|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
This does not bother me a bit.
You can copy and paste this message a thousand times.
This way you will be sure to get the message and everyone will clearly see what you are doing in slandering others.
I said it before and will say it again -->>
STOP ALL THE FIGHTING, THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, THE SLANDERING !
What is it with you, are you completely insane or something ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
This tread is about sharing fancy graphics and new fancy building technikes.
------- How that subject maneaged to attract exactly the opposite vorry me a lot, it's like there are particular typo , who hate when someone else prove the ability to newthink, to master several arts, be able to move from design to arts onto publishing brand new and obviously by the count of visitors, visionary concepts.
There simply are people who hate artists, who don't even bother look into the visions before they start to complain --- and then when they complain, they carefully avoid to deal with the matter, but turn the "critic" into personal attacks, back stabbing, and whatever funny buisness you can use to fight the few who has the guts, the god given inspiration , and life long experience . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
148445 hits are something --- it's enough for Archinect.com to engage cencur, fiddle the counter and suppress artistic newthinking , install the staff's cencur towerds way's of arts they can not conform or contain , as Art is a very fine thing made by very academic minded arts knowleage arts critics teachers.
Where that places 3dh and Silver Screen Galleri is easily emagined ; these issues nomatter how newthought and nomatter how unique is not Fine enough. --- So arts in America ,architecture as presented in america, is what web-architects and graphics designers think must be contained in the box and if someone "think he is someone" , even without saying so but just read from his pictures , then Cencur will provail and be Victorious, by simply making a few dirty tricks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't need to be professor in mechanics to figure out what sheet material would be suited to build this structure, it's 3dh and clearly prove exiting details about a compleatly new way to engage structures, now we has 3dh now a 3D drawing with 3D solids , can be computed into an assembly of simple N.C. cut building frames.
See how these replace hundreds of different building parts, with one material only --- then finding the right thickness steel plate is not that impossible a job, is it ?
What 3dh offer anyone can profit -- if you can use a simple solid modeler ,you now has the possibility to generate a 3dh framework a very different aproach constructing compared the old way's ,the way you before had to put a building structure together. This 3dh do not ask advanced manufactoring or expensive robots out of reach for most. By using only plain sheet material, it is up to you to decide what material will be fit, to do that decision is not realy difficult and if you miss the old complicated calculations -- case you think time is in for a change and that time will welcome brave new initiatives , then make your own oppinion , think about it -- how difficult can it be, to decide for the right sort of sheet material for this building structure ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now about own oppinions , please use this tread to realise, that there are people who will not have, will not have that these obvious new tools, shal replace , replace old way's of thinking with unlimited, within reach wonders.
The old rag is fighting the new it allway's has , but fighting the new with mudthrowing and personal attacks against it's creator is cheap , it's to cheap as you can see in this tread -- a tread that is realy only about a bright guy , who share a brilliant new idea. In this tread you see beasts with no manners at all, vandals with no etics to keep them back, the most destructive and psykopatic behaviour .
The silli arguments that soon turn into personal attacks, the selfreightous balloned Ego's who instantly reconise something that spark their jeloux dreams, it's all here, enjoy and digest if your belly are as lead as ones belly must be, must be for some silli reson if you has something positive on your heart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
balloned Ego
ballooned Ego
balloned Ego
ballooned Ego
balloned Ego
ballooned Ego
look in the Mirror, "bright guy, who share a brilliant new idea." 
Last edited by SDR on Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:50 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This PC seems to never learn, and continues with his harassment of these forums with his 3DH, and keeps posting this same image, over and over again, and then accuses others of a ballooned ego.
As I have pointed out, 3DH will use too much steel to erect such a structure, or to use such structures for all architectural architypes.
WHY 3DH IS NOT ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY DESIGNED, from an engineering point of view -->>
1. - Is was created by a boat builder that knows nothing of structural engineering.
2. - It will consume too much steel.
3. - PC has never produced any structural calculations to prove it works.
4. - It has never been built, is all theory.
5. - It is ten years old, and alternate systems are already on their way into the market, that have actually been built.
6. - It is nothing more then a nice series of matrix calculations, performed by a computer program, that distributes a structural grid into volumes, filling every space with it's "3dh" structural members that transverse the spaces in every direction. And it provides no structural details with calculations. It is all theoretical.
7. - Further, such transversing of spaces is cumbersome, it gets in the way, it creates interior spaces that are not free of structural members, but rather punched in every direction by these 3dh structural members, thus creating a need to resolve hundreds of interior spaces, and also creating many nooks and crannies in the corners, that one must now deal with. Interesting to note that your behavior has done the same. You have poked into every nook and cranny of these discussions, creating now problems to resolve. Your 3DH is consistent with your behavior on these forums.
8. - 3DH is difficult to build in practice, to set-up a production line to actually manufacture it.
9. - There are hundreds of alternate systems out there designed by some of the world's greatest engineers, and you expect designers to play around with this 3dh like a bunch of monkeys dangling around in a world of uncertainty, hanging from the conceptual beams of a structure never built before ? Monkey games.....
Further, -->>
11. The author of 3DH cannot decide what material to use to produce 3DH. First, he is adamant about sheet metal, now he is not SO CERTAIN.
FURTHER REASONS --->>
1. Sheet metal is not so environmentally friendly.
2. This system cannot be easily fire-proofed.
3. It is absurd to assume 3dh is a all out solution for all architecture and to keep bombing these forums insisting it is the only way. Architects design in different ways and opt from different structural systems based on the materials chosen, and the design. To assume 3dh would replace all structural systems is ludicrous. Those as the Architect who have entered into these games do this to their own detriment, and this also is folly.
4. It is nothing more then a nice structure for boats and planes but truly architects would not like to be locked into allowing a structure to form a backbone of everything they design.
5. To try to apply 3dh to many of the designs produced by architects, such as Frank Lloyd Wrignt and others is absurd. It would seriously limit these designs and the selection of materials would not match. One system cannot simply be expected to provide a solution to all designs. You cannot substitute a well designed brick building for 3DH.
6. Has anyone ever tried to do any calculation of on-site time that would be needed for cnc cutters to cut all those profiles for huge structures? It would not make for an efficient work site. Even if they were pre cut, and brought to the site, many many elements and some even small would all need to be numbered and placed in stacks in a way they could be easily found. It would create an enormous organizational task. And not to mention even the task of assembling them together. Would they be welded at joints? This would be a huge amount of work. And how are the steel plates joined on ends to form girders? The ends are welded as well? Too much work. As they say, "too much sugar for a dime."
7. We cannot simply rely heavily on sheet metal in the same way we cannot rely heavily on brick. How much energy is needed to extract the material, produce the sheet metal and deliver it to the site?
8. To allow computers to simply automatically distribute a system of structural members in a framework leads to design limitations as well. Buildings designed this way would be seriously restricted in certain aspects, as the structural grids would be dominant and thus certain areas could not be simply open or have large open spans, but would rather be consumed by multi-directional grids of structure. In large structures, it would lead to many cavity time spaces and even small structural corners and elements that would seem to hang in space. Therefore, complete control of the variation of architectural features possible by mixing structural systems would not be possible. Thus, the architecture would be determined to a degree by the structural system, and the range of architectural options would thus be diminished accordingly. If you cannot see this, I will need to explain further. It is quite obvious to me.
9. To assume 3dh could be easily assembled in poor African countries with no computers, no cnc cutters, no sheet metal is somewhat absurd. Many poor countries do not have ready access to computers or a machine to assemble structures.
10. 3dh was developed at the start of the 3d thing and of computers. It is then, somewhat outdated in terms of the way we design today with computers and what they are capable of doing in terms of calculations. It is a nice computer code of calculations that distributes structural elements in a grid using algorythms of matrix calculations, but is quite a simple system actually and designed at the time when autocad and other programs were quite limited. At the time, it was a nice development, but in practice is not such a uniform system for all types of design, as shown.
[/quote]
23 REASONS AND MORE WHY 3DH IS A POOR SYSTEM.
SUMMARY OF A FEW PROBLEMS WITH 3DH -->>
I have already pointed out what is wrong with the 3dH system that PC has posted several times in this one particular image of what appears could be a church or the like, that he has just posted again, in his continuous harassment of the forums with his 3DH jargon -->>
1. Small structural modules at corners that do not make sense. There are as remnants of a grid laid out by a computer.
2. A complex system of angles and pieces that would create un necessary assembly complexities.
3. A system of pieces of sheet metal that are difficult to assemble together, to weld, to create the joints.
4. A structure that could be easily achieved by standard construction systems.
5. A maze of pieces that are not necessary to make the structure stand.
6. A maze of remnant unnecessary pieces.
7. Simply, a structure that may make sense for a boat, but why does it need to be designed this way for a building?
The problem is, he keeps posting this particular same image on this forum, asking everyone what is wrong with it, and nobody cares to respond. Perhaps I was the first to attempt to respond to it in a logical way.
For those who wish to obtain more info on this -->>
Better Alternate Structural Systems
(Click on the link above). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But usarender -- you do not offer any "better alternate structural systems.
All you do is that you pretend to want to develob a better system than 3dh, and after all the prove nessery, to show you don't even understand what you critic, --- then come nothing, no new building system mall you do is to use my arguments for 3dh and even you can borruw those, no new system is presented. That is indeed a hollow promise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watch out for Lekiz, he will get you banned again.
"They are back at it again", and HIJACK, HIJACK, he cries.
"You better watch out, you better not cry, I am telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town." 
Santa Claus and the Kids with Lekiz.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your audience realy don't make a storm , one of the useal -- SDR , SDR who also agreaed he don't understand the system , and who's words clearly tell why, come to aid you further over the edge --- not realy a friendly attitude --- but you maybe think so .
Then SDR maybe you can explain usarenders new structural system for me -- you see oposed 3dh that is so simple that anyone instantly understand it, usarenders system that I havn't seen yet, seem so complicated that one would think , that when explaining it ask so much understanding the formulars that average craftsmen can't understand a fraction of it, -- then please tell me, what is so good about it , and where is it ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Usarender ;
"atch out for Lekiz, he will get you banned again.
"They are back at it again", and HIJACK, HIJACK, he cries.
"You better watch out, you better not cry, I am telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town." Laughing
Santa Claus and the Kids with Lekiz. Very Happy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, remember this forum is monitored frequently, and if you go back to fighting again, Lekitz will report it again.
An insert, by the way, of one of the forum discussions:
| Quote: | These answers and problems people refer to are part of any project. At any project inception, before there are architectural details and before all the project is finished, and you are at the conceptual stage, then you cannot simply expect one to address all the issues in details.
My projects a are at a very conceptual state still and therefore there are many areas that are in need of development. Therefore, people cannot at this point expect to get all the answers.
Now, if one believes in a vision, one seeks constructive advice during the process to aid in the development of the same. But one continues the vision. One does not give up simply because others have drawn questions and issues of impracticality. Before Mr. Ford produced the first V engine, look at all the technical difficulties his engineers faced. But he insisted in the vision and believed it was possible, against all odds. It is the same with any endeavor in life.
As you can see, this project is intended to inspire, and is at the initial stages. So there are many "bugs" to fix and tweak until we get there. |
and a quote from a post I made on another discussion -->>
| Quote: | With any job to do, any new vision, there must always be a catalyst of change. Others may interpret this wrong, as someone trying to be famous and thus try to downplay their cause or deride their ideas, but the underlaying backbone of what is being suggested in hidden words can be clearly seen. Others simply cannot stand to have someone with great vision come along, as they claim, "they are trying to get famous, let's walk over them.."
It is easy for those to do this who are not architects, who have no vision, and easy to give free advice and spew out accusations or even try to make fun of those with vision, and attempt to down play their cause, but the duplicity and ill intent is clear in such individuals. To claim some deserve merit in this foolish attempt to diminish others is quite amusing. It reveals there are those who lead, there are those who follow, and there are those whose no other purpose is to try to confuse both those who lead and those who follow in a nice clever composition of words that is intended to deceive, re direct the attention and diminish the cause of the visionaries.
Now there is much to be said of this social responsibility issue and it's lack of being properly addressed in architecture. It is easy for us to refer to it but we need specific examples.
Further, the hidden words can even be seen in those who criticize this new terminology of architectural language, by suggesting a concept cannot be simply a composition of materials and shapes into a nice vision. Here they error again, as they have not understood the language behind the vision, and the thinking that lead to it's inception, clearly posted on the topics of sky-scrapers: A Typology Problem? Thus, the nice words are there but the meaning behind the words is clear, blatant and not hidden. The intent to diminish the cause of others continues, and they go on to cry "he wants to be famous", "let's smash him down and diminish his visions. " They care not to respond in a logical way to the arguments, to the systems, to the visions, to the ideas, and the rationale behind the same. They rather ignore this and hide their intent behind "suggestions" and vague words, that is, vague to those who do not pay attention, but clearly exposed here. At times they proceed to demonstrate a degree of friendliness, to then in turn reveal their incapacity to adopt and respond to the vision of others in a rational way. |
In depth analysis of 3DH
and -->>
Better Alternate Structural Systems
Last edited by usarender on Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Per, as far as I can tell, usarender is completely full of shit (in regard to his own offerings) and (toward you) venom as well. But that doesn't let you off the hook: his list of questions and criticisms is the most complete and comprehensive one -- and, in case you can't or won't see it, those questions are echoed in one way or another by almost EVERY SERIOUS VIEWER OF FANCY GRAPHICS SINCE THE BEGINNING.
Numbers of viewers doesn't necessarily equal number of those who agree with you. The vast proportion of responses to you has been questioning. Could there be a good reason for this, Per ? Can you accept that in fact you have failed to answer, have evaded perfectly reasonable questions, again and again, about 3DH -- while insisting you have in fact answered them ? You hve readily insulted those who made an honest attempt to make sure they understood what you were proposing.
When pushed to the wall by the contest kindly arranged on another board, you for the first time addressed the possible need for additional bracing, for instance. Are you aware that all previous attempts by many readers to get some recognition of this issue were avoided by you ? Is this honest and forthcoming ? Never before this did the concept -- or even the mention -- of skins, and their possible structural contribution, appear in your posts. Suddenly we've entered the realm of semi-stressed skin design. Better late than never ?
Of all your readers, I believe I am the only one who tried to understand your thinking about the implications of 3DH by ACTUALLY DRAWING SOMETHING MYSELF, and posting it, to see if I was on the same track as you.
If the past is any indication, you will read this hastily, fail to understand what I said, and launch into another tirade -- angrily, in garbled English.
It's just so sad. . .and boring.
SR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would it kill you to pick up a pencil and draw a few things, to explain the system you seem to have so clearly (?) in mind ?
Or does it have to be projected in order for you to draw it ? Can you use a straightedge and a pencil ? Most artists and designers and architects and engineers draw, to explain themselves. Is that beneath the "humble nice guy artist" who claims so much for his invention ?
C'mon, Per -- put up or shut up. It's been a long and painful three years and four months -- nineteen pages and thousands of words (most of them wasted, apparently, to get us only this far). Why claim the moon for a pretty idea ? Couldn't you see you'd get caught by falling in live with your own "child" and making fanciful, unsupportable and arrogant claims for it ?
A bullshitter -- no matter how artistic -- isn't going to get much respect, particulary among people who make their living providing a service that depends on integrity and safety. I think architects and their kind are at least as open to new thinking as the average person, so its doubly insulting to accuse them of not appreciating a genuine innovation. And that's just what you have done, over and over.
Can't you see that ?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly , and generaly I do not disagrea beside I apriaciate you find it worth to spend your efford.
I think recursive programming -- that's as you know what is behind most modern blob structure generation is one way to bring generative building structures further. Sort of asking myself I can't see anything to hinder that --- what it would bring, how it would look or where it would go wrong , that I cn't answere and maybe it's a wild goose but, basicly it will change something as 3dh compleatly --- if it could be implamented something I think it can, but how ...
And maybe it would mean to change the basic idea in 3dh , but That I guess is the sacrifise you has to be willing to do . Still main trouble I guess with 3dh is , that much dameage is done that if I want to complete the esperiments and stretch it to the limits, then that cost money. Usarender know that .
But thank for adding a real comment and spending your time, realy all I ever wanted, has been to profit anyone kind of spark a more open and productive community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
