(sex as an event in language, not in bed: string together the letters of our alphabet in a certain sequence, and it gives you a hard-on.)
Roman alphabet = 20 consonants
5 vowels
1 vowel/consonant hybrid (the letter y)
__
26 letters total
Maybe it's all there in this linguistic dynamic - the ratio 1:5:20 - all of Shakespeare, all of Dante, all of the King James Bible... construct your buildings around this constant and you end up with 'literary' architecture?
(sorry, I'm rambling on again like poor Per...)
You are quite right --- how many times did danes have to go to england to teach them the language, for each time in the start just a few decades made the english language turn back into the native keltic and again we had to go there and brush up the words. --- again and again danes had to go there to refine the language fact as I pointed to before, we know your language at a much deeper level than you would ever reconise.
Romans was just so much into promoting warm houses and a weekly bath ,and a civilised alphabet that you can only respect the attitude.
They had a Pony to.
and the perfect fluency of endless, obscure English, which has neither beginning, middle nor end... pure drama taken ad absurdum, but coherent nontheless in mystical ways Danish...
geno you are welcome to add your comment, still aswell as sharing this tread is realy about a new method and what response that recive. Guess all artists are stuck with the options in their times in this tread you will find both references to living and dead artists --- my concern are rather the living and not the attitude you see from many academics ; that art belong in a museum and artists therefore mainly must be those not living ,but except the standstill this mean then from my point of view there are no better time than the presant, to make sure our tools also are the ones avaible and called for. My designs or the tools I develob in that process is on the other side not at lower quality than those tools or new materials that made the architecture copied from the early true visionary designers of the early past century ,it is not words but fact quality new visions and real 3D tools that will change all that, and produce the new architecture.
In this tread please notis that when I ask for a better alternative, a better way to bring the projected 3D models into reality, there never had been an ansver. When I published a design and in capital words pointed out, that this is not about the design but the method, then the critic allway's been about the design and never a word of sense about the method --- and please remember that I master both AutoCAD and AutoLisp . So geno please tell us about what you find so nice you see it is much more progressive to do it that way.
it is rather absurd - i could really care less about what is discussed on this thread - i'm not a fancy graphic lover - could care less about 3D as anything other than a tool.
but you have this uncanny way of writing in a completely unclear way but yet totally absorbing. i couldn't help but respond. are you some derivative of satan? or dracula?
anyway, i was moved by the balmond article because of the humility in his work. his commitment to being behind the scenes - most often completely neglected in the credits - for his love of structure and the simplicity by which he conveys his ideas. he works directly and forcefully for the sake of new architecture.
Hi
Im'e sorry to say, but from my point of view that serpentine thing are a quite boring piece of rigid cardboard I wonder if the graphics I put in just a few pages ago was even reconised. It's everything tradisional and seem to be a piect that just want to catch the trends it's made with an edgy feel and compared a true 3D-H it's just a lame lookalike that bring no new building technikes no real visions --- and those it pretend to bring is not worth copying , Also it follow the tradisional sections and also in that sense are a quite banal thing , made as a cramped assembly of small various pieces ,banges not sliced together , there are no real structural idea and from the pictures seem to have been hell of a trouble ( realy a brilliant new gadged shuldn't be that, )---- there are nothing new in it everything is plain standard enginering just following the tradisional top-front-side views and it even take all 3 planes into use just to be sure, where a 3D-H uses just two planes to make something much more exiting in all terms. Look at it again from my point of view not just boring but also meaningless as it do not bring anything new --- copying another bright idea is not a new thing I must add.
-------- where do it point, do it suggest any new vision even something that can profit anything a new way to fabricate the individual building compoments , ----do it promote a direct link production of the individual building parts ? Do it promise a new way to project and fabricate ? Sorry but if you ga back in the discussion you will se how somewhat the same structure would look forom inside try compare that with this
An 3D-H fast made in some of the same forms but with the honest and real aproach of a fact new method ;
Sorry beta and geno but comparing just these two graphics, it is difficult for me to see the grand achivement in tradisional engineering in the serpentine cardbox assembly compared the obvious promises with 3D-H.
Hi
Again try compare the interious from a real 3D-H structure;
With the tradisioanl engineering aproach that add no new visions, that see the structure as just a lame substitude of the architectural thinking 3D-H is just to replace --- realy whare are the great architectural achivements just making a card house what's the idea with such a cramped lookalike of what could have shown a great new aproach ;
per, how did it became so important for yous to be a master of autocads and lisps... only tooling. can constructioning be veeded up with 3dh structring?
Hi
Now please know that these are _not_ my graphics --- guess you know but now I know for sure you know --- ,anyway the small blocks must be fiddeling blocks, as the whole attitude are so alian for me I mean why bother do such cardhouse ; but the graphics I put in as my arguments shuld explain this issue.
Anyway they are fiddleblocks, means to make it go together I guess.
cf --- 3D-H did not just come easy.
Sure when you know it it would seem obvious just to do that small trick and get an assembly framework just like that, but when I started with CAD it was AutoCAD ver 2.6 and just to realise how these lines could be on the screen and carry both measures and offer all the things we today just use without even knowing the code , please think about that. That unless you know how to yield the point where a line in 3D meet a triangle face ,your mind can only tumble with what you emagine where fact is that each and every function and option are better understood in the CAD universe being matrix calculations to make them easy , --- beside please think about it this way, that when I back then got myself an 8088 it was just to produce the boatplans in the way we all at that time was an option --- sad thing for those who took the decision ans challance was, that sure you could get just what you wanted, you just needed to program it yourself ; there was no build in unrolling of surfaces there was no 3D morphing tool , and unless you read four monster telefonbook thick manuals , you would never get anything going that was more than just what you allready could do with top side and front views.
Anyway that's to my best arguments why you don't just as an architect, can be able to do that 3D-H , as first of all you must be able to see the limitations in that you are told and hardly understand and ontop, be able to reconise a method that at the same time solve those many real barriers CAD have faced.
Now 3D-H is just a method but it also are a new architecture, you don't get that unless you allready know the differences know why architecture are stuck in a dead end, have a bit more drive maby or atleast some visions about how it would be better.
Then better mean better not reverse enginering or just grasping something you don't even know how work and use it in such a primitive way as we seen , with primitive I mean
------- Sorry but it's difficult to continue. Shuld I call it a primitive aproach towerds the graphics I humbly put on display, who are the real visionary from these graphics please how can you force me to turn to this lead.
Would an architect who think in spaces and forms even know the detail the hands-on aproach that result in the solution --- the late ansver for the call for something to make the lame 70' computer meshes make sense, how to develob that tool that at a press of a button will make the building part strait from the 3D drawing. From my experience no from my knowleage never as such attitude belong to a very different periode a time where ofcaurse you had the drive from your vision .
per, please why easy use tooling architecture makes better. making you engineer working easier, not really make univers of architecture more pretty? Volkswagen be no corner- who wants?
But please let me add, that there are a sweet irony in the fact that a borrowed solution that replaced what was originaly a lame computer mesh was rejected in a building project that was dealing with a Patent building.
cf --- this was never before an option.
It was never like that ,you could just form and shape ,make a Solid box do a smaller one inside and subtract that to get the walls place the floors as Solids melt them to the now hollow box, do the holes for standard windows and subtract a multible of them from the box with floors. make room for the stairs by just subtracting another Solid and do the fact foundations for the steps at the same time ,by just pressing the button and get a full assembly for the house foundations in just one plain material and strait from 3D drawing into the mashin acturly cutting all different building parts that in this way will hold the measures and produce a fact new architecture --- that option never before was an option, now give the guy the credit or explain why not.
-------- Eh I to love the new option , still with your mind into recursive functions , and wondering about new methods to perform a structural solution Lisp make a nice promise . Still my experience with Lisp is that it develobed from the simplest computer language to learn but the most difficult to use, to be just like any other high level language. What's good about it thoug is still that it is so easy to learn and that in general you can say that all high level computer language are alike, know one and you can pin your way thru most.
Brad was posted once, maybe twice in this thread. Per has repeatedly posted that same series of images over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Almost to the point that the images of Brad are making more of a statement than Per's . . .
But this is not about images or designs, this is about a method, beside if you want a multible different designs to see how 3D-Honeycomb perform go to Yahoo groups and search for 3D-Honeycomb , Cyber-Boat or Per Corell.
---- Just click this this ;
Just check this animation from the Tsunami-Longboat group ;
This show what 3D-H was originaly develobed for, just solving a trivial problem, just expanding the options so you can produce a framework ,way easier, in various applications.
Isn't it great how Per has consitently stated that the images speak for themselves and that he doesn't need to test them to prove that it is a good idea. Yet in the image/graphic/piece of poo that he just posted the boat is sinking!!!! My god even the images don't prove that a] the system works b] that it would look any good or c]...
nah fuck it, can't be bothered with sensible posting anymore...
Illogic your choice of f words reflect your mind, your knowleage or rather ,that you now pretend also to be able to make an "expert" comment about boatsbuilding don't realy make any pover to your words.
Sorry but when someone say something it also tell what's in that someons mind , now when friends of mine read this tread ,their first ansver is "why do you even bother to ansver these suckers" --- I usealy ansver that it is my duty to let them uncover themself by their own words and that this seem to be the only way to show how bored usenet fakenames mistread a fora ,how a pest can destroy the best discussion board and that those dryass rightwing hippie haters ,all the time I used the wab have been attracted to architect discussion foras.
Illogic you seem to be cramped to have an oppinion about anything ,and your attitude seem to be sickened into being a try to make an evil joke about the guy you pick on , read your own words and check out how mean you try to be but just that fact, and that you now start using those words just tell that you are just some fakename old dryass usenet fanatic, ------ realy that is what your words uncover and fact is that I am sorry to say this as it realy are a sad thing that some people find their "joy" in this, again this only tell something about their minds.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
thank u paul!
i will continue to avoid this thread ---
i always though i would find Brad here after i did all that clicking through the pages. Now im here and all i see is some fancy red numerical graphic?
Brad? Are you here?
"i'm here for you man.....'
Angelina and the adopted kid cant be too far away...
damn he's hot!
[oh shit did i actually write that?]
if it's any consolation I think that angelina jolie is hot. i know i know, not the same.
yeah the page numbers rule.
Brad, it's like this: I want to nibble on your nipples...
(sex as an event in language, not in bed: string together the letters of our alphabet in a certain sequence, and it gives you a hard-on.)
Roman alphabet = 20 consonants
5 vowels
1 vowel/consonant hybrid (the letter y)
__
26 letters total
Maybe it's all there in this linguistic dynamic - the ratio 1:5:20 - all of Shakespeare, all of Dante, all of the King James Bible... construct your buildings around this constant and you end up with 'literary' architecture?
(sorry, I'm rambling on again like poor Per...)
You are quite right --- how many times did danes have to go to england to teach them the language, for each time in the start just a few decades made the english language turn back into the native keltic and again we had to go there and brush up the words. --- again and again danes had to go there to refine the language fact as I pointed to before, we know your language at a much deeper level than you would ever reconise.
Romans was just so much into promoting warm houses and a weekly bath ,and a civilised alphabet that you can only respect the attitude.
They had a Pony to.
the enigma of Per is the enigma of Hamlet: the greatest play in the English language, about a Dane, by English Shakespeare...
and the perfect fluency of endless, obscure English, which has neither beginning, middle nor end... pure drama taken ad absurdum, but coherent nontheless in mystical ways Danish...
Beware your words the echo are just a reminder of it's pover
I think I want that on a separate shirt.
That's the Archinect equivilent of "All your base are belong to us."
And I agree with David. I want that on a shirt. We need to tie it into architecture or Archinect somehow though...
I love you Per
this is in response to a post made so far back on this thread. i only stumbled on it looking for the end - it is so long that it caught my attention.
it was an article posted by alphanumericcha on Cecil Balmond sometime in October.
seriously, that is one of the best things I've ever read.
I'm not an architect, have never heard of the guy, but there is something so beautiful there that it made me tear up a bit.
and to think that got lost in all the bullshit that is the rest of this thread. thanks alphanumericcha.
geno you are welcome to add your comment, still aswell as sharing this tread is realy about a new method and what response that recive. Guess all artists are stuck with the options in their times in this tread you will find both references to living and dead artists --- my concern are rather the living and not the attitude you see from many academics ; that art belong in a museum and artists therefore mainly must be those not living ,but except the standstill this mean then from my point of view there are no better time than the presant, to make sure our tools also are the ones avaible and called for. My designs or the tools I develob in that process is on the other side not at lower quality than those tools or new materials that made the architecture copied from the early true visionary designers of the early past century ,it is not words but fact quality new visions and real 3D tools that will change all that, and produce the new architecture.
In this tread please notis that when I ask for a better alternative, a better way to bring the projected 3D models into reality, there never had been an ansver. When I published a design and in capital words pointed out, that this is not about the design but the method, then the critic allway's been about the design and never a word of sense about the method --- and please remember that I master both AutoCAD and AutoLisp . So geno please tell us about what you find so nice you see it is much more progressive to do it that way.
per,
it is rather absurd - i could really care less about what is discussed on this thread - i'm not a fancy graphic lover - could care less about 3D as anything other than a tool.
but you have this uncanny way of writing in a completely unclear way but yet totally absorbing. i couldn't help but respond. are you some derivative of satan? or dracula?
anyway, i was moved by the balmond article because of the humility in his work. his commitment to being behind the scenes - most often completely neglected in the credits - for his love of structure and the simplicity by which he conveys his ideas. he works directly and forcefully for the sake of new architecture.
that's all dracula per.
nice geno, well said, and huzzah!
Hi
Im'e sorry to say, but from my point of view that serpentine thing are a quite boring piece of rigid cardboard I wonder if the graphics I put in just a few pages ago was even reconised. It's everything tradisional and seem to be a piect that just want to catch the trends it's made with an edgy feel and compared a true 3D-H it's just a lame lookalike that bring no new building technikes no real visions --- and those it pretend to bring is not worth copying , Also it follow the tradisional sections and also in that sense are a quite banal thing , made as a cramped assembly of small various pieces ,banges not sliced together , there are no real structural idea and from the pictures seem to have been hell of a trouble ( realy a brilliant new gadged shuldn't be that, )---- there are nothing new in it everything is plain standard enginering just following the tradisional top-front-side views and it even take all 3 planes into use just to be sure, where a 3D-H uses just two planes to make something much more exiting in all terms. Look at it again from my point of view not just boring but also meaningless as it do not bring anything new --- copying another bright idea is not a new thing I must add.
-------- where do it point, do it suggest any new vision even something that can profit anything a new way to fabricate the individual building compoments , ----do it promote a direct link production of the individual building parts ? Do it promise a new way to project and fabricate ? Sorry but if you ga back in the discussion you will se how somewhat the same structure would look forom inside try compare that with this
An 3D-H fast made in some of the same forms but with the honest and real aproach of a fact new method ;
Sorry beta and geno but comparing just these two graphics, it is difficult for me to see the grand achivement in tradisional engineering in the serpentine cardbox assembly compared the obvious promises with 3D-H.
Hi
Again try compare the interious from a real 3D-H structure;
With the tradisioanl engineering aproach that add no new visions, that see the structure as just a lame substitude of the architectural thinking 3D-H is just to replace --- realy whare are the great architectural achivements just making a card house what's the idea with such a cramped lookalike of what could have shown a great new aproach ;
almost to 1000....
finally a fancy graphic
per, how did it became so important for yous to be a master of autocads and lisps... only tooling. can constructioning be veeded up with 3dh structring?
Per, I have a question - what are the little blocks at some of the connections shown in the pic above (the grey one)?
Hi
Now please know that these are _not_ my graphics --- guess you know but now I know for sure you know --- ,anyway the small blocks must be fiddeling blocks, as the whole attitude are so alian for me I mean why bother do such cardhouse ; but the graphics I put in as my arguments shuld explain this issue.
Anyway they are fiddleblocks, means to make it go together I guess.
cf --- 3D-H did not just come easy.
Sure when you know it it would seem obvious just to do that small trick and get an assembly framework just like that, but when I started with CAD it was AutoCAD ver 2.6 and just to realise how these lines could be on the screen and carry both measures and offer all the things we today just use without even knowing the code , please think about that. That unless you know how to yield the point where a line in 3D meet a triangle face ,your mind can only tumble with what you emagine where fact is that each and every function and option are better understood in the CAD universe being matrix calculations to make them easy , --- beside please think about it this way, that when I back then got myself an 8088 it was just to produce the boatplans in the way we all at that time was an option --- sad thing for those who took the decision ans challance was, that sure you could get just what you wanted, you just needed to program it yourself ; there was no build in unrolling of surfaces there was no 3D morphing tool , and unless you read four monster telefonbook thick manuals , you would never get anything going that was more than just what you allready could do with top side and front views.
Anyway that's to my best arguments why you don't just as an architect, can be able to do that 3D-H , as first of all you must be able to see the limitations in that you are told and hardly understand and ontop, be able to reconise a method that at the same time solve those many real barriers CAD have faced.
Now 3D-H is just a method but it also are a new architecture, you don't get that unless you allready know the differences know why architecture are stuck in a dead end, have a bit more drive maby or atleast some visions about how it would be better.
Then better mean better not reverse enginering or just grasping something you don't even know how work and use it in such a primitive way as we seen , with primitive I mean
------- Sorry but it's difficult to continue. Shuld I call it a primitive aproach towerds the graphics I humbly put on display, who are the real visionary from these graphics please how can you force me to turn to this lead.
Would an architect who think in spaces and forms even know the detail the hands-on aproach that result in the solution --- the late ansver for the call for something to make the lame 70' computer meshes make sense, how to develob that tool that at a press of a button will make the building part strait from the 3D drawing. From my experience no from my knowleage never as such attitude belong to a very different periode a time where ofcaurse you had the drive from your vision .
per, please why easy use tooling architecture makes better. making you engineer working easier, not really make univers of architecture more pretty? Volkswagen be no corner- who wants?
But please let me add, that there are a sweet irony in the fact that a borrowed solution that replaced what was originaly a lame computer mesh was rejected in a building project that was dealing with a Patent building.
coolest thing about this thread... page numbers.
cf --- this was never before an option.
It was never like that ,you could just form and shape ,make a Solid box do a smaller one inside and subtract that to get the walls place the floors as Solids melt them to the now hollow box, do the holes for standard windows and subtract a multible of them from the box with floors. make room for the stairs by just subtracting another Solid and do the fact foundations for the steps at the same time ,by just pressing the button and get a full assembly for the house foundations in just one plain material and strait from 3D drawing into the mashin acturly cutting all different building parts that in this way will hold the measures and produce a fact new architecture --- that option never before was an option, now give the guy the credit or explain why not.
I prefer the old fashion approach to surfing these pages... It's the geek way.
IE... This thread's address is http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=8091_0_42_0_C
If you subsitute the first 0 from left to right with a 700 or an 800 it will take you directly to page 7 or 8, respectively.
Careful. Do not try that at home. That's only a technique for Autolisp masters.
-------- Eh I to love the new option , still with your mind into recursive functions , and wondering about new methods to perform a structural solution Lisp make a nice promise . Still my experience with Lisp is that it develobed from the simplest computer language to learn but the most difficult to use, to be just like any other high level language. What's good about it thoug is still that it is so easy to learn and that in general you can say that all high level computer language are alike, know one and you can pin your way thru most.
please . . . stop . . . posting . . . same . . . images . . . they . . . do . . . not . . . help . . . to . . . make . . . your . . . point . . . especially . . . images . . . which . . . are . . . not . . . yours . . .
I gather that images of Brad are Ok though?
At least they are sexy...
I mean fancy.
And you missed this Javier:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=321_0_42_0_C
Brad was posted once, maybe twice in this thread. Per has repeatedly posted that same series of images over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Almost to the point that the images of Brad are making more of a statement than Per's . . .
But this is not about images or designs, this is about a method, beside if you want a multible different designs to see how 3D-Honeycomb perform go to Yahoo groups and search for 3D-Honeycomb , Cyber-Boat or Per Corell.
---- Just click this this ;
Cheching for 3D-Honeycomb ;
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=3D-honeycomb
For "Cyber-Boat" ;
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=Cyber-boat&submit=Search
Just check this animation from the Tsunami-Longboat group ;
This show what 3D-H was originaly develobed for, just solving a trivial problem, just expanding the options so you can produce a framework ,way easier, in various applications.
OK, framework made by words. Why simplication important?
Isn't it great how Per has consitently stated that the images speak for themselves and that he doesn't need to test them to prove that it is a good idea. Yet in the image/graphic/piece of poo that he just posted the boat is sinking!!!! My god even the images don't prove that a] the system works b] that it would look any good or c]...
nah fuck it, can't be bothered with sensible posting anymore...
image dual pixelwhore?
driftwood you missed this one too..:
Page 5 of this thread:
message posted on 04/11/05 14:38
Illogic your choice of f words reflect your mind, your knowleage or rather ,that you now pretend also to be able to make an "expert" comment about boatsbuilding don't realy make any pover to your words.
Sorry but when someone say something it also tell what's in that someons mind , now when friends of mine read this tread ,their first ansver is "why do you even bother to ansver these suckers" --- I usealy ansver that it is my duty to let them uncover themself by their own words and that this seem to be the only way to show how bored usenet fakenames mistread a fora ,how a pest can destroy the best discussion board and that those dryass rightwing hippie haters ,all the time I used the wab have been attracted to architect discussion foras.
Illogic you seem to be cramped to have an oppinion about anything ,and your attitude seem to be sickened into being a try to make an evil joke about the guy you pick on , read your own words and check out how mean you try to be but just that fact, and that you now start using those words just tell that you are just some fakename old dryass usenet fanatic, ------ realy that is what your words uncover and fact is that I am sorry to say this as it realy are a sad thing that some people find their "joy" in this, again this only tell something about their minds.
your throw fishnet darkness will come to you only fish from your night bottom.
Exactly
oh I see, this is all a joke?!?!? w o w
Hi
Only if you find this a joke ;
http://www.nexusjournal.com/reviews_v6n2-Hermann.html
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.