architecture now any honesty is gone.
You Romans don't bother that the real arts of stealing and robbing make it into an art ,the name architecture .
Anyway it is not my love to architecture that made me post these pictures on web, my intention was very simple as publishing prove my intelectural property --- now it seem you guy's gave up that concept but isn't this all what it is about you se I also participated contests but also this was to publish and be able to document.
Drop the robbery story, Per. I don't believe Lars Spuybroek stole your idea. You cannot patent architecture. If you want to patent your construction system, then I suggest you do so.
If you want public recognition for your invention, you neeed to get over your hatred of academics and publish in a journal. This forum does not constitute publishing.
What do you like about Brazilian buildings? Do you mean some of Niemeyer's work in Brasilia?
(posted in flagrant disregard of SDR's eloquent plea. please don't get angry at me)
At that time I published loads of documenting my work develobing this method --- yes the first who publish are the one that shuld have the credit, the one who develob the method is the one that worked to get the credit , you justify stealing and robbing do you realise that ?
And I want Lars Spuybroek to know I want Lars Spruybroek to know I think he robbed me for my work by just inserting it into the fiddeled forms he been develobing , --- maby you don't se the difference but I made it real I made it into a wider concept long before he even emagined it could shape fysical architecture , look at the link ; I can prove my works this guy just steal a good idear that fit into his perseption omitting the rights of intelectural property.
Hi
I guess I have several options one could be to write a letter in perfect english where I point to the documentation and distribuate it all over the dutch web, I could keep it nice and just ask this guy to reconise my rights place him in that situation you guess, just ask a bit decentcy ajust a bit honesty point to where I was then when he published that aso. make a great fuzz about it --- you se I don't think such things can be settled quiet with academics.
agfa11x please se how this fat well fed academic se nothing wrong just taking what he need and leave a seriously working guy with an autistic child and low income with the useal arogant academic aproach.
Realy why are we having this discussion, isn't it becaurse one lame theoretic academic can't have enough food in his mouth that he simply have to steal now your social skills support just that attitude.
What would that fat academic lose reconising my rights ?
Isn't it becaurse one lame self fat academic can't have food enough in his mouth , that he obviously also have to steal everything he can from some nice guy's mouth
Show me where your work is documented in detail, Per.
Posting to forums doesn't count, and your web page doesn't have enough information. If you want your system to be protected by law, then you need to patent it. If you don't patent it, you cannot complain about people using it or having similar ideas. Also, don't call people names. It's extremely rude. If you haven't met the man, what right do you have to call him arrogant?
I am far more interested in talking about other architects you respect. What buildings in Brazil do you like?
"Posting to forums doesn't count"
"and your web page doesn't have enough information."
"If you want your system to be protected by law, then you need to patent it. "
--------- Eh did you acturly _read_ about copyright and intelectural property ? or is you on the behafe of a thief finding yet another exchouse to steal the bread from some poor guy's mouth ?
"Also, don't call people names. It's extremely rude. If you haven't met the man, what right do you have to call him arrogant?"
Now this guy had his stuff on the web at the same time I documented this new idea, what I call arogant is when some fat well fed academic who use to talk dull talks suddenly find some structure to hold the dull words in the air, now why is it you academics take it natural to steal and rob, ---- fact is that these neo-ism's didn't have any structure in this discussion you even will find that 3D-H fit no where with architecture, even then I bet you academics find it more exiting to steal the bread from some poor guy's mouth than acturly getting a bright thought yourself ,isn't that true . ........ ....... ........... .......
And no I do not like academics they hate the autodidact they allway's did, realy I known only a few who havn't sold out only a few that havn't replaced greed fir beauty in this case ofcaurse you think you must bow and be the dirtlicking follower ; now ehat did that ever bring, I even tell you what it mean when this guy rob and steal, then all you show is interest in some dead architects work, realy what about the living what about those who prove a true inspiration ,those you can only tread as you academics did in 1905 in 1936 ------ agfalix try give it a thought, some guy work against all forthsaying and come up with a bright idea ( or is your puppy's idear now good would you start calling him names as you seen I been done in this tread if he was not a fat selfglad professor stealing honest peoples bread giving no credit , even it wouldn't mean halve a bottle of redwine ) --- give it a thiught what you say , you know I published when he was fiddeling around with liquid vectors making nothing but theoretic sense , then even you know that you find all sorts of exchouses for not showing a decent aproach but just steal and act as if you develobed it.
No you judge me from saying a lot of art is ugly and even you can't find your own words it is allright to steal and rob, as long as you find an exchouse ,for academics arogance allway's was exchouse enough .
Listen look at what this guy did he didn't even claim to have develobed it but even then, you are there as a mad dog ready to attack a decent guy, who just did the only thing he can make, emagine I am right instead give that a thought, or maby your drive is, that you know that I tell the truth.
I don't think NOX is claiming to have developed it because they understand that its not a new structural concept and it has been done before. This structure isn't being pushed as an architectural holy grail, instead its just an ends to the means of forming space. Yes its considered somewhat experimental in the fact that its tied closely to CNC fabrication technology, but all-in-all this isnt' going to lead to a new zeitgeist for architecture/construction. I think that you're putting too much value in the 3D models you've done.
And has it ever crossed your mind that maybe other people developed/arrived at systems similar to your 3D-H concurrently with your explorations? I don't think thats too far-fetched from the overall simplicity of the system. Its not like you spontaneously created this idea out of thin air, people may have been inspired by similar things that inspired you.
Wasn't it the telephone (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure someone will if I am) that the patents for two identical systems arrived at the patent offices days apart from each other? And lets face it, thats a bit more complex than this.
And calling people names is rude. Have you tried contacting NOX directly regarding this? Or are you just making huge speculations about your work getting blatantly copied? Spitting venom on various obscure internet forums won't accomplish anything...
Hi
Pixelhore , years before I put out in public this idea why do you think ?
First of all this is not about patents it would be silli if a brand new way to think would be protected emagine if the transistor was , but realy now I discussed this on the web for so many years and no not one application is put forth --- must I tell why ; this concept is silli without a computer it is simply stupid if you shuld do it without ,but I think and I am sorry if this offend you, but maby you havn't investigated the fact and what this is all about. I try again ;
First it would be silli to do this before the computer could maneage. as if you try to draw a 3D-H into the tradisional 3 plane construction drawing it simply go wrong, it simply can not fit into the tradisional front-side-top views that's one reson it was not an architect that invented this, as to do what you think "is so simple" you acturly need quite a good bag of skills, skills in terms of CAD knowleage and emaginary abilities that point in a different direction than dull pro-new-ism's talk . So this thing can not be "described" in the tradisional means in a tradisional construction drawing ,try it you se, maby better emagine it ,but do you know enough about construction plans ?
Then we are back round 1990 right, or maby we need to move to round 1996 before we had a CAD program that architects could use , then please ansver me could they 1996? Now if you don't understand why a 3D-H don't fit into tradisional drawings if you can't "se" this from strait front top and side ,then where are your "prove" I just proven it could not be done without atleast a computer atleast mastering a computer program, now do you realy think this is develobed "out of the air" ? Well again and again I told that this is a natural develobment to replace an outdated frame and rib structure I explain that this is develobed with the geometric tools projecting boat drawings on a computer screen ,you even can go and check my homepage se the application still you claim that it was done even it could not be drawn before computers.
"Its not like you spontaneously created this idea out of thin air, people may have been inspired by similar things that inspired you."
why do you say this, can't you bear that a bright guy in a practic application out of bare need get a bright idea.
You say; "Spitting venom on various obscure internet forums won't accomplish anything..." now what do you call using someons elses idear ,concepts distribuated years before you borrowed the idea yourself ,without leaving one single line for credit ,what do you call that. Realy don't you think this guy have a computer and can reach the numberus of groups I frequently used ? Get real think again about what you are supporting ; some guy stealing the bread from the mouth of another nice guy, is that fair .
Thats a length response and I would like to be able to answer/rebutt your comments appropriately. Alas I'm at work right now and don't have the time to do that, so you'll have to wait until I get home to sit down and go through the process. But I would like to point out that you never answered my question on if you have tried to contact NOX regarding this perceived copyright infringement.
As I se it there been enough "contact" allready do you realy expect me to ask credit from that ? ----- Eh wouldn't it be more serious it it have been the other way around instead of the useal artschool riboff concept.
Anyway did you ever heard the frase "wish I was a fly on the wall" , and did you ever wonder how many of the paintings in the arts museums was ever made by artschool professors ? Well maby a few in this fora are that fly on the wall, maby you forgot that it was never the well fed academics that made the arts you say you all understand. Maby this tread is a paralell to what those artists in those times when art was that --- maby art as you know are changing but not and never will the condisions for the ones that can't do anything but their art. You prais the same critics the same attitude that art from those day's met when it didn't sell. Could you emagine a different scene that acturly art is a serious thing a matter of life and dead --- well not in artschool right, then if you get what you pay what worth do you think a concept carry, where a bright are captured for one expression only , where as you know but proberly can't emagine, I talk about multible applications even when it is difficult for you to se others than if an arts professor proclame, then maby I am the one with the vision , ever thought about it that way --- that realy you are just harassing a nice guy with a lot of skills except those social ones.
Realy I never vorried much about such most often they are very little beautifull , ---- gee did you realy expect one being robbed to start a nice discussion with the one who robbed him, is that how academics work ?
Hi
a-f there you se the tradisional computer mesh structure. Look at the mesh it equaly distribuate the perfect thing to make a Solid to be sliced with an un intiligent method as 3D-H then emagine some effort put ontop .It is a bit difficult to se if there would be any side effects, such as generating the structural framework to carry the panels for floors or stairs, but cirtainly a stair will shape in 3D-H or shuld I say the most important thing about it, the structure that hold it in the air by being carried by all nearby members or frames. ------ Still looking a bit closer, the stairs in the graphics seem to be vectors rather then solids so not suit for generating a 3D-H structure, more like a gadged just to show that here is some stairs. Please consider the difference acturly forming the outher limits to be sliced to produce the actural assembly piece . Now please don't blame me that the computer will not suggest a thickness for a particular frame in a specific structure, you se effort need to be put into such concept and that cut out architects .
But realy a-f this is the perfect mesh entity drawing perfect to show the limitations in that perception thoose tools these missing options to put it into reality and create some jobs. Now don't expect architects to either do the means or the labor.
"I accept your idea, your approach and especially your enthusiasm.
But WHY do you think this 45° degree-thing should be so unique?"
Becaurse it was the first for me that showed how just everything changed just turning two of those lame planes ; realy 45 deg. is an exiting rule it show a lot of the possible expressions but sure ,as long as the two planes being two third the cost of tree planes ,anyway a third the trouble , must be 90 deg. onto eachother. I don't want to limit that maby it is an idear to calculate the direction of the sectioning still greatest challance for tradisional draft is to se that two planes are easyer than 3 planes, anyway done with a computer you get what you se and I also find that issue interesting as I would like to se a Mozart in terms of shaping nice inviroments --- remember I am a designer not an architect. Offcaurse I will not decide that there are cirtain rules ,such as the 45 deg thing, but it is a great starting point.
Hi
I did give up the settled crowd several times raji but as no one seem to bother about the new jobs or seem to expect any honesty from architecture I thought I stay in, that someone would be needed to put some insight into it question your paralysed crowd or display just a small wish for beauty, guess the academics are to tight to even care and realy, by defination and arogance, why shuld they care , they only maneage words anyway.
Even they are good screwing those up, but real bad attaching them to pictures, -- now what about some real visions ,why is it academics allway's think they can patent creativity ? Guess becaurse they only know it in theory. Goodnight folks hope you are now well shaken together as tomorrow there will be a new day, just as real arts are made from real artists, not fake ones. Would you care would you reconise unless someone told you Romans.
no way!!... he's been fighting with the Romans since who knows when... but at least since August 2002, that's almost three years... his crusade against all kinds of architectural intelligentsias has reached an homerian status... he's like a greek hero, a myth!
Per will NEVER give up, there's your disapproval silent robot on one side, and at the other end of the table there's Per, he's the eternal answering robot (or whatever)... you'll never make him surrender. That's simply impossible.
here's another volume of the Continuing Stories of Per, January 2003...
At least he's extremely polite, he has started almost everyone of his thousands of posts with a "Hi", and who knows how many messages he has posted if we put all the architecture forums together...
I think you... ehem, Romans :) .. have not understood yet the magnitude of this tragedy..
I stand by what I said about intellectual property. You cannot patent architecture, only a construction system. If you want to be recognised for your idea and make some money off it, you must patent it. Posting to forums is not a way of patenting your work. Either make an application here: http://www.dkpto.dk/ or stop calling fellow architectural designers thieves.
Per, I'm sorry, but I've finished talking to you. I am interested in discussing your ideas, but I can't talk to someone who resorts to personally insulting people he has never met, and refuses to answer questions. I feel like I am talking to a radio.
If you apologise for the name-calling, we can continue to talk about your work. Otherwise, goodbye.
Hi
as long as we still have the 90 deg. between the two intersecting planes they together can be turned what direction you want --- now if you want light to enter from one direction for some reson use that as a guide then there are a reson to. How you will make the structure work supporting panels is none of my concern but ofcaurse you can also combine different structures in various materials in different dimentions. Still let's agrea that it is vise to keep those 90 deg. first at all.
P.s ----- hope you don't think the word bending reply to this method, as there are no bending materials no curving beams if you want a round structure ,it all is sections that ask no bending no fiddeling it will fit to form a round building or a plane fuselage what shape you ask.
why do you want to patent monocoque/semi-monocoque/space-frame construction? Did you invent these principles? Are we talking REAL 3D-H as long as every imaginable part of a building is constructed out of this viral lattice: walls, stairs, window frames, doorknobs? If you don't understand this or the Nervi reference, you're a very sorry case, since you then have a very vague idea of what a "principle" is.
Hi
There are a few very practic resons . You se in the balsa boat holl graphic how the need for a structure yield the tradisional way ,to follow the tradisional front top and side views to be able to go strait from scale drawing to cutting the individual pieces but you must realise the limitations following the tradisional way. Now the gains by slicing a boat form from the tradisional planes are obvious you both get a way to describe the shape at various stations but there also are a math. that allow you manualy to transfere points from one plane to another and in that way edit what is 2d lines in one plane line to be shown and calculated to print how the same line will show as seen from one of the other planes. In short what is X Y on one plane project different onto another of the tradisional 3 planes but you can measure the x values for the new plane by the Y values from the other plane. This is all we were used to before 3D/H and even it proveded all the options we needed it also carry some serious limitations. It do produce the box structure that esp. in ships and plane fuselages is what you want to gain huge strength and ligth weight but it is still 3 planes a compleatly different aproach than doing the calculations better fit to produce a better result with 3d-H ,the calculations are different, the result are very different but fit better to produce a structure with a computer, just rewriting the old way's been tried many times you will find software tight in that method but realy they produce exactly what you can do by hand no real gain using the computer except more accurate calculations and replacing the paper with a screen. If you cut all frames for a boat and placed them on the keel they would be tumble unless you with some mean kept them in place for each time you need to fit one swinging frame you would need to measure , measure again as the frame was supported by no other calculated piece it simply would be a hell and a great trouble where you needed to tigh each frame and you wouldn't be sure it was in exactly the right place, ------- now in this text I try go back to the original thoughts about 3D-H as realy it was develobed in a real application ,even if you don't know how a boat structure are thought tradisionaly if you never experienced the real trouble and all the gadgeds boatbuilders over time develobed, to overcome the limitations with tradisional drafting, I hope to have put enough words into it so you understand the practic issues. ---- Anyway I will ot call it real 3D-H in these pictures ,it is how you go tradisionaly from a technic drawing by standard calculations from the 3 planes to be able to transfere the measures in right scale onto the materials worked . 3D-H is also about that but with a compleatly different aproach
You can simply not compare the two methods ; one is visely based on 3 planes offering all the means to go from drawing to real thing but with limitations you first se when you se the new options and know the limitations and trouble. The other are fit for computers carry out the calculations in a very aproach with two planes instead of tree planes ; two planes would simply not produce the tradisional set of section planes 3D-H do .
Now with a few of my arguments you maby say "oh yes but--- " , but then se it this way ----- think about how you se a tradisional building you se it vertical and horisontal you se it as a card house , even with high-rise buildings you at some point must add transverse members to stabilise the structure 3D-H is nothing but transverse members but, when you add floors allready as Solids to be sliced so the foundations transverse the structure you don't end up with the shell most emagine suddenly there are vertical members going in one with the other framesthere are sudenly frames to hold the floors , it is a compleatly different aproach another world than the tradisional top,front side drawings.
So when you say "well this is seen before " and maby point to the boat ribs graphics, I must say "no you think it is but the real bright idear often is like that, that when you realise it you say "it is so simple even I could have thought about it", but realy is that an argument when fact is that no one realised how deep the impac is ?
You se the 3D-H is a direct attack on the tradisional way of thinking , it also expand the options and is a compleatly new world, as now you have a tool fit for computers that give you a garentie that the thing can be made. It also replace a very troublesom old fasion way of thinking a structure .
Sorry this is early in the morning for me, I bet you will find better descriptions in the tonns of papers I placed on the web, ---- but let me say that the patent thing realy are to much for one man. Even many proberly with a second thought would think that it is increadible that one person can develob a method that make 20 mens work and produce exact tecnic drawings to perform what is never seen before I still maneage what a few in the same situation would have given up. I run support groups within the autistic specter and have vorn myself out in the fight for relevant education for that particular group, I made my own furniture my own boats, I learned myseld to master the computer in such degree that I am asked when a real difficult problem must be solved but true, my solutions often must be said to lay 20 years ahead, beside I fight some other personal troubles even I never had any trouble with my nerves, guess they are soon worn out . Also I tried the thing with Patent a few times before and I could have a few if I had the last money you need, ---- even if you want advise how to keep your rights way ahead the rules set out just ask me I know what patant is about for the guy with a bright idea and I know when to give it up. Still it is easyer today where all contries signed the new copyright rules and the new rules for intelectural property, but it is still like that the academics supported this but then when someone realy do exactly that, publish to show put it on print and leave it in where he know it will be kept for ever, then everyone mastake the patent rules forget about what art is about what progress we need , why we need new methods a new architecture new tools that is not the old ones just rewritten into computer code.
Sorry it is early in the morning, dinusaurs ask a few hours to warm up.
So the real purpose of the 3DH against the "traditional approach" is to do the same but different just because we have computers, with no consideration of economy , assemblage intelligence, logic of form or simple functionality?
Hi
Then you must agrea that "it is nothing new" to make a mashin fly , the birds done it for several decades before ?
No this is new it was impossible before the computers as if you try put a 3D-H into the tradisional 3 planes it make no sense it is impossible to "describe" in the means of using the tradisional calculations as "how you do this" , it is new that's what count not if somthing "look" simular even it is not the same . Now your concern about accumulated knowleage economic sense must compare the facts that this replace 20 different profiles and a compleat different to aproach the practic solutions. My claim in terms of economy is that such structures will cost a third If you just open your mind and stop protecting the old way'e, just becaurse "this is how we allway's done it" you will realise that those are the arguments that allway's been put forth to hinder new way's to keep things the old way. Most say "this is fantastic" most belive their eyes, you guy's expect a superman ,if he is you press the jettison button if he is not an academic as what you guy's are doing are robbing the bright guy who develobed a fantastic new option, ------ why you do so, well I don't know but it allway's been like that and just that attitude all along our history have been the vorse hinder for the new jobs, the progress and the new architecture you say you all want ; but it must be one of your crowd othervise you are bound to try destroy his life, if for no other reson look at the tread and everyone can se a few clues.
Frensh --- I don't think you realise the full impac of tradisional thinking, what challance it is to first be able to master just those tradsional tools ,be able to acturly build the thing , and then ontop be able to break those leade break out of the knowleage and skills and visulise a brand new option.
You academicd don't support that attitude do you. For you anyone who can build a boat is a laugh I know that from my "socialising" with a few of today's "top" academics, they need that guy to harrass , they need that guy to make a laugh when they sabotage what he saved up to perform for years, you put a nail into the computer and have great fun when he lose the orders the bread for his children , then you go ask for another travel to se another museum while this joke try collect the pieces put himself into more debths , it is so easy right.
But what is not easy is to put years of efford into it, on the other hand your social skills make any exchouse for stealing so why bother arts are words not hard work, and a competitor are easily put away as in arts academics rule.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
381
1 Entry
380 Coments
I think the almighty Per -and his Roman evil detractors- have completed the longest thread in the last 2 years... more than 500 posts... I can only remember in the old pimpin' archinect the Philip RK Nixon and the "what's the hottest film scene ever" as the only threads that tortuously long..
we Romans should realize how epic this 3d-nigHtmare has become...
Hi
Laser and vater cutting is so cheap that you don't produce huge washers by pounching them anymore, even the round hole in the middle of a huge washer is today cut not drilled, --- now today's architecture hopefully is not everything avaible tomorrow agfallx what level must someone meet to compare, is it enough to know one fifth cement and 4 fifth sand or must you not use concrete but know burned chalk and okker color , do I transcript if I tell you I master to use a shipsbuilder adge can do the intire set of drawings for a boat , atleast allow me to call myself naval architect, you realy want to se then make a search about Cyber-Boat . Now what is architecture you claim it is social skills I say the applications I do in Lisp acturly are the ones architects use --- do you question that I am autorasid Develober on AutoCAD platform , well traveling the newsgroups it seem my skills are higher than medium even I still use a stone age language, what btw do you think is required for modern filosofy architecture ; to be able to write a recursive fundtion ,no sadly not fact is that to write architect applications all you need is some dusty Lisp.
Now how much progress do you think it is, pulling out a square wall, realy no one had the guts to ansver my critics about architect applications, maby the reson is that I know more. Did that slip your mind ?
Hi
does Per have a job?
Hi
This thred is really, really, REALLY long.
Now can anyone tell a simpler way to calculate cost than calculating how many feet at a particular cost plus cost of calculated kilo sheet materials ?
Writing applications this is a very nice feature, as it is easy to calculate both. ------ Sure it is different than adding each post for inserted blocks with maby multible blocka each asking their bill agfailx do you even reconise the difference, how much different it is to calculate the cost of material and cut feet ,compared adding sums of extracted individual bills for various different objects all produced different places at different prices , Well if you would even listen I could tell how sq.feet cost can show so low I even recalculate myself saying "this can't be trur, but it is. Ontop it is easy changing options and checking what it would mean with sheet material covering the _intire_ structure in terms of cost.
Don't try that with a tradisional architect application made for the old Lego thinking way. And please remember there are nothing wrong with everything changing fundamentaly in architecture, it did goung from bricks to concrete it is different from steel ,you can't compare this with a program for straw houses and even ice cubes in theory shuld be perfect, things don't work so smooth as with one method one type of material . his is btw not my foult. the things they are changing.
No, Per, knowing Lisp and having boat-building experience is not enough. You may be an AutoCAD developer, but it seems that you spend more time arguing in forums than learning about architecture. Architecture is more than a clever tool.
Have you read any books on architecture? What are some of them? What are some of the best buildings you know of, other than your own projects?
With regard to your last question (the one I don't have the guts to answer) - I'm afraid I just don't understand. What do you mean by 'architect applications'? If you explain, I'll answer.
Again look at your own words, do they reflect the wish to create something beautifull yes or no, do you mind my choice well maby we speak about two very different things and you are the one not talking about architecture.
No, that won't do either, Per. You cannot avoid my question by refusing to believe that I know anything about architecture. You talk a lot about creating something beautiful, but when people criticise your renderings for being crude, you say 'Oh well, its about the idea not the image.'
Answer the questions:
1. what are some books on architecture you have read?
2. what are some of the best buildings you know?
holy fucking
shit I cant
fucking take
it anymore
make it stop!!!
Hi
This is the best thread I've read in a while.
per ... your prolix posts reek of spelling mistakes. May I suggest studying for the Test Of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). You can find information on the TOEFL here.
Hi the best book about architecture I read is Pionire der Sowjetishen architectur the best building --- sorry there are a few but I guess most are placed in brazil.
Anyway what values are left in architecture now any honesty is gone.
You Romans don't bother that the real arts of stealing and robbing make it into an art ,the name architecture .
Anyway it is not my love to architecture that made me post these pictures on web, my intention was very simple as publishing prove my intelectural property --- now it seem you guy's gave up that concept but isn't this all what it is about you se I also participated contests but also this was to publish and be able to document.
Drop the robbery story, Per. I don't believe Lars Spuybroek stole your idea. You cannot patent architecture. If you want to patent your construction system, then I suggest you do so.
If you want public recognition for your invention, you neeed to get over your hatred of academics and publish in a journal. This forum does not constitute publishing.
What do you like about Brazilian buildings? Do you mean some of Niemeyer's work in Brasilia?
(posted in flagrant disregard of SDR's eloquent plea. please don't get angry at me)
Hi
What I can and what I done been to publish my idea discuss the options,
Back 2001 Lars Spuybroek was fiddeling with this sort of stuff ;
http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb12/fachgebiete/cad/cax/lars/ih/ddt_index.html
At that time I published loads of documenting my work develobing this method --- yes the first who publish are the one that shuld have the credit, the one who develob the method is the one that worked to get the credit , you justify stealing and robbing do you realise that ?
Hi
And I want Lars Spuybroek to know I want Lars Spruybroek to know I think he robbed me for my work by just inserting it into the fiddeled forms he been develobing , --- maby you don't se the difference but I made it real I made it into a wider concept long before he even emagined it could shape fysical architecture , look at the link ; I can prove my works this guy just steal a good idear that fit into his perseption omitting the rights of intelectural property.
That's a student project, with Lars Spuybroek as a teacher....
Here's another project, by Kolatan / MacDonald studio (1997-2000):
Hi
I guess I have several options one could be to write a letter in perfect english where I point to the documentation and distribuate it all over the dutch web, I could keep it nice and just ask this guy to reconise my rights place him in that situation you guess, just ask a bit decentcy ajust a bit honesty point to where I was then when he published that aso. make a great fuzz about it --- you se I don't think such things can be settled quiet with academics.
Man, I really had a good laf on the silent disapproval robot post. Keep on writing guys...
Hi
agfa11x please se how this fat well fed academic se nothing wrong just taking what he need and leave a seriously working guy with an autistic child and low income with the useal arogant academic aproach.
Realy why are we having this discussion, isn't it becaurse one lame theoretic academic can't have enough food in his mouth that he simply have to steal now your social skills support just that attitude.
What would that fat academic lose reconising my rights ?
Sorry let me refrase the last sentense;
Isn't it becaurse one lame self fat academic can't have food enough in his mouth , that he obviously also have to steal everything he can from some nice guy's mouth
IMHO Lars looks rather fit!
3D-H has also made an appearance in the computer game "The Sims":
Show me where your work is documented in detail, Per.
Posting to forums doesn't count, and your web page doesn't have enough information. If you want your system to be protected by law, then you need to patent it. If you don't patent it, you cannot complain about people using it or having similar ideas. Also, don't call people names. It's extremely rude. If you haven't met the man, what right do you have to call him arrogant?
I am far more interested in talking about other architects you respect. What buildings in Brazil do you like?
"Posting to forums doesn't count"
"and your web page doesn't have enough information."
"If you want your system to be protected by law, then you need to patent it. "
--------- Eh did you acturly _read_ about copyright and intelectural property ? or is you on the behafe of a thief finding yet another exchouse to steal the bread from some poor guy's mouth ?
"Also, don't call people names. It's extremely rude. If you haven't met the man, what right do you have to call him arrogant?"
Now this guy had his stuff on the web at the same time I documented this new idea, what I call arogant is when some fat well fed academic who use to talk dull talks suddenly find some structure to hold the dull words in the air, now why is it you academics take it natural to steal and rob, ---- fact is that these neo-ism's didn't have any structure in this discussion you even will find that 3D-H fit no where with architecture, even then I bet you academics find it more exiting to steal the bread from some poor guy's mouth than acturly getting a bright thought yourself ,isn't that true . ........ ....... ........... .......
And no I do not like academics they hate the autodidact they allway's did, realy I known only a few who havn't sold out only a few that havn't replaced greed fir beauty in this case ofcaurse you think you must bow and be the dirtlicking follower ; now ehat did that ever bring, I even tell you what it mean when this guy rob and steal, then all you show is interest in some dead architects work, realy what about the living what about those who prove a true inspiration ,those you can only tread as you academics did in 1905 in 1936 ------ agfalix try give it a thought, some guy work against all forthsaying and come up with a bright idea ( or is your puppy's idear now good would you start calling him names as you seen I been done in this tread if he was not a fat selfglad professor stealing honest peoples bread giving no credit , even it wouldn't mean halve a bottle of redwine ) --- give it a thiught what you say , you know I published when he was fiddeling around with liquid vectors making nothing but theoretic sense , then even you know that you find all sorts of exchouses for not showing a decent aproach but just steal and act as if you develobed it.
No you judge me from saying a lot of art is ugly and even you can't find your own words it is allright to steal and rob, as long as you find an exchouse ,for academics arogance allway's was exchouse enough .
Listen look at what this guy did he didn't even claim to have develobed it but even then, you are there as a mad dog ready to attack a decent guy, who just did the only thing he can make, emagine I am right instead give that a thought, or maby your drive is, that you know that I tell the truth.
Jeez... where to begin...
I don't think NOX is claiming to have developed it because they understand that its not a new structural concept and it has been done before. This structure isn't being pushed as an architectural holy grail, instead its just an ends to the means of forming space. Yes its considered somewhat experimental in the fact that its tied closely to CNC fabrication technology, but all-in-all this isnt' going to lead to a new zeitgeist for architecture/construction. I think that you're putting too much value in the 3D models you've done.
And has it ever crossed your mind that maybe other people developed/arrived at systems similar to your 3D-H concurrently with your explorations? I don't think thats too far-fetched from the overall simplicity of the system. Its not like you spontaneously created this idea out of thin air, people may have been inspired by similar things that inspired you.
Wasn't it the telephone (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure someone will if I am) that the patents for two identical systems arrived at the patent offices days apart from each other? And lets face it, thats a bit more complex than this.
And calling people names is rude. Have you tried contacting NOX directly regarding this? Or are you just making huge speculations about your work getting blatantly copied? Spitting venom on various obscure internet forums won't accomplish anything...
the only valid thing involved in the images you put up is your ego, per.
Nice name.
per.
Hi
Pixelhore , years before I put out in public this idea why do you think ?
First of all this is not about patents it would be silli if a brand new way to think would be protected emagine if the transistor was , but realy now I discussed this on the web for so many years and no not one application is put forth --- must I tell why ; this concept is silli without a computer it is simply stupid if you shuld do it without ,but I think and I am sorry if this offend you, but maby you havn't investigated the fact and what this is all about. I try again ;
First it would be silli to do this before the computer could maneage. as if you try to draw a 3D-H into the tradisional 3 plane construction drawing it simply go wrong, it simply can not fit into the tradisional front-side-top views that's one reson it was not an architect that invented this, as to do what you think "is so simple" you acturly need quite a good bag of skills, skills in terms of CAD knowleage and emaginary abilities that point in a different direction than dull pro-new-ism's talk . So this thing can not be "described" in the tradisional means in a tradisional construction drawing ,try it you se, maby better emagine it ,but do you know enough about construction plans ?
Then we are back round 1990 right, or maby we need to move to round 1996 before we had a CAD program that architects could use , then please ansver me could they 1996? Now if you don't understand why a 3D-H don't fit into tradisional drawings if you can't "se" this from strait front top and side ,then where are your "prove" I just proven it could not be done without atleast a computer atleast mastering a computer program, now do you realy think this is develobed "out of the air" ? Well again and again I told that this is a natural develobment to replace an outdated frame and rib structure I explain that this is develobed with the geometric tools projecting boat drawings on a computer screen ,you even can go and check my homepage se the application still you claim that it was done even it could not be drawn before computers.
"Its not like you spontaneously created this idea out of thin air, people may have been inspired by similar things that inspired you."
why do you say this, can't you bear that a bright guy in a practic application out of bare need get a bright idea.
You say; "Spitting venom on various obscure internet forums won't accomplish anything..." now what do you call using someons elses idear ,concepts distribuated years before you borrowed the idea yourself ,without leaving one single line for credit ,what do you call that. Realy don't you think this guy have a computer and can reach the numberus of groups I frequently used ? Get real think again about what you are supporting ; some guy stealing the bread from the mouth of another nice guy, is that fair .
Per,
Thats a length response and I would like to be able to answer/rebutt your comments appropriately. Alas I'm at work right now and don't have the time to do that, so you'll have to wait until I get home to sit down and go through the process. But I would like to point out that you never answered my question on if you have tried to contact NOX regarding this perceived copyright infringement.
will you have sex with me?
Hi
As I se it there been enough "contact" allready do you realy expect me to ask credit from that ? ----- Eh wouldn't it be more serious it it have been the other way around instead of the useal artschool riboff concept.
Anyway did you ever heard the frase "wish I was a fly on the wall" , and did you ever wonder how many of the paintings in the arts museums was ever made by artschool professors ? Well maby a few in this fora are that fly on the wall, maby you forgot that it was never the well fed academics that made the arts you say you all understand. Maby this tread is a paralell to what those artists in those times when art was that --- maby art as you know are changing but not and never will the condisions for the ones that can't do anything but their art. You prais the same critics the same attitude that art from those day's met when it didn't sell. Could you emagine a different scene that acturly art is a serious thing a matter of life and dead --- well not in artschool right, then if you get what you pay what worth do you think a concept carry, where a bright are captured for one expression only , where as you know but proberly can't emagine, I talk about multible applications even when it is difficult for you to se others than if an arts professor proclame, then maby I am the one with the vision , ever thought about it that way --- that realy you are just harassing a nice guy with a lot of skills except those social ones.
Realy I never vorried much about such most often they are very little beautifull , ---- gee did you realy expect one being robbed to start a nice discussion with the one who robbed him, is that how academics work ?
Erick van Egeraat, 1997:
Hi
a-f there you se the tradisional computer mesh structure. Look at the mesh it equaly distribuate the perfect thing to make a Solid to be sliced with an un intiligent method as 3D-H then emagine some effort put ontop .It is a bit difficult to se if there would be any side effects, such as generating the structural framework to carry the panels for floors or stairs, but cirtainly a stair will shape in 3D-H or shuld I say the most important thing about it, the structure that hold it in the air by being carried by all nearby members or frames. ------ Still looking a bit closer, the stairs in the graphics seem to be vectors rather then solids so not suit for generating a 3D-H structure, more like a gadged just to show that here is some stairs. Please consider the difference acturly forming the outher limits to be sliced to produce the actural assembly piece . Now please don't blame me that the computer will not suggest a thickness for a particular frame in a specific structure, you se effort need to be put into such concept and that cut out architects .
But realy a-f this is the perfect mesh entity drawing perfect to show the limitations in that perception thoose tools these missing options to put it into reality and create some jobs. Now don't expect architects to either do the means or the labor.
Hi
"I accept your idea, your approach and especially your enthusiasm.
But WHY do you think this 45° degree-thing should be so unique?"
Becaurse it was the first for me that showed how just everything changed just turning two of those lame planes ; realy 45 deg. is an exiting rule it show a lot of the possible expressions but sure ,as long as the two planes being two third the cost of tree planes ,anyway a third the trouble , must be 90 deg. onto eachother. I don't want to limit that maby it is an idear to calculate the direction of the sectioning still greatest challance for tradisional draft is to se that two planes are easyer than 3 planes, anyway done with a computer you get what you se and I also find that issue interesting as I would like to se a Mozart in terms of shaping nice inviroments --- remember I am a designer not an architect. Offcaurse I will not decide that there are cirtain rules ,such as the 45 deg thing, but it is a great starting point.
and now for something completely different............
Hi
Why doesn't Per just give up already? Any insights?
Hi
I did give up the settled crowd several times raji but as no one seem to bother about the new jobs or seem to expect any honesty from architecture I thought I stay in, that someone would be needed to put some insight into it question your paralysed crowd or display just a small wish for beauty, guess the academics are to tight to even care and realy, by defination and arogance, why shuld they care , they only maneage words anyway.
Even they are good screwing those up, but real bad attaching them to pictures, -- now what about some real visions ,why is it academics allway's think they can patent creativity ? Guess becaurse they only know it in theory. Goodnight folks hope you are now well shaken together as tomorrow there will be a new day, just as real arts are made from real artists, not fake ones. Would you care would you reconise unless someone told you Romans.
give up?? Per??? Per Corell????
no way!!... he's been fighting with the Romans since who knows when... but at least since August 2002, that's almost three years... his crusade against all kinds of architectural intelligentsias has reached an homerian status... he's like a greek hero, a myth!
Per will NEVER give up, there's your disapproval silent robot on one side, and at the other end of the table there's Per, he's the eternal answering robot (or whatever)... you'll never make him surrender. That's simply impossible.
here's another volume of the Continuing Stories of Per, January 2003...
At least he's extremely polite, he has started almost everyone of his thousands of posts with a "Hi", and who knows how many messages he has posted if we put all the architecture forums together...
I think you... ehem, Romans :) .. have not understood yet the magnitude of this tragedy..
I stand by what I said about intellectual property. You cannot patent architecture, only a construction system. If you want to be recognised for your idea and make some money off it, you must patent it. Posting to forums is not a way of patenting your work. Either make an application here: http://www.dkpto.dk/ or stop calling fellow architectural designers thieves.
Per, I'm sorry, but I've finished talking to you. I am interested in discussing your ideas, but I can't talk to someone who resorts to personally insulting people he has never met, and refuses to answer questions. I feel like I am talking to a radio.
If you apologise for the name-calling, we can continue to talk about your work. Otherwise, goodbye.
wow - I think it is going to 600!
Also FYI - the Erick van Egeraat project depicted above resulted in an actual building - no need to critique the rendering
Per - would (3) 30 degree bends satisfy the criteria?
Hi
as long as we still have the 90 deg. between the two intersecting planes they together can be turned what direction you want --- now if you want light to enter from one direction for some reson use that as a guide then there are a reson to. How you will make the structure work supporting panels is none of my concern but ofcaurse you can also combine different structures in various materials in different dimentions. Still let's agrea that it is vise to keep those 90 deg. first at all.
P.s ----- hope you don't think the word bending reply to this method, as there are no bending materials no curving beams if you want a round structure ,it all is sections that ask no bending no fiddeling it will fit to form a round building or a plane fuselage what shape you ask.
Good morning Per,
why do you want to patent monocoque/semi-monocoque/space-frame construction? Did you invent these principles? Are we talking REAL 3D-H as long as every imaginable part of a building is constructed out of this viral lattice: walls, stairs, window frames, doorknobs? If you don't understand this or the Nervi reference, you're a very sorry case, since you then have a very vague idea of what a "principle" is.
ING Bank, Budapest
IJN Battleship FUSO
Balsa boat hull
Hi
There are a few very practic resons . You se in the balsa boat holl graphic how the need for a structure yield the tradisional way ,to follow the tradisional front top and side views to be able to go strait from scale drawing to cutting the individual pieces but you must realise the limitations following the tradisional way. Now the gains by slicing a boat form from the tradisional planes are obvious you both get a way to describe the shape at various stations but there also are a math. that allow you manualy to transfere points from one plane to another and in that way edit what is 2d lines in one plane line to be shown and calculated to print how the same line will show as seen from one of the other planes. In short what is X Y on one plane project different onto another of the tradisional 3 planes but you can measure the x values for the new plane by the Y values from the other plane. This is all we were used to before 3D/H and even it proveded all the options we needed it also carry some serious limitations. It do produce the box structure that esp. in ships and plane fuselages is what you want to gain huge strength and ligth weight but it is still 3 planes a compleatly different aproach than doing the calculations better fit to produce a better result with 3d-H ,the calculations are different, the result are very different but fit better to produce a structure with a computer, just rewriting the old way's been tried many times you will find software tight in that method but realy they produce exactly what you can do by hand no real gain using the computer except more accurate calculations and replacing the paper with a screen. If you cut all frames for a boat and placed them on the keel they would be tumble unless you with some mean kept them in place for each time you need to fit one swinging frame you would need to measure , measure again as the frame was supported by no other calculated piece it simply would be a hell and a great trouble where you needed to tigh each frame and you wouldn't be sure it was in exactly the right place, ------- now in this text I try go back to the original thoughts about 3D-H as realy it was develobed in a real application ,even if you don't know how a boat structure are thought tradisionaly if you never experienced the real trouble and all the gadgeds boatbuilders over time develobed, to overcome the limitations with tradisional drafting, I hope to have put enough words into it so you understand the practic issues. ---- Anyway I will ot call it real 3D-H in these pictures ,it is how you go tradisionaly from a technic drawing by standard calculations from the 3 planes to be able to transfere the measures in right scale onto the materials worked . 3D-H is also about that but with a compleatly different aproach
You can simply not compare the two methods ; one is visely based on 3 planes offering all the means to go from drawing to real thing but with limitations you first se when you se the new options and know the limitations and trouble. The other are fit for computers carry out the calculations in a very aproach with two planes instead of tree planes ; two planes would simply not produce the tradisional set of section planes 3D-H do .
Now with a few of my arguments you maby say "oh yes but--- " , but then se it this way ----- think about how you se a tradisional building you se it vertical and horisontal you se it as a card house , even with high-rise buildings you at some point must add transverse members to stabilise the structure 3D-H is nothing but transverse members but, when you add floors allready as Solids to be sliced so the foundations transverse the structure you don't end up with the shell most emagine suddenly there are vertical members going in one with the other framesthere are sudenly frames to hold the floors , it is a compleatly different aproach another world than the tradisional top,front side drawings.
So when you say "well this is seen before " and maby point to the boat ribs graphics, I must say "no you think it is but the real bright idear often is like that, that when you realise it you say "it is so simple even I could have thought about it", but realy is that an argument when fact is that no one realised how deep the impac is ?
You se the 3D-H is a direct attack on the tradisional way of thinking , it also expand the options and is a compleatly new world, as now you have a tool fit for computers that give you a garentie that the thing can be made. It also replace a very troublesom old fasion way of thinking a structure .
Sorry this is early in the morning for me, I bet you will find better descriptions in the tonns of papers I placed on the web, ---- but let me say that the patent thing realy are to much for one man. Even many proberly with a second thought would think that it is increadible that one person can develob a method that make 20 mens work and produce exact tecnic drawings to perform what is never seen before I still maneage what a few in the same situation would have given up. I run support groups within the autistic specter and have vorn myself out in the fight for relevant education for that particular group, I made my own furniture my own boats, I learned myseld to master the computer in such degree that I am asked when a real difficult problem must be solved but true, my solutions often must be said to lay 20 years ahead, beside I fight some other personal troubles even I never had any trouble with my nerves, guess they are soon worn out . Also I tried the thing with Patent a few times before and I could have a few if I had the last money you need, ---- even if you want advise how to keep your rights way ahead the rules set out just ask me I know what patant is about for the guy with a bright idea and I know when to give it up. Still it is easyer today where all contries signed the new copyright rules and the new rules for intelectural property, but it is still like that the academics supported this but then when someone realy do exactly that, publish to show put it on print and leave it in where he know it will be kept for ever, then everyone mastake the patent rules forget about what art is about what progress we need , why we need new methods a new architecture new tools that is not the old ones just rewritten into computer code.
Sorry it is early in the morning, dinusaurs ask a few hours to warm up.
So the real purpose of the 3DH against the "traditional approach" is to do the same but different just because we have computers, with no consideration of economy , assemblage intelligence, logic of form or simple functionality?
Hi
Then you must agrea that "it is nothing new" to make a mashin fly , the birds done it for several decades before ?
No this is new it was impossible before the computers as if you try put a 3D-H into the tradisional 3 planes it make no sense it is impossible to "describe" in the means of using the tradisional calculations as "how you do this" , it is new that's what count not if somthing "look" simular even it is not the same . Now your concern about accumulated knowleage economic sense must compare the facts that this replace 20 different profiles and a compleat different to aproach the practic solutions. My claim in terms of economy is that such structures will cost a third If you just open your mind and stop protecting the old way'e, just becaurse "this is how we allway's done it" you will realise that those are the arguments that allway's been put forth to hinder new way's to keep things the old way. Most say "this is fantastic" most belive their eyes, you guy's expect a superman ,if he is you press the jettison button if he is not an academic as what you guy's are doing are robbing the bright guy who develobed a fantastic new option, ------ why you do so, well I don't know but it allway's been like that and just that attitude all along our history have been the vorse hinder for the new jobs, the progress and the new architecture you say you all want ; but it must be one of your crowd othervise you are bound to try destroy his life, if for no other reson look at the tread and everyone can se a few clues.
Frensh --- I don't think you realise the full impac of tradisional thinking, what challance it is to first be able to master just those tradsional tools ,be able to acturly build the thing , and then ontop be able to break those leade break out of the knowleage and skills and visulise a brand new option.
You academicd don't support that attitude do you. For you anyone who can build a boat is a laugh I know that from my "socialising" with a few of today's "top" academics, they need that guy to harrass , they need that guy to make a laugh when they sabotage what he saved up to perform for years, you put a nail into the computer and have great fun when he lose the orders the bread for his children , then you go ask for another travel to se another museum while this joke try collect the pieces put himself into more debths , it is so easy right.
But what is not easy is to put years of efford into it, on the other hand your social skills make any exchouse for stealing so why bother arts are words not hard work, and a competitor are easily put away as in arts academics rule.
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.