Sunday, February 24, 2013

Surface Development and Matrix

As I continued to model my object in Rhino, you will see that I had some difficulty this week making the surface for the head line up with the rest of the bears features.  The first 3 images show the first attempt at the head.  As you can see from the rendering, the eyes weren't working out as well as I had hoped, so I tried to add eye sockets to improve the shape.  The next 3 images show how this didn't work too well.  It seems it was pretty difficult to adjust the surface of the head to line up with the eye sockets.  I also tried the Networksrf command in Rhino this week, and while powerful, it takes a lot of getting used to in order to use it for complex surfaces.  My only success with that command was on the ears, which seemed to help a lot having profile and contour lines defining my surface.  The difficult part of the command is that all of the profile and contour lines have to intersect, which isn't very easy using a b spline tool. For my next attempt I would like to see if I can model the head as one surface (instead of multiple surfaces) using Maya.










The following images show the matrix I had created with the nose surface of my object.  This surface had some unique geometry so I felt like it would be the best to morph into different shapes.  The top row of images got stretched (or shrunk) from left to right, left being the original surface.  The next row down was scaled uniformly in the direction of the width of the nose and the following row was scaled in the direction of the height of the nose.  The second to last row was rotated segmentally, reminding me of a slinky for some reason.  The final row was rotated and then stretched width wise.  Some of the images show some rows better than others, hence the large number of pictures.














Friday, February 22, 2013

The Forces of G

    Overall, I found the articles "Roller Coaster Construction" by Alejandro Zaera-Polo and the "Prelude" to be easier to read than the last couple of assignments but no less interesting.  With that said, I focus this blog with the one paragraph out of both of the articles that I had to re-read several times before I even started to think that I understood it.  This paragraph is the final paragraph of the "Roller Coaster Construction" article, which is in fact the exact paragraph that gave this article its name.  
    I couldn't see the relationship that was so bluntly described by one of the contractors between how this building couldn't yet be laid out and how roller coasters where built.  So, thinking that I just didn't know enough about roller coasters I did a little research about them.  Through Google I found a lot of good websites but the best one is from madehow.com (http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Roller-Coaster.html).  This website goes into pretty good detail about roller coasters in general, but also describes the design and construction process.  


    Just as I had originally imagined, roller coasters are designed in full detail before construction even begins.  This makes sense not only due to the intricate geometry, but also do to the importance of safety for a structure like this.  The public is going to use this structure with full confidence that it is safe, after all who goes to an amusement park with anything in mind other than having careless fun.  Not to mention that "g forces" play a huge roll in the popularity and usability of roller coasters, which means that a large amount of effort on the design side of the process must be used to determine and evaluate the resulting g forces throughout the ride of the proposed roller coaster.  It seems that a roller coaster is designed fully, down to every nut, bolt, and point location, before construction even begins.  So the last paragraph couldn't possibly be saying that the proposed building is similar to roller coasters because the design of either is not complete (and therefore cannot be laid out) prior to the beginning of construction, since this is clearly not the case with roller coasters.
   My next thought was that maybe the last paragraph was saying that the geometry of a proposed roller coaster could change based on the manufacturing and construction systems available, and the same was true for this building.  If this is the case then all structures and objects can be thought of as similar to this building.  If something can't be physically built due to manufacturing or construction limitations, then a change must be made so it can be built.  I decided I don't think the last paragraph was trying to make such an obvious link between the two structures.  Furthermore, in the case of a roller coaster, the entire thing would need to be re-designed to insure the safety and usability of the structure, based on the necessary construct-ability change.  This doesn't completely seem like the case for the proposed building, at least from what I took from the article.  Instead, it seemed like the article and the last paragraph was saying that small changes in the geometry and the form of the building could be made relatively easily (and quite frankly expected) during the construction process once realizations were made about what manufacturing and construction systems were being utilized.  I decided that this could not be the conclusion the last paragraph was trying to draw.
   Maybe the similarity between the construction of the building and the construction of a roller coaster is that a proposed roller coaster usually has original, unique aspects of its design that has never been built in a roller coaster before.  This leads to testing and partial construction of pieces of the final roller coaster in a lab to insure that the new features will perform as designed.  The same is partially true for this building, at least the fact that the geometry and form of this building has never been built before.  This could lead to testing in the field to make sure the designed connections can actually be made and that the materials can in fact withstand the loads.
   Instead, the final paragraph could be referring to the fact that both the roller coaster and the building must be built using local geometry.  A roller coaster must be built in a certain sequence, and a contractor can't really lay out a part of a track until the supports and the track before it is built.  While it could be technically tied back to a given point on the site, this would do no go because it won't be able to put into place until it's turn in the sequence due to how the tracks slide together and are supported.  Therefore it is much easier to use local geometry to define the location of the piece since it is easy to see where it goes relative to the last piece if it is already constructed.  A roller coaster is constructed similar to reading a treasure map.  A treasure hunter cannot take the 10 steps forward after a left turn if he hasn't already taken the 20 steps to get to the left turn.  The treasure hunter cannot locate the X when he starts to read the map because the X is locally defined based on the steps right before it, resulting in the treasure hunter having to follow the map in order.  This also sounds like the case for the proposed building.  A given roof panel (or any aspect of the building) may be defined based upon its surrounding geometries instead of back to one main point on the site, making it difficult for the contractors to lay out that piece until its appropriate time comes.


   After further thought, I came to the conclusion that this is in fact what I thought the contractor meant when he compared the building to a roller coaster in the last paragraph.  It was not about the design not being complete before construction, the ease of changing the design based on the construction systems, nor the fact that this form had not been built before in the past, but instead the last paragraph was drawing similarities between the local definition of the pieces and geometries of the structures.  This seemed correct to me, at least until I recalled that the previous page stated that the design had to move "from a raster space, where each point is determined by local information, to a vectorial space, where each point is determined by differentiated global orders".  Alas, it seems that the points of the building were not defined through local geometries, and once again confusion set in.  So, knowing that each one of you must comment on my blog and while you can comment about whatever you would like, I would encourage you to comment about what you thought the last paragraph meant (or what you think it meant based on my analysis if you didn't read that article), since I would be sure to find your interpretation of the last paragraph very interesting. 


Sunday, February 17, 2013

Object Surfaces 2

This week I continued to model my object in Rhino.  I did the ears first and they turned out to be much more difficult than I had anticipated.  I thought I got the hardest part done when I finished the nose last week but the ears took twice as long.  I believe this had to do with the perspectives of my photograph images of the object.  These images lined up nicely in Rhino for the nose of my object but were off slightly for the ears.  Furthermore, I had tried to use the same methodology I had for the nose and it didn't work for the ears, so I had to change the curves in Rhino in order to loft the surface.  Luckily, I did the eyes second and those were easy (or at least worked the first time around).  I made those from concentric circles and then offset and scaled them to match the object.
    The next step is to model the head, which I hope is easy since the component surfaces of the head are already modeled (eyes, ears, etc).  However, if the component surfaces are not in the exact spots they should be then it might be more difficult.  Take a look at the pictures below.






Sunday, February 10, 2013

Thoughts On Death Cube "K"

    The "Death Cube 'K'" excerpt by Anthony Vidler was riddled with well described imagery.  As I read it, it was impossible not to picture all of the different descriptions of the environments that he gave.  He was able to not only place images into my mind but also certain feelings about what I was visualizing.  He talked about how imagination and imagery go hand in hand in architecture.  I couldn't agree more.
    As he leads us through the different landscapes and building frames, he is able to correctly phrase the objects/environments he is talking about, not only allowing the imagery to form in the readers head but also tying a feeling to each object.  As a first example, he described a couple of environments using the word "steel". As I started to imagine the room he was describing full of sharp steel tipped objects, a cold feeling accompanied the images.  I immediately realized that this was something I did often, and that I suspect most readers do.  When imagining certain words, I subconsciously tie them to certain feelings.  As I think about it, there is no reason for steel to give me a cold feeling, in fact, steel could also be a very hot material, or thinking about it a different way, steel doesn't have to be a cold object of horror making me feel trapped and confined, but could be a beautiful warm reflecting image of light.  Yet this is not what my imagination jumps to first.



    This is a reoccurring theme in Vidler's writing   He describes how words and phrases can have such a big impact on one's imagination.  The same environment, described in two different ways, can lead to two totally separate images and feelings for people.  This becomes important for architects since portraying the initial image of the proposed structure to others on the project team can have a vital impact on how that structure actually turns out.  One of the main points I took from the first part of this article is how everyone has a different perspective on something.  Even further, the same person, having a totally different perspective could have a different image, feeling, and memory develop in their mind when viewing the same object or structure at different times or from different angles.  It becomes important for architects to not only design structures based on what they want people to visually see, but also what feelings they want people to experience when viewing it, since both of these things seem to be inevitably intertwined.
    He continues on to describe how the society that we live in tends to form the architecture profession, not only shaping it in good ways as we advance as a race, but also limiting the creative abilities of architects as structures start to be categorized and follow suit.  These buildings started to fall into certain "types", as Vidler describes it, making it harder or less likely for the architects to break from the pattern of structures that society was getting used to.
    The article then shifts its thought, elaborating about how some architects are going about "morphing the type", the structural rigidity that has limited the creativity of the design process.  Three parts of this article had the biggest impacts on me, and the first one comes up here.  "The dream of a potentially liberating 'space'" is how Vidler begins his description of the transformation of architecture on page 206|207.  This one phrase held many different meanings for me and whether or not all are correct doesn't particularly matter, it just matters that I began to contemplate the meaning of this phrase from different perspectives.  First, the word space brought up an image of blackness and stars, of literal space.  Not that I have ever been there before but of course I could imagine it.  Tied with this is the feeling of freedom, of not having any bounds, of creativity at its peak.  Yet at the same time a sort of emptiness was intertwined with the image, a cold feeling of loneliness, wondering if I would be able to fill this space.  Could I be creative enough now that the limitations of architectural design had been figuratively lifted from my imagination, or would I fail to fully utilize the potential that lays before me now that my eyes have been opened.  As the image began to morph in my mind, a light appeared, perhaps from a nearby sun and my imagination went from empty and cold to bright and warm.  Sure I could be creative enough, and if I am not its OK since it is not just up to me, architecture as a whole can evolve and embrace this new dimension, this new freedom of design now that a light has shown us what could be.  Just how he managed to phrase these couple of paragraphs had an interesting effect on my imagination and thought process.

Image 3: http://www.picstopin.com/2560/blue-outer-space-stars-hd-wallpaper  

    The second descriptive phrase of this article that stuck with me was in the middle of the complete thought of how building blocks make up our structures.  Vidler is explaining how past and current architecture is made up of "fractured" and "sheared" surfaces, how structures are discontinuous in nature.  Examples such as the Great Wall of China, with its millions of separate building blocks, brings images to this description.  Then he offers reasons for this, the most thought provoking (and the one I liked the best) is his quotation of the description on page 210|2011 which reads, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a scientific man to pass through a door.  And whether the door be barn door or church door it might be wiser that he should consent to be an ordinary man and walk in rather than wait till all the scientific difficulties involved in a rally scientific ingress are resolved".  As engineers, architects, and scientists, we tend to over complicate things very often, getting in our own way instead of moving forward.  Not all of the mathematics are worked out yet about complex geometries, new forms, and interesting shapes for structures, but that doesn't mean we have to let it hinder our creative abilities when designing the next inspirational space.  It is a reminder to me that every once and a while I need to "take a step back" and see the full picture, contemplate how that current design is coming out, and how my different designs have evolved and come to be over the years.
    As he expands on these thoughts he touches on a concept that had stayed with me from last weeks reading.  Whether or not it was actually in last weeks reading I can't say for sure, but it was something that the previous reading did make me think about.  The explanation on page 241|215 of how vertical walls can morph into horizontal floors, and vice-versa, is the third image provoking phrase that I left with from this reading.  I literally imagined a building, with a ribbon like structure of white winding walls curving into and with the floors, very smooth, very calming.  Why white? I don't know, maybe it is tied with the thought of creative freedom, or of a change in the imagination.  Either way, it was a unique space that I have currently only seen in my imagination, a space that is not "fractured" from its environment, but one that could wave with the flow of the wind or roll with the hills.  Yet at the same time this building could be very structurally stable, getting support from the ground itself, or cutting through the wind with ease due to it's soft and curvy structure.
    This article effectively brought out my imagination.  The way in which Vidler described his explanations and formed his points, allowed my mind to explore different images and tap into the creative side of thinking again.  As he went on describing gravity free spaces, flowing structures with curved surfaces, buildings that blended with the environment, my mind was able to form images based off my own memories allowing me to picture how I felt about his thoughts.  My mind was able to create images that most of us have seen, yet have different memories of due to our unique perspective; images such as a wall mural of an endless corridor, a cave filled with crystals hanging from the ceiling, or of a home built into the side of a mountain such as the hobbit's from the well known book and movie series.  This creative thinking, the ability to see the final structure in its completeness and form, is an ability that architects and engineers must never forget, for it will be this skill that will remove the bounds of our designs and allow our structures to evolve with society.

Image 4: Endless Corridor



Container Nose and Cap

For Project 1a, I attempted to model the nose and cap of the animal cracker container.  Here are images of the surfaces and a rendering using Rhino3D.  The cap was relatively easy due to the crisp geometry.  The nose was much more difficult due to the curves in the surface of the geometry.  I felt like the nose would be one of the harder surfaces to model so I did it as part of Project 1a (the cap I did to make sure I could model a simple surface).  Even though it doesn't look like it, the cap and the nose are made up of two individual surfaces each, making four surfaces total.  The hardest part of modeling the surfaces was actually getting the two surfaces of each item to interact together correctly.  I believe this means that once I model all of the surfaces, the most difficult part of the modeling process will be to make sure all of the surfaces line up correctly.  Next I plan to model the ears, eyes, and arms.
    One major problem I had in Rhino was when I imported the images using pictureframe into Rhino, the folder they were in got moved and now the images in Rhino are just white rectangles.  I searched on the web and couldn't figure out how to reload the images.  Any ideas?













New Object for Project 1

I no longer feel like the speaker that I choose as my object for Project 1 is going to be a very good object to model.  So I spent the last couple of days looking for a viable replacement and came up with several ideas.  Currently the object I like the best is the animal cracker container because I feel like it has more interesting surfaces to model.  My second choice would be the cologne bottle.  Today I will give modeling an object a second try in rhino.  Let me know which object you think has the most unique surfaces and will be the best to model.

Animal Cracker Container








Cologne Bottle







Helmet







Small Speaker