For my personal exploration into digital fabrication I am interested in building on past explorations into prefabricated housing for those in substandard living conditions. This past project can be viewed in depth by visiting "The Rio: A study in BIM and Small PreFab Housing." One key aspect that was missing from this project was connection details that would help it to be easily and securely fastened.
Research:
:: case studies of similar projects
:: existing wood connection brackets
:: examining other means of digital fabrication (for steel)
:: examining how CAD and CAD-CAM interface for such applications
Deliverables:
:: PowerPoint/presentation on process and outcomes
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
March 30- April 3
Monday :: March 30, 2009
Today Murali was sick but the class was led by the emerging visualization group. It was quite fascinating. Perhaps what was most interesting was how an "immersive environment" was used to train gunners in World War II by using projections of incoming assaults.
Wednesday :: April 1, 2009
Today we discussed the reading for emerging visualization. In doing so we were able to discuss what meaning we attributed to the phrase "virtual reality." Do we think that you have to wear a large projector headset or can just sending an email classify as writing and sending a hand written letter?
Friday :: April 3, 2009
Today we went to the "Hive" and met with Eric Hodgson and saw the work he is doing with virtual reality. Here we had a chance to experience a virtual environment and learn about how this particular environment works. It was of particular interest to see how the enviornment constantly is reorienting the user through slight adjustments so that they do not run into walls or leave the phyical confines of the actual space.
Today Murali was sick but the class was led by the emerging visualization group. It was quite fascinating. Perhaps what was most interesting was how an "immersive environment" was used to train gunners in World War II by using projections of incoming assaults.
Wednesday :: April 1, 2009
Today we discussed the reading for emerging visualization. In doing so we were able to discuss what meaning we attributed to the phrase "virtual reality." Do we think that you have to wear a large projector headset or can just sending an email classify as writing and sending a hand written letter?
Friday :: April 3, 2009
Today we went to the "Hive" and met with Eric Hodgson and saw the work he is doing with virtual reality. Here we had a chance to experience a virtual environment and learn about how this particular environment works. It was of particular interest to see how the enviornment constantly is reorienting the user through slight adjustments so that they do not run into walls or leave the phyical confines of the actual space.
March 23-27
Monday :: March 23, 2009
During today's class we discussed the reading covering a broad history of digital fabrication. It was interesting the conversation that arose. We discussed how people relate to a digitally fabricated object verse a hand crafted object. We also were able to discuss how our knowledge of the process a computer must take to actually mold, carve, build something affects how we approach a design problem with a computer.
Wednesday :: March 25, 2009
Today we led the class in discussion regarding the recently completed digital fabrication project. For the most part we received good feedback. We assembled the final project and passed it around. During this class we were also able to field questions regarding digital fabrication as a whole and cover a number of interesting case studies.
Friday :: March 27, 2009
Today we were able to discuss the current status of our research projects with our piers. Here is a synopsis of others projects:
Mark is interested in personal fabrication. He had originally looked into creating a file that he could sell and others could "print" on the CNC router. He has now looking at the emergence and future projection of "desktop fabrication."
Lee is interested in how digital fabrication has affected the development and production of gulf clubs. He intends to took at several case studies and report on his findings.
During today's class we discussed the reading covering a broad history of digital fabrication. It was interesting the conversation that arose. We discussed how people relate to a digitally fabricated object verse a hand crafted object. We also were able to discuss how our knowledge of the process a computer must take to actually mold, carve, build something affects how we approach a design problem with a computer.
Wednesday :: March 25, 2009
Today we led the class in discussion regarding the recently completed digital fabrication project. For the most part we received good feedback. We assembled the final project and passed it around. During this class we were also able to field questions regarding digital fabrication as a whole and cover a number of interesting case studies.
Friday :: March 27, 2009
Today we were able to discuss the current status of our research projects with our piers. Here is a synopsis of others projects:
Mark is interested in personal fabrication. He had originally looked into creating a file that he could sell and others could "print" on the CNC router. He has now looking at the emergence and future projection of "desktop fabrication."
Lee is interested in how digital fabrication has affected the development and production of gulf clubs. He intends to took at several case studies and report on his findings.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Unclear...are the class facilitators supposed to post daily responses??
Monday :: March 16, 2009
Wednesday :: March 18, 2009
We introduced our group project by offering a PowerPoint on Digital Fabrication and introducing the class project (everyone was pretty excited when they thought that they all got to print silhouettes of my head on the laser printer, unfortunately for the masses they just get to print their own silhouettes).
Friday :: March 20, 2009
Today we went to the Engineering Building to get an overview of the Fab Lab. We were able to see examples of work that were created on the different machines and were able to print a few silhouettes on the laser cutter. All in all, a good interesting day!
Wednesday :: March 18, 2009
We introduced our group project by offering a PowerPoint on Digital Fabrication and introducing the class project (everyone was pretty excited when they thought that they all got to print silhouettes of my head on the laser printer, unfortunately for the masses they just get to print their own silhouettes).
Friday :: March 20, 2009
Today we went to the Engineering Building to get an overview of the Fab Lab. We were able to see examples of work that were created on the different machines and were able to print a few silhouettes on the laser cutter. All in all, a good interesting day!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Bottle Project Reflections
Briefly summarize your struggles, adjustments you had to make to your process once you started implementing your vision within the software:
Originally we had assumed that it would be difficult to create the geometry required for a bottle in Revit. As we began to work with the program we realized that, although it did not have the modeling depth of some other pieces of software, it offers a basic array of modeling tools: extrude, sweep, loft, et cetera. We eventually decided to draw the profile of the bottle and revolve it around a central axis.
Another issue we were confronted with was the difficulty of working with parametrics within Revit. This was the primary software strength we were using Revit for, so it was imperative that it functioned properly. Revit has two different parametic “referencing” available to the user. One type is a “Reference Line,” which allows the user to snap and lock elements of their work to a one-dimensional, line in space. The other type is Revit’s “Reference Plane,” which exhibits the same properties of the “Reference Line” but allows for objects to lock and snap to a two-dimensional plane. Where we ran into difficulties was with actually locking elements of our bottle to the reference lines and planes. We found that this locking must occur immediately after a line or shape has been drafted for this option to be available. This has obvious limitations in regards to a flexible design process. Instead it forced us to determine from the onset what lines and shapes needed to be locked.
Do you think your outcome would have been different if you designed without using the software?
Surely our design was greatly influenced by the software that we used. Our intent was to capitalize on the parametric capabilities of the software. Although it could be considered that Revit’s limited three-dimensional modeling tools limited our potential design solutions, we viewed Revit as an advantageous design tool that allowed us to manipulate our final design in a way that would have been impossible in other 3D modeling programs.
Is your model in its present state easy enough to tweak? For example, if your client or user research suggests modifications, how comfortable you feel with doing so?
As aforementioned, the entire basis of our project was to create a fully customizable bottle. This was facilitated through our use of parametrics and therefore we would feel quite comfortable adjusting our design to our client’s needs, even if the changes altered the bottle’s form.
Are there certain changes that are easy to make than others (for example, changing color)?
It is relatively easy to change any aspect to our model. The element properties manage allows for a vast range of adjustments from line weights to color changes, to rendering options. Additionally, we are able to easily make geometric alterations.
Are there things that require substantial effort (for example changing the shape of the bottle from circle to square)?
This specific example might require some effort but by changing our modeling technique from revolving to extruding, this design change could be relatively easily accommodated. Perhaps the most difficult thing to change would be if the client would desire a more amorphous design solution. We also acknowledge that this problem would most likely inherent to all parametric modeling programs.
Compare your project/process with that of your peers. What aspects do you like about yours in particular. Talk about some of the aspects you liked in others (be specific).
We particularly enjoyed the parametric qualities of our project/process. We find that this was an especially advantageous aspect of our project. Compared to groups that used Maya and Rhino, we felt that our design process was different because we were not able to rapidly manipulate and experiment with three-dimensional forms within the software in the early design phases. Instead, we were forced to much of our preliminary designing by hand. We felt that our project and process was stronger in its technical considerations/tolerances than other programs, specifically the groups using SketchUp.
Originally we had assumed that it would be difficult to create the geometry required for a bottle in Revit. As we began to work with the program we realized that, although it did not have the modeling depth of some other pieces of software, it offers a basic array of modeling tools: extrude, sweep, loft, et cetera. We eventually decided to draw the profile of the bottle and revolve it around a central axis.
Another issue we were confronted with was the difficulty of working with parametrics within Revit. This was the primary software strength we were using Revit for, so it was imperative that it functioned properly. Revit has two different parametic “referencing” available to the user. One type is a “Reference Line,” which allows the user to snap and lock elements of their work to a one-dimensional, line in space. The other type is Revit’s “Reference Plane,” which exhibits the same properties of the “Reference Line” but allows for objects to lock and snap to a two-dimensional plane. Where we ran into difficulties was with actually locking elements of our bottle to the reference lines and planes. We found that this locking must occur immediately after a line or shape has been drafted for this option to be available. This has obvious limitations in regards to a flexible design process. Instead it forced us to determine from the onset what lines and shapes needed to be locked.
Do you think your outcome would have been different if you designed without using the software?
Surely our design was greatly influenced by the software that we used. Our intent was to capitalize on the parametric capabilities of the software. Although it could be considered that Revit’s limited three-dimensional modeling tools limited our potential design solutions, we viewed Revit as an advantageous design tool that allowed us to manipulate our final design in a way that would have been impossible in other 3D modeling programs.
Is your model in its present state easy enough to tweak? For example, if your client or user research suggests modifications, how comfortable you feel with doing so?
As aforementioned, the entire basis of our project was to create a fully customizable bottle. This was facilitated through our use of parametrics and therefore we would feel quite comfortable adjusting our design to our client’s needs, even if the changes altered the bottle’s form.
Are there certain changes that are easy to make than others (for example, changing color)?
It is relatively easy to change any aspect to our model. The element properties manage allows for a vast range of adjustments from line weights to color changes, to rendering options. Additionally, we are able to easily make geometric alterations.
Are there things that require substantial effort (for example changing the shape of the bottle from circle to square)?
This specific example might require some effort but by changing our modeling technique from revolving to extruding, this design change could be relatively easily accommodated. Perhaps the most difficult thing to change would be if the client would desire a more amorphous design solution. We also acknowledge that this problem would most likely inherent to all parametric modeling programs.
Compare your project/process with that of your peers. What aspects do you like about yours in particular. Talk about some of the aspects you liked in others (be specific).
We particularly enjoyed the parametric qualities of our project/process. We find that this was an especially advantageous aspect of our project. Compared to groups that used Maya and Rhino, we felt that our design process was different because we were not able to rapidly manipulate and experiment with three-dimensional forms within the software in the early design phases. Instead, we were forced to much of our preliminary designing by hand. We felt that our project and process was stronger in its technical considerations/tolerances than other programs, specifically the groups using SketchUp.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)