I am out of play in respect to the current status of the above technologies and their use in architecture [both academic and 'real-world']. Anyone care to share their thoughts and resources on what is currently being done, able to be done, or has been done?
Back in the day, I was a student at SIAL - but only fleetingly...
I am particularly interested in outputting geometric information as physical surfaces - interested in what level of detail can be achieved these days through CNC. 3 axis drilling etc.
A very interesting issue, but it looks like many of these new technikes is published, and then it stop. They do not progress and over time the drawbaks show. Instant prototyping is interesting, but you only get a fragile item in the wrong material that can only be used as a show piece. 3 axis routers seem a bit more interesting, -- unless you think you gain anything by routering an intire car body in foam plastic.
Mainly all these, except the CNC that can route various heavy mashines to cut, punch, or router mainly 2D materials, seem to standstill.
Those technikes that work has been here for a decade, -- mold making and sheet cutting. But I can not think of one technike, where in one end the digital drawing is put in, and out the other end come the final product.
Still I see 3dh as an exception, as there a compleatly new way to put things together into a new and compleatly different structure realy work, and work in many scale.
I believe it, the picture barely shows the absolutely gi-normous housing that it needs to "print" some thing of that scale.
To the best of my knowledge, it seems that these output methods have largely stagnated while the modeling software that is used on the input end has seen some of the more dramatic changes. Shortly of building your own polymer printer, these machines are still extremely large and expensive while the software is increasingly available. A lot of shops will let you buy time on their machines provided you come ready.
the architectural implications are little limiting; digi-fab is great and all until you want to build a habitable space that ISN'T a screen wall. From a structural perspective, these machines are generally used to make a lot of assembled modules that are bolted together to create a larger whole. Alternately, they are used for furniture or a more monolithic shape, which is generally limited by the size of machine and is generally too small to be at the architectural scale.
Thank's msudon, The thing about robotics today is that we think about the results from the assembly line, we forget how stupid the individual robot is, how in fact it only mimic what the worker shuld have done.
We also think about the metal houses -- sorry if you are a fan of these, -- as the cutting edge, -- even they are projected with software with 20 years on it's back, and as I said before, who look behind the panels to see if the basic structure are fiddled together or realy calculated and projected as we think it would be.
Problem is that most new methods is not realy basicly new, but refined from older methods, -- no new horisons only the old made digital.
thats what I was talking about, home-made printers. Still, rapid prototyping architectural models is a tricky game and doesn't always yield the most useful model. While it can produce detailed massing models, those aren't really useful from an analytical standpoint; blocks of pink foam or wood could achieve much of the small visual effect. I am all for technology and certainly no Luddite but technology is only interesting when its utilized to some end, not just for the sake of it. I get sick of this hype because it often doesn't reveal any new design pathways and can lead to a very predictable type of thinking/product.
I called it "Lego thinking" for a decade, and do not think it is a lucky stand in the very contry, where everyone think everything must fit a box.
A structure shal be calculated into the compoments that will nake it and there are many other way's to do that with a computer, withut being stuck, in how things allway's wa made, and therefore the only right way to project and assemble the thing.
Instant prototyping is allright for me, as long as we realise how it is nothing but how we allway's made things. The way out is to realise that a structure realy can be computed into a different building part then the ones we uses today --- yhat instead of using hundreds of different things bit and pieces to make the structure, then we uses only one material --- 3dh do it that way, and offcaurse that also can be develobed further.
Can it make a small plastic thing costing 1000 times what a tradisionaly molded one, in the wrong mmaterial and a rigid form , maybe no. Butit will eject a building structure made in only sheet material with four times the stength and in time at a third the cost, yes it can,
What I am specifically looking for, is a system whereby I can take a drawing or 3d model, output it as a type of physical surface [via CNC, digital printing et al] and then use this output as the basis for a more permanent type of surface.
And this is around the scale of artwork - ie, analagoous to a canvas or series of canvases - not to create a building or part of a building.
I am thinking I might be able to output this surface as a negative and then pour off a concrete/bronze/other mold, or otherwise treat the output to make it more durable - lets say a 3D plaster print, maybe I can coat it or treat it with something so that it is more permanent.
The surfaces I am generating are quite detailed and might be similar a series of contours, or topography, or stacked geometric tiles.
someone i work with has been printing plaster models and then resining them to become sold blocks. there is also a kind of plastic for 3d printers that you can use to cast metal off - we've got a machine like that, but I think the plastic is a bit pricy.
these are all helpful responses, my contribution would be that your vocabulary seems a bit confused and it may help to decide whether you want flat planes that are joined and assembled or whether you actually want a solid object. complex forms can easily be broken down into to 2-d planes in rhino. you might look in to laser cutters. an actual cnc router may a bit overkill depending on material. This ultimately becomes a design choice, if you are making contours or something stepping, the built-up nature of laser cut stacked material can be nice instead of a homogeneous form from a cast.
Every time I see a discussion with this I allway's remember that in solving this, doing it a new way, will mean so much more than you imagine --- No matter it is a small item or a Airplane hanger, if it could be realy produced, from the 3D model, strait into assembly pieces, then putting the pieces together, micro or macro, is an easy suggestion ---- alternative, to let a robotic arm, place the bricks delivered this particular way, is so limited the options we havn't started realise.
Sorry about that, but I just know what strong, cheap and fully digital manufactored and projected wonders, from strait materials and so much cheaper than how we do.
Looks like a nice book from the pages you are allowed to read, I read something like the same 20 years ago. But maybe there are a chapter that deal with the great options, -- but I wonder.
Jul 12, 09 7:56 am ·
·
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.
CNC, 3d Printing, other tech - Where are we at?
Hi,
I am out of play in respect to the current status of the above technologies and their use in architecture [both academic and 'real-world']. Anyone care to share their thoughts and resources on what is currently being done, able to be done, or has been done?
Back in the day, I was a student at SIAL - but only fleetingly...
I am particularly interested in outputting geometric information as physical surfaces - interested in what level of detail can be achieved these days through CNC. 3 axis drilling etc.
d
A very interesting issue, but it looks like many of these new technikes is published, and then it stop. They do not progress and over time the drawbaks show. Instant prototyping is interesting, but you only get a fragile item in the wrong material that can only be used as a show piece. 3 axis routers seem a bit more interesting, -- unless you think you gain anything by routering an intire car body in foam plastic.
Mainly all these, except the CNC that can route various heavy mashines to cut, punch, or router mainly 2D materials, seem to standstill.
Those technikes that work has been here for a decade, -- mold making and sheet cutting. But I can not think of one technike, where in one end the digital drawing is put in, and out the other end come the final product.
Still I see 3dh as an exception, as there a compleatly new way to put things together into a new and compleatly different structure realy work, and work in many scale.
I don't know if I believe this, but Popular Science magazine published this little tidbit about "The world's largest 3-D megaprinter(...)"
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-06/print-out-your-next-building
I believe it, the picture barely shows the absolutely gi-normous housing that it needs to "print" some thing of that scale.
To the best of my knowledge, it seems that these output methods have largely stagnated while the modeling software that is used on the input end has seen some of the more dramatic changes. Shortly of building your own polymer printer, these machines are still extremely large and expensive while the software is increasingly available. A lot of shops will let you buy time on their machines provided you come ready.
the architectural implications are little limiting; digi-fab is great and all until you want to build a habitable space that ISN'T a screen wall. From a structural perspective, these machines are generally used to make a lot of assembled modules that are bolted together to create a larger whole. Alternately, they are used for furniture or a more monolithic shape, which is generally limited by the size of machine and is generally too small to be at the architectural scale.
Thank's msudon, The thing about robotics today is that we think about the results from the assembly line, we forget how stupid the individual robot is, how in fact it only mimic what the worker shuld have done.
We also think about the metal houses -- sorry if you are a fan of these, -- as the cutting edge, -- even they are projected with software with 20 years on it's back, and as I said before, who look behind the panels to see if the basic structure are fiddled together or realy calculated and projected as we think it would be.
Problem is that most new methods is not realy basicly new, but refined from older methods, -- no new horisons only the old made digital.
is where its at - although it gives up some pretty dodgy prints right now.
thats what I was talking about, home-made printers. Still, rapid prototyping architectural models is a tricky game and doesn't always yield the most useful model. While it can produce detailed massing models, those aren't really useful from an analytical standpoint; blocks of pink foam or wood could achieve much of the small visual effect. I am all for technology and certainly no Luddite but technology is only interesting when its utilized to some end, not just for the sake of it. I get sick of this hype because it often doesn't reveal any new design pathways and can lead to a very predictable type of thinking/product.
I called it "Lego thinking" for a decade, and do not think it is a lucky stand in the very contry, where everyone think everything must fit a box.
A structure shal be calculated into the compoments that will nake it and there are many other way's to do that with a computer, withut being stuck, in how things allway's wa made, and therefore the only right way to project and assemble the thing.
Instant prototyping is allright for me, as long as we realise how it is nothing but how we allway's made things. The way out is to realise that a structure realy can be computed into a different building part then the ones we uses today --- yhat instead of using hundreds of different things bit and pieces to make the structure, then we uses only one material --- 3dh do it that way, and offcaurse that also can be develobed further.
Can it make a small plastic thing costing 1000 times what a tradisionaly molded one, in the wrong mmaterial and a rigid form , maybe no. Butit will eject a building structure made in only sheet material with four times the stength and in time at a third the cost, yes it can,
Thanks for the responses -
What I am specifically looking for, is a system whereby I can take a drawing or 3d model, output it as a type of physical surface [via CNC, digital printing et al] and then use this output as the basis for a more permanent type of surface.
And this is around the scale of artwork - ie, analagoous to a canvas or series of canvases - not to create a building or part of a building.
I am thinking I might be able to output this surface as a negative and then pour off a concrete/bronze/other mold, or otherwise treat the output to make it more durable - lets say a 3D plaster print, maybe I can coat it or treat it with something so that it is more permanent.
The surfaces I am generating are quite detailed and might be similar a series of contours, or topography, or stacked geometric tiles.
A bit odd, I know.
3d print...build molds.... cast
cnc... assemble.....
get your hands dirty...
Have you looked in to 3D Metal printing?
An artist who uses the process here:
http://www.bathsheba.com/sculpt/process/
hmmm - this looks interesting - not for the artworks you can buy necessarily [Koi mural anyone?] but the detail seems interesting...
someone i work with has been printing plaster models and then resining them to become sold blocks. there is also a kind of plastic for 3d printers that you can use to cast metal off - we've got a machine like that, but I think the plastic is a bit pricy.
Sound like a 3D router job.
these are all helpful responses, my contribution would be that your vocabulary seems a bit confused and it may help to decide whether you want flat planes that are joined and assembled or whether you actually want a solid object. complex forms can easily be broken down into to 2-d planes in rhino. you might look in to laser cutters. an actual cnc router may a bit overkill depending on material. This ultimately becomes a design choice, if you are making contours or something stepping, the built-up nature of laser cut stacked material can be nice instead of a homogeneous form from a cast.
Every time I see a discussion with this I allway's remember that in solving this, doing it a new way, will mean so much more than you imagine --- No matter it is a small item or a Airplane hanger, if it could be realy produced, from the 3D model, strait into assembly pieces, then putting the pieces together, micro or macro, is an easy suggestion ---- alternative, to let a robotic arm, place the bricks delivered this particular way, is so limited the options we havn't started realise.
Sorry about that, but I just know what strong, cheap and fully digital manufactored and projected wonders, from strait materials and so much cheaper than how we do.
buy : http://www.amazon.com/Making-Manufacturing-Techniques-Product-Design/dp/1856695069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247291847&sr=8-1
Looks like a nice book from the pages you are allowed to read, I read something like the same 20 years ago. But maybe there are a chapter that deal with the great options, -- but I wonder.
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.