administration, education and consumption, the contemporary world can be increasingly conceived as a global and systemic environment. All our activities are profoundly influenced by a new condition of fluidity and interdependence of various and very often, unpredictable parameters and factors, introducing us progressively to a systemic and parametric understanding of the world and our position in it. Architecture and the building process are reflecting this new conception of the world by redefining themselves according to new principles and means. The fast development of digital techniques to simulate, represent and generate Architecture promises a continuous design process, including the seamless transfer of information between the involved parties and making performance a key issue in the planning process. In this process, concepts of adaptability, transformability and flexibility are replacing already tested and secure solutions, customization is replacing standardization and metrics, and digital tools are replacing analogue representations. In these new conditions the scaleless and the seamless appear as the two key pillars of the requested integration in contemporary architectural practice and education. Do the design and planning practices and construction industries respond with digital synergies to these new requests? Can the curricula of architecture schools escape from the dominance of traditional fragmentation within their structure and the organisation of the modules and academic units towards more holistic concepts and workflow? How can the traditionally separate courses offered by departments and modules of architectural education institutions be redefined in order to assure a scale-less and seamless thinking about form, materiality and its social and cultural representations, its environmental aspects and its urban and contextual references?
The organisers are inviting architects, teachers and researchers of architecture in Europe to present their views, research outcomes and teaching experiences related to the theme of the Conference.
An abstract of 600-700 words must be submitted by September 5, 2012. Please indicate into which of the five aforementioned themes your abstract falls. You will be asked to submit your final paper by the 22nd of October 2012 for the publication of the proceedings, which will be distributed to all EAAE/ENHSA school members.
For any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us on info@enhsa.net or info@scaleless-seamless.org…
th the most crucial and imposing challenges that Mexico City faces and the ways in which architecture and urbanism can shape the metropolis at different scales. In these sense the progamme sees the city as a laboratory where the virtual and experimental tradition of the Architectural Association finds a fertile and concrete ground for the application of its methodology in Mexico.
“Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities” explores the metropolitan condition understood as a manufactured process by and for human beings. Henceforth the traditional opposing concepts, artificial vs nature, are replaced under the premise, nature does not exist, where nature is not natural but naturalised and the artificial is not an external or impose construct but manufactured intrinsically.
With this as a starting point the programme will study 2 instances of Mexico City’s “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities”: The ravines in the west of Mexico City, last bastion of the existing “Nature” and its crucial role in the viability of Mexico City and social housing, as the fundamental construct of the “artificial” habitat in the metropolis´s urban tissue. These “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities” and the ways in which they are designed, produced, reinvented regenerated, show a vast spectrum representative of the crucial urban conditions to be address and therefore they posed an enormous urban and architectonic challenge to confront in order to apply contemporary design methodologies.
To tackle the complexities of the “Manufactured Landscapes/Manufactured Urbanities”, the programme will immerse students and staff in a 10 day intensive workshop within a multidisciplinary environment where national and international experts from various fields will enrich their proposals. Students will work in architecture and/or urban scale teams and will critically assess the impact of their multiple scales interventions.
A backbone of lectures, talks and seminars, including local and international speakers, are designed to broaden and reflect the relevance and the importance of the topic for Mexico City. Finally a public exhibition of student’s work will be held at Centro Cultural de España in autumn 2013.
…
essarily architectural. As you can guess from the tone of my previous response, I finished with school and had a hard time finding a job that focused on the technologies I delt with all through undergrad and grad. During grad school I was working with ASGvis (the makers of V-Ray) so I got exposed to the software side of things both on the support/management side and the development side. Now I'm off on my own doing development projects like RhinoHair, a few others, and some custom plugins for clients. Not necessarily what I thought I'd be doing after grad school, but I'm certainly enjoying it more than the "standard" practice of architecture.
I definitely understand "creating" a program. I did both my undergrad and grad at Catholic U here in DC, and although there was some ground work laid in regards to fabrication, I was one of only two or three students spearheading a lot of the scripting/GH/parametric stuff and some of the topics that go along with them (algorithmic design, adaptive systems, advanced geometry). One thing that was incredibly helpful for me was to pair up with the most advanced and forward thinking professor(s) that you can and take their studios, electives, and/or help out with their research. I was lucky enough to pair with a professor who had been at MIT and really encouraged me to explore my interests and sharpen my technicial skills.
It might also be a good idea to stick your head in some other departments, probably the math and engineering ones, or even biology and economics if there are some forward thinking professors. Talk to some people and get a different perspective on things. When I went to the ACADIA conference in 2008 it really opened my eyes to some of the potential influence from those different arenas.
Fabrication wise, I'd really try to focus more on milling (3 axis is fairly standard, 5 axis if you can get access) than 3d printing. Printing is a lot of fun, but ultimately we're not printing buildings (yet), so some of the milling processes will be much more valuble. If your school doesn't have those kind of facilities on campus (either in the Arch dept or engineering or something), then contact a local fabricator and see if you can work together somehow or someway. You'd be surprised and how many fabricators are interested in talking to architects.…
Added by Damien Alomar at 3:13pm on February 8, 2010
ectual property that goes nowhere:
In my opinion it's very dificult to determine when someones intelectual work becomes actual property that you should be able to protect.
There's a big difference between intelectual property and other types of scarce property (like a computer, a chair, etc.). Usually, its a good idea that scarce resouces are bought and sold in the market instead of sharing them because the price mechanism (supply and demand) determines its best possible use in that given moment. Intelectual property on the other hand is not scarce once it has been created, so if a 5 year old with an internet connection downloads a Grasshopper definition i created, it's not preventing an architect to use it for a more suitable purpose. Just like, in a practical sense, the more air I breath doesen't mean the less less air other people have left to breath, because there is so much air it could be asumed (today, at least) that the abuncance is infinite. So trading air in the maket place is nonsensical.
The only reason for copyright and patent laws to artificially make scarce a particular piece of intelectual property is so that people have an economic incentive to innovate and create new intelectual property. The advances in inovation should offset the artificial scarcity.
If that last point is true, it should be a good thing that people are not giving things up for free but rather selling them because it promotes inovation, but I'm personally not sure if this is true. Probably McNeel will agree to the last point on some extent and say that maybe patent laws go too far but copyright laws that protect Rhino and Grasshopper (even though right now it's free, it still 'owned' by McNeel) should be in place.
So I end up as I started, it's very dificult to determine when its a good idea (not just for an individual but in general) to sell or share this stuff.
If someone is interested in an extreme anti intelectual property rant from someone that otherwise defends private property, see this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRqsdSARrgk
…
grid size 3 = 2.7 mins
grid size 2 = ??? memory peaks and rhino freezes.
However now that I have switch the unit of the rhino file to feet,
now grid size 3 = 18 mins.
which makes i suppose since the analysis will have to work with smaller tolerance.
The below img is what i got after 18 mins. I think also the fact that I have joined the individual units with solid union also make it longer maybe? you can see the mesh triangulation not only around the corners of masses but also inbetween different units (if you look at the top level you will see)
oh, and I also have very little disk space left.
I would like to share the file but right its a big mess and has a lot of stuff that is unrelated to this particular memory issue, like revit interoperability and urban modelling. and the definition is set up so that it needs to have an excel file that feeds what you see on the lower left corner, wing mass scales. In order to compare design studies I am animating the index of list component that feeds the different scale of the wings and the width of the floor plates you see. you can see it in my video here. I will try to clean it up a bit when I get a chance, but it seems like grid size 3 might work as a starting point.
when I get around to extract values from the mesh vertices and actually apply different facade designs driven from the parameters, I would know better what grid size might be necessary.
…
ncluded 3) using a freaky thing that "makes" Planes in order to do ramps (spot the Vodka option = Mobius + antigraviity OFF).
Don't touch the freaky things: for the moment just go and play with this palatable portion (GH components, nothing to fear he he):
depending on choice in gates: Paranoid (Mobius "shifted in Z")
sane (using corrected Planes):
not so sane:
What we have learned so far? Well ramps (and most of other things) ... it's about Planes (coordinate systems) you know.
Again: this is for fun/demo ONLY. I'll prepare a dedicated def for your case soon.
have fun, be brave
…
is Radius = (size+40)/(2*Pi), where "size" is the value to give, it's usually used in countries like Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland... The next release will have 6 ways (5 regional system + diameter) to give it the size in different regional systems with just two clicks, in fact, the rings of the next release are already developed, but will have to wait...
Knowing that:
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). mm of internal circunference. Austria, France, Germany, Belgium, Scandinavia...
radii = Size / (2 * Math.PI)
European Size. Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland...radii = (Size + 40) / (2 * Math.PI)
British Size. United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...radii = ((Size * 0.4) + 11.5) / 2
American Size. United States, Canada, Mexico...radii = ((Size * 0.83) + 11.54) / 2
Japanese Size. Japan, China, India, South America...radii = ((Size / 3) + 12.67) / 2
Diameter Size. Many goldsmiths anywhere.
radii = Size / 2
Source: http://www.18carat.co.uk/ringsizes.html
and since this release are UserObject componentes, you can remplace if you want the Size component with one new. For example, right clicking size_param, going to Expresion and setting x*pi-40, the size input will be the diameter of the resulting circle, if you give it a value of 14, the circle will have a radius of 7. Then save the userobject (File>Create User Object) and remove the other.
Or create a new one, since this component is just a rotated circle and a cylinder.
Hope this helps.…
ld see were the set of basic tutorials. I've run through a few other folk's video tutorials also.
The test case I chose, I picked because it is a super simplification of an actual space I'm trying to model (a large school sports complex - see below). Ive modelled it as a closed volume, with a few solid objects inside it, and it is a much less box-shaped space, with a ceiling that is not flat, and a significant lattice of acoustic panelling that encloses the roof trusses.
the volume of this space is around 50000 cubic metres, which if I followed the guidelines o0f 50-100 rays per cubic metre, would be 2.5 - 5 million rays. I ran a simulation on the test simplified box space with 100k rays, which took about 2 hours running on a macbook pro booted into windows. Perhaps I need to find a much more serious machine to run this on. would it be a reasonable assumption to think that as more rays are added, the results would converge on a particular solution? if so, if you had to take a guess, how many rays/m3 would be required to get a solid estimate of reverb time +/- 0.1s?
I don't mean to imply that Pachyderm isnt up to scratch - simply that I'm trying to find some way of determining whether a given set of simulation parameters are going to give a result that will be enough to make decisions about surface materials and treatments that will be required. I tried a bunch of different methods and simulation parameters to see if they were even remotely similar, and unsurprisingly, they werent. I'm not an acoustic engineer, I'm an architect who has studied some acoustics in addition to my regular subjects. I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm trying to convert that into enough to be useful. :). I'm totally open to any advice anyone might offer.
One last thing, could you confirm that the T-30 parameter is T-30 (and so needs to be doubled to get RT60)
Thanks for responding,
Ben
…
ys to make use of it.
What it does...
This plug-in allows for one to "connect" a Rhino document with
Grasshopper documents (referred to throughout the plugin as pairing) so
that you can remember which Grasshopper documents are used or reference
data from the Rhino document
How to use it...
Right now, the plug-in is just one command "PairGHFiles" which has
five(5) different options.
PairAllActiveGHDocs - This option pairs all of the documents that are
currently active in the GH Editor to the current Rhino document
PairSelectedGHDocs - This option shows a dialog that allows you to pick
from all the currently active documents in the GH Editor. The selected
documents will be paired to the current Rhino document
OpensAllPairedGHDocs - Opens all the GH Documents that are currently
paired with the Rhino Document
RemovePairedGHDocs - Shows a list of the currently paired GH Documents
and allows you to select which ones to remove.
CurrentlyPairedGHDocs - Prints to the command line all of the GH
Document paths that are currently paired to the Rhino Document.
The plug-in automatically saves all the necessary data, so you don't
need to remember to save any additional files. Do keep in mind that
only GH documents that have been saved and have a valid path will be
able to be paired to the Rhino Document.
Installation
Place the rhp file in a safe, static locataion, then drag and drop it on
top of a running instance of Rhino. Or run the PlugInManager command,
click the Install button towards the bottom of the window, and choose
the rhp file.
If anyone has any questions, feedback, suggestions, or issues, feel free
to post here or email me. Also, for people looking to do the "opposite"
of this (pairing a Rhino Document to a GH Document), check out Visose's
post below.
http://news2.mcneel.com/scripts/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=rhino&item=353734&utag=
This plug-in is provided without any written or expressed guarantee. By
downloading and installing the plug-in you release the author of any
liability in regards to anything this plug-in may or may not do.
Best Regards,
Damien
Develop | Research | Design
e| damien[AT]liquidtectonics.com
w| liquidtectonics.com…
Added by Damien Alomar at 12:27pm on October 26, 2010
ss 2010.
It is mainly to understand how to create the relationship between rhino / vb.net / rhinocommon, somewhat how grasshopper works.
The error which comes up is the following:
Could not load file or assembly 'RhinoCommon, Version=5.0.15005.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=552281e97c755530' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.
It seems to be an issue with the RhinoCommon.dll file.
I am loaded this and made sure the Copy Local was false.
David you mentioned "
To make a .NET plugin for Rhino5 (rhp) you need to reference only RhinoCommon.dll and make sure you don't 'Copy Local'.**"
Now am I going about this the wrong way? Because the setup which I'm doing now is building a windows application file not a rhp. I would assume that you would be able to create an application in this manor to run operations in rhino. Perhaps I am wrong.
I have a gut feeling that the setup to create a plug in much more comples then just importing the rhino, rhino.geometry, rhino.collections libraries. Would you have to create some type of link to the rhino active window/application? Any thought, insights, or greatly appreciated when all have some free moments.
Many thanks as always!
…
Added by Madu Mohan at 10:35pm on January 28, 2011