A.09

This week we used CATIA script and UDF protocols to create a very interesting array of curves along a surface. 

To recap there were 3 main parts to this file. (i) create a design file with a surface derived from a shape and two points. (ii) create a udf file which utilized parameters and projected curves to a dead geometry (our surface from the first design file copy-special into the udf file). (iii) create a user-defined feature/definition, this is where scripting became involved (below is the actual code). 

let d1(roofudfcurve)
let i (integer)

i=0

for i while i <= curvenumber 
{
 d1 = CreateOrModifyTemplate("roofdesign|roofudfcurve",CURVES ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\roofudfcurve`  ,i) 
 d1.Surface = CONTEXT\Fill.1 
 d1.Line2  =  CONTEXT\Line.2 
 d1.Line1 =  CONTEXT\Line.1 
 d1.curvenumber   = curvenumber  - 1
 d1.curveposition   = i - 1
 
 EndModifyTemplate(d1)
 d1.Name = "CRV" + ToString(i)

We then applied this definition to the first design file and were apply to generate the various curves along the surface parameterically. 

Burry Models Prototypes & Archetypes

This weeks reading reminded me of a concept which I have been turning over and over in my head. How innovation, work, technology, economy, and architecture are ultimately beneficial to man kind. Ultimately I and for technological advancement and innovation since it provides choices, options, and solutions, that said to what end does innovation lead, how is the techno-3D-printing-avant-garde going to ultimately affect man kind and is it necessary. 

It is not necessary but it is our nature. Since the creation of early tools man has reconfigured resources and materials to enact his will. This instinct was not only as a means of survival but as a means to set human kind apart. We are separate from the countless other creatures on this planet because we have subdued the desire to advance, to innovate. 

Man's thirst for curiosity has of course established many different modes of outlet and many different inventions, but it has also formed a order and ideology which goes unquestioned. Work and "bigger, better, stronger" is in fact 'good'. This may seem like a harmless en-devour but when you consider the necessity of constant advancement and the resulting infrastructure and market systems there are heavy social, political, and ideological questions which because assumed with this single mentality. 

This conventional wisdom, and assumed identity aside history (such as that shown through Burry's recap of Gaudi) technological advancement will occur. Aside from man's inheriant nature, advancement provides a social order and service which prevents chaos. Man's nature is that of selfishness (this is countless been proven: man operates through incentives) work and innovation structure a productive outlet for what would otherwise be chaos. 

3D printing will undoubtedly result in a new techo revolution, one which has uncertain and unforeseen consequences, but a positive aspect and another trait which validates innovation is the solution to problems both old and new. Since mans inception problem-solution has been a primary struggle. Through our enduring advancement many many solutions have been implemented but there are still ageless problems which still lack resolution. 3D printing can assist in this area and can also assist in areas where newer 'problems' have risen. 

Ultimately digital fabrication and it's attachment to markets, ideologies, and social order is an interesting concept, but I am more interested in taking action and utilizes the technology to advance areas of study related to architecture and other creative fields.

A.07

Last week I utilized grasshopper as a generative design tool in place of Catia. This week I implemented Catia's 'powercopies'. Powercopies are powerful and more flexible then I first expected; also they provide a different visualization of constraints. Unlike grasshopper Catia shows the constraints in a very organized and clear method. This allows super precise surgical changes which can trickle through the design.

This assignment shows folded out shapes which can be used as a template for fabrication purposes. 

The first step was to create a framework, ie. one sketch with multiple constraints where separate parts can be plugged in.

This particular framework use two points to allow itself to stretch and change.

One a framework was established a grid of 9 points was created and offset from the original framework (this is where the fabrication cut outs will be shown).

The next step was rather brilliant, it establishes a z-axis for another point which is the foundation for the physical geometry. This sketch was created in a new geometric set. 

The framework outside of the sketch.

The next level of framework, is for the surface geometry.

The geometry created.

The geometry is join, then 'unfolded', and then referenced to the secondary (offset) grid.

Powercopies used to form an assembly.

The entire assemblies height modified by the changing the z-axis.

The entire assemblies shaped modified by changing the base framework sketch.

The change updated and the following assembly geometry. 

A.05

Assignment 5 takes the notion of a framework and explores other possible examples/methods for their creation.

Above is one method. Hexagons are utilized and two primary relationships are established; (i) the length of hexagon's side segments and (ii) the angle between the center of the hexagon and a fixed line parallel to the horizon. 

Hexagon's with the same set of rules but changed values are placed on planes offset from the first hexagon.

A spline is then added connecting the corners of the hexagons.

A multi-face surface is created.

The edges of the surface are extracted.

Points are added along the extracted segments.

This framework is a top down approach but it is flexible in it's breadth/number of variables.

Another framework example utilizes the creation of an abstract curve. This curve is then rotated around an axis to form a parametric solid. The constraints which control the shape of solid consist of (i) the axis which is tied to the points location in adjacency to the original sketch, (ii) the initial spline derived from the first two sketches, and (iii) angle which the spline is rotated around the axis.

The creation of a complex spline by combining two curves via an XY sketch and an YZ sketch.

The application of points to this new spline.

The establishment of a point which will be the basis for the axis

The array of splines around the establish axis

Terzidis Algorithmic Architecture

I am actually familiar with Terzidis Algorithmic Architecture and this week's reading was really insightful. To be a bit I didn't appreciate or like math until my senior year of college. Logic and structure (specifically with regards to math) never came natural and through out my academic career arithmetic was by far my weakest subject, but one of my major studio projects during the last semester of my undergraduate degree required an intense amount of math. The problems were no longer abstract or ethereal, they were real and the solutions were needed in order to make my project work (I was designing a large scale clock that counted time very abstractly). 

The project was ultimately a success and by coupling math and architecture I was able to realize a project that I attach a lot of pride in. In other chapters of Algorithmic Architecture equations and scripts are used to develop solutions to architectural problems. When I first flipped through the book I thought the math process would be impossible to decipher or apply to my own work, but as I move through this course and continue to develop parametric based solutions I'm realizing more and more that I am making progress towards algorithmic fluency. 

Aside from the mathematical aspect of this week's reading I find the idea of process, workflow, and logic very intriguing. Architectural firms are constantly attempting to hone efficiency and process in order to deliver better work faster. Programs like Catia, Rhino, and Revit are big pieces to this process. I feel there is a balance between utilizing systems/programs in ways which improve workflow and efficiency and practical pencil to paper design work; the two are not totally separate, and they are not totally synonymous. 

Even though this chapter of Algorithmic Architecture focused on the history of generative based architectural solutions my fear is the next major design age will rely on algorithms and parametric solutions and discard or totally diminish the architect's input. 

A.06

Power copies in Catia have a major limitation, the inability to manipulate the parts once a framework is created. In loo of this dilemma I decided to complete this weeks exercise in Rhino's plugin Grasshopper. 

Here is the definition for the resulting geometry.

The size of the array of parts is parametric and can be increased or decreased via this slider.

The individual parts extrusion height can be manipulated here. This is an example of a shorter extrusion.

This is an example of a larger extrusion.

To vary the aperture opening sizes I utilized attractor points. The distance from the attractor points to the center of the apertures is divided by the slider number shown here and results in a smaller or larger aperture size. 

Here the framework/surface grid is manipulated to change the overall assemblage of parts.

A final rendering of one of thousands of possible parametric solutions.

Overall (from the demonstration provided by Karl last week during class) I feel Catia excels at individual part creation, but in reference to an assemblage it falls short, especially compared to Grasshopper. My decision to use Grasshopper was mostly in reference to the fact that in Catia the framework could not be parametric and had to be fixed.