large scale prototyping techniques. The programme continues to build on its expertise on complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. Autumn DLAB brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
The research generated at Autumn DLAB has been published in international media – ArchDaily, Archinect, Bustler – and peer-reviewed conference papers, including SimAUD (Simulation in Architecture and Urban Design), eCAADe (Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe).
Autumn DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation and prototype making. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by the use of robotic fabrication techniques, with the aim of integrating of form-finding, material computation, and structural performance.
The programme is structured in two stages:
PART 1 – participants are introduced to core concepts of material processes, computational methods and digital fabrication techniques. Basic and advanced tutorials on computational design and analysis tools are provided. The programme performs as a team-based workshop promoting collaboration, research and ‘learning-by-experimentation’.
PART 2 – participants propose design interventions based on the skills and knowledge gained during phase 1 and supported by scaled study models and prototypes. The fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques will then unify the design goals of the programme.
Applications
1) A limited number of 10 places are available. To apply, please send a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.2) PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE. Please send a letter of intent and a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.3) As this programme has a limited number of places it requires a selection process, if you are offered a place on programme, the Visiting School Office will inform you of how you can complete the registration process.
The deadline for applications is 13 AUGUST 2021.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 6. No prior knowledge of software tools is required for eligibility.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £975 per participant, which includes a £60 Digital Membership fee.Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools.
…
ientas digitales en el proceso de diseño desde una postura de conocimiento aplicado. Así, a partir del aprendizaje de herramientas digitales y lenguajes de programación específicos, en paralelo a una constante reflexión entorno al origen de estas herramientas y su uso, se crea una plataforma de experimentación y definición de aplicaciones reales sensibles al contexto social, técnico y económico donde serán usadas.
Diferentes perfiles, diferentes búsquedas, un sólo enfoque. Respondiendo a ésta premisa, proponemos un programa de educación especializada diseñado a partir de una estructura flexible y de amplio espectro, donde la obtención del grado depende de un número de créditos acumulados al cursar cuatro de los ocho talleres optativos y dos talleres obligatorios. Dichos talleres, agrupados en tres categorías (Herramientas digitales, Exploración aplicada y Proyecto síntesis) tienen como objetivo otorgar un conocimiento práctico de ciertas herramientas digitales, técnicas constructivas y estrategias teóricas, para formar un criterio propio entorno a su uso y aplicación.…
Added by Alberto Lara at 11:35am on February 11, 2012
rametriche all’interno del processo progettuale, approfondendo l’utilizzo di Grasshopper in sinergia con plug-in, software di analisi ambientale e simulazione fisica. Obiettivo fondamentale è la generazione della forma come risultato di tecniche di form-finding e di input ambientali (solari, termici e acustici). Verranno acquisiti nuovi strumenti operativi e di simulazione al fine di costruire modelli parametrici ottimizzati in grado di adattarsi a diverse condizioni di contesto.
tutors: Arturo Tedeschi + Maurizio Degni
Arturo Tedeschi_autore del primo libro su Grasshopper "Architettura Parametrica"__Authorized Rhino Trainer__co-director della AA Rome Visiting School - Architectural Association School (London).
info + prenotazioni: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?project=ecologic-patterns_...…
ape of the Gatorade Run – Fun Race Machine(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8RIMVhdgIk), and the interactive digitally informed Nike + Fuelband-Wristband Interactive Video-Mapping Projection Concert at at Battersea Power Station(https://vimeo.com/70791746), the AA Visiting School Rio de Janeiro 10-day intensive workshop will focus on how sports infrastructure can be informed and transformed by scanned body data so to both illustrate and improve human athletic capacity and interactively engage the spectator. Students will use theTokyo 2020 Olympic stadium as a testing ground for the creation of a new type of intelligent and interactive sports architecture. The workshop will teach eyeball and brain scanning, interactive coding, and parametric digital design and fabrication using Rhino and Grasshopper, to create a post-robotic morphing between the sensibility of the body and novel computational innovation, between Rio de Janeiro 2016 and Tokyo 2020. All software will be taught from beginning level, no previous experience needed.
APPLICATIONS:
http://rio.aaschool.ac.uk/2016-aa-rio-to-tokyo-interactive/2016-applicationinscricoes/
…
m.
Especially when there are multiple rules acting at the same time it gets really confusing.
For example:
Rule 1 = 2FF[+1]
Rule 2 = F[1]-2
From what (i think) i understand in general,
Step 1 reads rule 1.
Step 2 reads rule 1 then rule 2.
Step 3 reads rule 1 then rule 2 then rule 1
Step 4 reads rule 1 then rule 2 then rule 1 then rule 2...
But in this case rule 2 involves rule 1. How do i read it?
Another thing is when there are multiple seeds, how does it affect the rules?
For example:
A = 1
1 = F+F
AA = ?
A-A = ?
Hopefully i explained my question clearly.
Help is very much appreciated!…
nd the power of the combination with Galapagos. Since everyone here is a user, you are all well aware of how powerful the tool is.
What I was wondering was if anyone has published or is aware of any papers relevant to my field of study. I have watched a few presentations by various (David, Jon and Daniel at AA for example) but was wondering if any further work has been done that I have not encountered.
Unfortunately I am not a member of many of the organisations some of you would have presented for (i.e. IASS). However if you have published a paper with any institute I am sure I can track it down.
Thanks for any light you can shine in advance, and I hope to be publishing my modules soon as a tool for other to learn from. Hopefully in the form of a blog (should life not intervene first.)
Thanks in advance,
Joshua Seskis
RMIT University
As a reward to those who bothered to read this here is a picture of a confused looking kitten.
I don't know why the dog is wearing sandals.
…
Added by Joshua Seskis at 6:30pm on September 29, 2011
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…