|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:53 pm Post subject: Hi all you fancy graphics lovers |
    |
|
3D-HoneyComb Gotic |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cool |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1697
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 1:40 pm Post subject: Honeycomb |
|
|
P.C. -- You got me! Is this your design work? Your graphics? Both?
I am always interested in alternative ways of thinking about the assembly
of the "sticks" we typically build with. . .in ways that are inherently stronger or more beautiful. Maybe those "frames" are laser-cut (water-jet cut?)
from giant sheets of foam-core OSB-skinned material -- nested cutting for
maximum material yield. . .let's see, some of the edges might have to be cut at an angle to make flat planes for sheathing after assembly?
Don't stop now!
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
You are quite right, there will be these corners, but when welding steel sheets you acturly often want a grove . But this is not and never was intented to be nothing but a new aproach a way to replace 20 different profiles and expensive special fittings with one material.
Now you maby think that refining the way\s things alway\s been done is better ,but at some point you need a change a revolution in seing a building ,my bid is to focus on the structure and stop building expensive by develobing real new building methods.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1697
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:42 am Post subject: 3d graphic building options |
|
|
P.C. -- Yes, you must pursue this subject. I would say you have a head start by virtue of the ability to communicate visually your ideas and experiments. I am 60+ years old and have just begun to use the computer to communicate, so I am greatly in awe of the graphics I see so "effortlessly" presented -- I know it's not effortless at all. But amazing to me to arrive at this site and see your pieces building themselves and dancing before the eyes!
I guess there are two ways to think about building in these new ways: either assemble from identical or near-identical parts (your "honeycomb gothic"), which permits a limited and controlled generation of form, or else assemble from parts generated by the desired form, each piece unique to its dedicated location, as in your spheroidal assembly hall. Both types seem valid to me, depending on circumstances. . .
This site sends me notice of reply posts and permits easy communication -- I look forward to following your work here. Where do you do your work?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am glad that you are finnaly trying to appeal to the graphic designers,
because those of us who deal in reality will have no use for your useless
drawings. Go make a video game or something.
Everytime I try to ask a sensible question about these crappy ideas,
I get nonsense as an answer. Or "I dont understand" or "the romans used bricks" or some other bullshit. As soon as you are ready to provide
some real answers, then I will begin to accept.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1697
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:33 pm Post subject: not p.c. to P. C.? |
|
|
lc -- was that a ransom note, or were you just having a bad day. . .?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
The concept ask a different aproach but maby it is also to impressive so you don\t se that the round building carry not one single bended piece.
What you must remember is that everything I show is made in the cheapest manufactoring way from the cheapest material avaible.
You don\t bend one single panel , this also mean that if you acturly look closer, that there is not the useal 20 different steel profiles and the various special fittings to make it hold together, ---- this point to huge savings don't it ?
Now just try belive that what you could say against the realisation of this graphic is infact technical issues solved in other applications decades ago , and that realy nothing talk against having a complicated 3D Honeycomb structure assembled and the individual frames manufactored as easy as you can emagine from the graphics, then try realise what you got here ; one material only and a direct link from your CAD drawing to produce a model or a full scale structure. No reson to have the CAD drawings made in another contry no reson to divide the projecting and the renderings into two opposite things, any single piece in the actural 3D drawing have a number an simple 2D point description ,build in calculations from amount of material and cut feet, acturly transport is the only open field.
What would such concept mean in terms of overall cost and planning, --- please when you think that there are minor problems not solved remember that these are the ones that tenfold was solved by skilled workers in Bilbao, Just remember how different this new method solve just the problem building "round" ; well you don't force the materials here please realise this, that you do not need to bend one single piece to form a round building , Yes it is different a bit difficult at first and a bit overwhelming maby, but this is a method with far less limitations and quite a few handy side effects. ---- one small one , build the exact scale model easyer than ever.
Now emagine you shuld design a small garden shed, you would do that with four corner timbers edge steel fittings to bang full of holes to replace a decent wood join with somthing modern that the carpenters can do today, you then fiddle the sides and find a roof system ---- well what about creating the foundation and then cover this with sheet.
(now again read what I say don't as useal fly out talking about the attitude of the building, if you realy read the words you will se that all the ansvers are given ,those not in words in graphic, trouble is that you don't read the words but try decode the pictures. Nothing you can draw in 3D can not be build don't talk about the troubles with 2D , 3D acturly work and "repair" the foults in 2D ,show where 2D can be wrong . Check the graphic tell me where anything shuld go wrong, then next time I can use a more complicated example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:22 am Post subject: Re: 3d graphic building options |
|
|
| SDR wrote: | P.C. -- Yes, you must pursue this subject. I would say you have a head start by virtue of the ability to communicate visually your ideas and experiments. I am 60+ years old and have just begun to use the computer to communicate, so I am greatly in awe of the graphics I see so "effortlessly" presented -- I know it's not effortless at all. But amazing to me to arrive at this site and see your pieces building themselves and dancing before the eyes!
I guess there are two ways to think about building in these new ways: either assemble from identical or near-identical parts (your "honeycomb gothic"), which permits a limited and controlled generation of form, or else assemble from parts generated by the desired form, each piece unique to its dedicated location, as in your spheroidal assembly hall. Both types seem valid to me, depending on circumstances. . .
This site sends me notice of reply posts and permits easy communication -- I look forward to following your work here. Where do you do your work?
SDR |
Now I try make things more simple even it could look difficult --- realy I point to a way that make the computer offer an easy way not providing more trouble.
With this concept you simply form Solids in a CAD program , there are many CAD programs where this is made easy. Then you proberly are used to 3D models that show just the surface and don't deal with the actural structure you need to put up ,and here the real difference is, as you need to make the buildings hollow to make the walls that is later replaced with these frames.
Now if you get your hands on a Solid modeler you will soon be able to copy one box into two boxes and then scale one box and subtract the inner one from the outher box and make the walls. -------Acturly just at that point you can make a 3D-H structure, that replace the walls and proberly roof with vowen frames as how you se in a 3D-H structure.
It is as simple as that, it ask no advanced knowleage just subtracting or union of the standard Solids any Solid modeler offer as standard forms.
But the real challance with 3D-HoneyComb is that it replace all those special fittings and 20 standard steel profiles you se fiddeled in tradisional steel beam structures, beside as you replace everything with plain sheet material, please note that with this method, you never bend anything, you simply don't need to. It look complicated at first, but realy it is much simpler than how we do things already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1697
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:04 pm Post subject: Honeycomb |
|
|
P.C. -- Affirmation, questions and a suggestion. I see that your system produces the desired form out of the structure (leaving only the opaque, translucent or transparent membranes to be added?), as opposed to traditional form-making where the surface skin determines the form, beneath which a supporting structure is contrived. Surely this is the great aesthetic/theoretical advantage. And I acknowledge that all parts are flat shapes (unlike Bilbao, etc etc) without bends. This is obvious, and an obvious advantage. Now, do you propose that the frames are all continuous, and that they interpenetrate in some way at every junction? I have spent a fair amount of time looking for ways to do this in my own work, where individual cross-laminations can be managed with straight sticks, to make one or a few through-connections in a planar frame, for instance. The more orthodox method of assembling the highly-complex, three-dimensional structures you propose, would be to have some frames (say, in the X-axis) be complete and continuous, with the other frames (in the Y-axis) be made of short, discontinuous pieces, no? So, what do you envision here?
The ability to draw the whole, and each of its parts, and to have the parts made, all from the same digital information, is the obvious advantage of this type, and makes good use of the new technology. And I think the forms you show, so far, can be extremely handsome and true. Whether the apparent ease of all of that will be offset by greater weight, material usage, and/or unforseen complexity of assembly, remains to be seen. After all, while scale models of these structure-forms would be easy to produce by the new additive or subtractive prototyping techniques (in a tank or on a CNC milling machine, etc), I don't think you are proposing to enlarge those devices to a size sufficient to produce the full-scale building, are you?
My advice (and I hope I won't offend you) is that, in addition to describing your proposals with elegant visuals, you will have to be able to use elegant words to convince your audience. While English may be a second language for you, I encourage some further effort to complete the package. Creativity will remain unused if it cannot be effectively brought to those who can sponsor it. Every craft has some drudgery assciated with it, but it must be accounted for. I eagerly await further development of your ideas!
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Many thanks for your positive reply, a reply like yours make the the whole trouble the vorry worth, Realy I can\t express how glad I am this sunday morning 9 am.
Your reflection about how to expand the workplane, or as you describe it making sure the individual frames will reach within avaible material is one of those things I call side effects or places where there are already other way\s to enlarge a piece, but develobing new way's will profit what I se as a promising technology, ------ I was about to call it a technike, but in this context it is about simple cutting of "2D" material to form a 3D assembly.
I made a few lame attemts to point to way's to do the trick while anyway cutting the frames;
You refere my bad english and it's true, I can't even make any exchouses but from the start I was sure that anyway this is to great for one person, emagine you have to be responsible for the crafts choice about dimentions, the enginering issues and the artistic part of it, and at the same time realise how bound you been in the good old tradisional way's yourself ------- so I tried being realistic saying that the only ones that ever suffered from buying materials for prototypes and spending months and halve years leaving only debts and designs to far ahead the times ,is the family ,and as you know life is not simple, Still today when the sun shine and I know that some of the things I seen maby one day can come thru I find trust in the future and maby this one day will lead to some of the new jobs it is all about, beside the dream that one day maby a real skilled architect will se the light.
Sorry I just had to make a quick respond I am sure you se thru the bad spelling, ------ as I said here is a small suggestion that anyone with hands on experience would come up with , it's not ideal but proberly point in the right direction ;
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P.C. wrote: | Hi
The concept ask a different aproach but maby it is also to impressive so you don\t se that the round building carry not one single bended piece.
Impressive to who? You? How does this correlate to the fact that it has no bent piece, because its impressive? Whats wrong with bended structure?
What you must remember is that everything I show is made in the cheapest manufactoring way from the cheapest material avaible.
How do you know its the cheapest manufacturing way. It looks to me like its all custom, this is cheaper? As a result of standards and proprietary manufactured systems is for mass-production, to keep prices competitive on a mass market. What you mention here as your own method is already being done in many millwork shops across this country. Direct CAD to mill production for wood and metal is quite common now. You have not invented this nor have you even improved on it. But it is all custom work, which is more epensive.
You don\t bend one single panel , this also mean that if you acturly look closer, that there is not the useal 20 different steel profiles and the various special fittings to make it hold together, ---- this point to huge savings don't it ? How do you not bend a single panel, is it all cast? Different steel profiles provide engineered strength utilising the most minimal of material. Not these RECTANGLE CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH YOUR MEMBERS. This type of beam cross section was immediately dismissed during the earliest days of steel use.
Now just try belive that what you could say against the realisation of this graphic is infact technical issues solved in other applications decades ago , and that realy nothing talk against having a complicated 3D - (Honeycomb, hahahaha - They called it the space frame and it was done 60 years ago) Honeycomb structure assembled and the individual frames manufactored as easy as you can emagine from the graphics, then try realise what you got here ; one material only and a direct link from your CAD drawing to produce a model or a full scale structure. (ITS ALREADY BEING DONE< DEVELOPED 10 YEARS AGO, MAYBE NOT IN YOUR PRIMITIVE VILLAGE) No reson to have the CAD drawings made in another contry (who is doing drawings in seperate countries? wHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN?) no reson to divide the projecting and the renderings into two opposite things, any single piece in the actural 3D drawing have a number an simple 2D point description ,build in calculations from amount of material and cut feet, acturly transport is the only open field.
What would such concept mean in terms of overall cost and planning, --- please when you think that there are minor problems not solved (major PROBLEMS NOT SOLVED, WHERE IS THE SKIN? wHAT IS INSIDE THIS RECTANGLE CROSS SECTION? HOW IS IT INSULATED? WHY ARE THE CEILING MEMBERS THE SAME SIZE AS THE WALL AND FLOOR MEMBERS? THIS SHOWS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING) remember that these are the ones that tenfold was solved by skilled workers in Bilbao, Just remember how different this new method solve just the problem building "round" ; well you don't force the materials here please realise this, that you do not need to bend one single piece to form a round building , Yes it is different a bit difficult at first and a bit overwhelming maby, but this is a method with far less limitations and quite a few handy side effects. ---- one small one , build the exact scale model easyer than ever. (please justshow me one detail - I BEG YOU PLEEEEASE- show me how these members attach to each other....)
Now emagine you shuld design a small garden shed, you would do that with four corner timbers edge steel fittings to bang full of holes to replace a decent wood join with somthing modern that the carpenters can do today, you then fiddle the sides and find a roof system ---- well what about creating the foundation and then cover this with sheet.
(now again read what I say don't as useal fly out talking about the attitude of the building, if you realy read the words you will se that all the ansvers are given ,those not in words in graphic, trouble is that you don't read the words but try decode the pictures. Nothing you can draw in 3D can not be build don't talk about the troubles with 2D , 3D acturly work and "repair" the foults in 2D ,show where 2D can be wrong . Check the graphic tell me where anything shuld go wrong, then next time I can use a more complicated example. |
THESE DRAWINGS HAVE NO SCALE AT ALL, WHAT IS THE SPACING BETWEEN THE VERTICALS? HOW CAN ANYOPNE MAKE AN ASSUMPTION WITH A BREADTH OF REALITY? - BESIDES. THESE ARE UGLY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Now you must decide, you say that this is not new and been done first 10 then decades ago then you say no one would use it ,and as it is already used everywhere even it is ugly, then as it do not work and no one would ever use it as it is silli while already known and in use ------ Realy please make up your mind, you already decided it is possible it work and it is different ofcaurse it is it's new .
But youy know somthing, it's not words it work. ------ even you say it work bad and already been used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1697
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:01 pm Post subject: Shame |
|
|
| What a shame, to have the good name of Corbu be so abused in its use, on these boards, by someone apparently unfit for social intercourse. The downside of anonymous posting on our new miracle of communication, the internet, is that it can bring out, in certain individuals, pathologies that are normally repressed in face-to-face or "live" conversation. There are at least two such individuals presently 'abusing the privilege' here (as there are on political blogs now, where they are referred to as 'trolls'). The words 'arrogance' and 'delusional' have been use more than once by this individual, who has also suggested that he might be "dismiss[ed]. . .as a disgruntled dork. . ." Just so. May I suggest that these uhappy posts be ignored utterly henceforth? Just a thought. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can I not question the meandering ideas of this P.C. guy? You are getting in late in the game man. I've questioned this character for years here (even before this new format) He does nothing but respond in a condescending manner.
So I am not about to sit back and watch him boast and sucker in new
believers like yourself. I have given him many an opportunity to justify
his claims, but he chooses otherwise. I take his prententious stance as a direct insult to myself and my profession. We work hard in a technical field and I don't need some video game drawing guy coming in and tell me that he has a better way and not be able to articulate his arrogant claims.
Yes, I am a bastard, but nobody pulls the wool over my eyes. I see the naked Emporer and he is a fool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
