P.C. Idears
 

After a year or two presenting 3-D honeycomb construction to the
boatbuilding world, and generating a great deal of interest, PC ran up
against resistance. Used in a boat, such a honeycomb system could be used
to fabricate very light, strong hulls. With modern computer-assisted design
and cutting systems, the components could be built - fast, and (maybe)
cheap. Unfortunately, there's a wide gulf between concept and
implementation.

Pers has shown evidence that he's a skilled and meticulous craftsmen. Yet
he seemed to be asking somebody else to take the leap and build a prototype.
Understandably, the people at rec.boats.building declined, and asked HIM to
do this. A prototype, model, whatever you call it, made of "real"
materials - metal, wood, fiberglass... Without this, all the discussion in
the world is ultimately fruitless.

After some months of resistance, and, ultimately, ridicule, PC has taken his
crusade to a new venue - architecture. And now, the same questions are
starting to arise.

A recent quote from an architect, trying to pin PC down to specifics (on
alt.architecture)
"I don't want or need editorializing and it doesn't help your cause...
Now, separate that from my concerns, questions, etc about
construction. How
do you actually build your system?
You say it can be prefabricated and cut to suit. Fine, I can
understand
that and the principle behind your work that lets it be so, but I still
can't
see how it's accomplished.
You need a material. After that, how is it manufactured?"

Predictably, PC did not answer these fundamental questions. He needs to
understand that, with a prototype, he will have 1,000 true believers in his
3-D honeycomb system. In boatbuilding, architecture, or anywhere else, a
concept and a bad attitude will not get you very far.

P.C. Idears
 

True...true....seems at this point, Per wants the credit, but not the work.
As long as it does not require more than punching a few keys in a 3D
application.
The problem was exasterbated by a few well meaning people,
who fellatiously and needlessly defend Pers ideas, enabling and keeping Per
in a constant state of delusion.
These defenders are nothing but verbal charity/welfare distributors who keep
Per resting on his
questionable laurels. It would be much more productive as you have
outlined, to encourage
Per to develob a few prototypical studies. I recall a while back Per did
produce a small speaker
cabinet, claiming it was in some way associated with what he calls 3D-H.
Don, (a draftsman/designer in alt.architecture) began calling Per "a true
visionary" etc.
It all went downhill from there.

Syd




"Sal's Dad" wrote in message
...
After a year or two presenting 3-D honeycomb construction to the
boatbuilding world, and generating a great deal of interest, PC ran up
against resistance. Used in a boat, such a honeycomb system could be
used
to fabricate very light, strong hulls. With modern computer-assisted
design
and cutting systems, the components could be built - fast, and (maybe)
cheap. Unfortunately, there's a wide gulf between concept and
implementation.

Pers has shown evidence that he's a skilled and meticulous craftsmen. Yet
he seemed to be asking somebody else to take the leap and build a
prototype.
Understandably, the people at rec.boats.building declined, and asked HIM
to
do this. A prototype, model, whatever you call it, made of "real"
materials - metal, wood, fiberglass... Without this, all the discussion
in
the world is ultimately fruitless.

After some months of resistance, and, ultimately, ridicule, PC has taken
his
crusade to a new venue - architecture. And now, the same questions are
starting to arise.

A recent quote from an architect, trying to pin PC down to specifics (on
alt.architecture)
"I don't want or need editorializing and it doesn't help your cause...
Now, separate that from my concerns, questions, etc about
construction. How
do you actually build your system?
You say it can be prefabricated and cut to suit. Fine, I can
understand
that and the principle behind your work that lets it be so, but I
still
can't
see how it's accomplished.
You need a material. After that, how is it manufactured?"

Predictably, PC did not answer these fundamental questions. He needs to
understand that, with a prototype, he will have 1,000 true believers in
his
3-D honeycomb system. In boatbuilding, architecture, or anywhere else, a
concept and a bad attitude will not get you very far.

P.C. Idears
 

Hi

Sorry the Snip, ---- but this ansver already could be long enough for the group
members, that must read the design issues, to figure out what this shuld deal
with boats. But no one want to read bad exchouses so I will start with the good
ones.
First you are quite right, that the way you describe this, I am not treading my
friends right. Still I did try get the place and options to develob this
building system, but maby I been to harsh towerds the architects in this contry,
fact is , that I did not get a positive ansver when I filled for using the
states workshops , ----- acturly I did not get any response at all before I
phoned ,and realy I became so disapointed that 3 copies of files , describing a
building system near patent level couldn't be returned, that I gave up involving
anyone except those who could be interested in investing.
Since then seveal members of the C.B. groups been giving me a bad countious. As
now it is so many years I gave up the Cyber-Boat concept and all those small
"inventions" or CAD tricks these sites carry and placed everything as
free-download, and realy I would have thought to have had the time, cleaning it
up, placing a few more of the designs not yet published and finaly start to give
free the AutoLisp rutines , that was the result of the develobment of the
Cyber-Boat concept -------- you know full-scale plans and the world's easiest
building system all learning you to both build a boat and master a CAD
program, ------- but architecture came in the way.
Realy I spended some 4 years at the acadamy, and the Cyber-Boat thing was during
and after that, and helped me become application develober and solve some quite
heavy challances --------- still both back then and now I some times feel like
fighting windmills, as even back then engineers claimed that there was only one
way to build a ship and that was with "known geometries" , even I could prove
opposite with the boats build , then today the architectural world , don't want
a promise of a bright future and new jobs.
I alway's had a bad social skill and never standed back in my critics, and that
mean that within architecture I calim that today's software are lame and
architects mind is chained and my only prove, is the 3D graphics that as you
point, more and more seem to value,
Anyway you proberly already reconised a few of the resons a great idear grow so
weak when only one person hount the web with his Pony, ------- as even I alway's
been a hands-on person you need a place to store your tools and it is not
everybody dealing with architecture, that is born with a silver spoon in his
mouth .
Now I don't blame you to think I am to arogant to have the chance I acturly have
and had so many times when I proven my bad social skills. But no one is perfect
and I must try make that up that you rightfully point to , ------ this is to bad
but academics are here to learn even they don't know , problem is that the
things they need to learn, is not what you would think with the world's best
building system , ----- you guy's on the other hand is getting closer and closer
to be the ones that could profit the most , but I don't have a workshop anymore
, ---- somthing I wouldn't think as a problem thoug, as I know with now 15 years
CAD experience, that 3D never lie where 2D artistry often is made just to do so.
Sal's father is quite right, it's bad and I hope for a bit more patience ;
please check the latest graphics around the Path Station , maby that make you
wonder less, why I often drop into architecture ------ the following is OT
about boatbuilding they are all architecture ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2821.html

http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2818.html

http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2820.html

http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2819.html

http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2806.html

There is acturly two different types of structurem Type-W and Type -X , refering
how sections is created.

These are all ment as an alternative to this ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2805.html
That is how the rebuild station is decided to show.

-------- A bad exchouse, well there seem to be a lot of bad exchouses around,
when it come to architecture, but they never tell the fact that much is 20 year
old primitive computer meshes ,even lamer than the mesh entities I used for the
Cyber-Boats, beside what is opposite to the way a boatbuilder work, is the
"Lego-mind" , in most of what architects today think is top trend design tools,
placing one block ontop the next.

P.C.

P.C. Idears
 

understand that, with a prototype, he will have 1,000 true believers in
his

Wow. Jim Jones only had 912.

P.C. Idears
 

These defenders are nothing but verbal charity/welfare distributors who
keep

Accusing Don of being a welfare proponent? Gasp!

P.C. Idears
 

"gruhn" wrote
These defenders are nothing but verbal charity/welfare distributors who
keep

Accusing Don of being a welfare proponent? Gasp!

LOL
Syd, or should I say Sara, or any number of masks, is still ****ed at the
education I gave him/her a couple years ago over in alt.construction.
Ask him/her about it sometime. They get real emotional over it.

P.C. Idears
 

"P.C." wrote
-------- A bad exchouse, well there seem to be a lot of bad exchouses
around,
when it come to architecture, but they never tell the fact that much is 20
year
old primitive computer meshes ,even lamer than the mesh entities I used
for the
Cyber-Boats, beside what is opposite to the way a boatbuilder work, is the
"Lego-mind" , in most of what architects today think is top trend design
tools,
placing one block ontop the next.

Do you suppose it would be enormously expense to initiate the machinary
necessary to create a true 3DH architectural structure?
I personally believe your vision can be made a reality, but I can't fill in
the steps in between. I need some help here.
The Sydney Opera house for example, seems to be a good *model* for 3DH, but
how in the world could it happen?
Theres a big black hole in the middle of this thing...........and many can't
see the light on the other side.
Is there a way to make a model on a much smaller scale, say 1:4?

P.C. Idears
 

Is there a way to make a model on a much smaller scale, say 1:4?

He might start w/ chipboard and a matte knife.

P.C. Idears
 

"gruhn" wrote in message
...
Is there a way to make a model on a much smaller scale, say 1:4?

He might start w/ chipboard and a matte knife.

ikkkk
I'm thinking more along the lines of some raw alum and a tig.

P.C. Idears
 

I don't believe his idea is sound. His web is designed to fold like an
accordion should he ever hit something hard. The strength would have to
come from the skin and fasteners (or adhesive.) There's a reason that
honeycomb structures us _honeycomb_, triangles, or rectangular sections with
the web aligned with the direction of greatest stress. PC broke that last
rule. Plywood is cheap. He just likes to be a pest and uses his accordion
structure as a whipping bench. I kill-filed him long long ago. Same with
JAX. I don't see posts or email from either one. Everyone else around here
seems pretty cool otherwise. If I were you guys, I'd follow the usual
"don't feed the troll" rule and don't entertain him with any discussion of
his design efforts at all.

Brian


"Sal's Dad" wrote in message
...
After a year or two presenting 3-D honeycomb construction to the
boatbuilding world, and generating a great deal of interest, PC ran up
against resistance. Used in a boat, such a honeycomb system could be
used
to fabricate very light, strong hulls. With modern computer-assisted
design
and cutting systems, the components could be built - fast, and (maybe)
cheap. Unfortunately, there's a wide gulf between concept and
implementation.

Pers has shown evidence that he's a skilled and meticulous craftsmen. Yet
he seemed to be asking somebody else to take the leap and build a
prototype.
Understandably, the people at rec.boats.building declined, and asked HIM
to
do this. A prototype, model, whatever you call it, made of "real"
materials - metal, wood, fiberglass... Without this, all the discussion
in
the world is ultimately fruitless.

After some months of resistance, and, ultimately, ridicule, PC has taken
his
crusade to a new venue - architecture. And now, the same questions are
starting to arise.

A recent quote from an architect, trying to pin PC down to specifics (on
alt.architecture)
"I don't want or need editorializing and it doesn't help your cause...
Now, separate that from my concerns, questions, etc about
construction. How
do you actually build your system?
You say it can be prefabricated and cut to suit. Fine, I can
understand
that and the principle behind your work that lets it be so, but I
still
can't
see how it's accomplished.
You need a material. After that, how is it manufactured?"

Predictably, PC did not answer these fundamental questions. He needs to
understand that, with a prototype, he will have 1,000 true believers in
his
3-D honeycomb system. In boatbuilding, architecture, or anywhere else, a
concept and a bad attitude will not get you very far.

P.C. Idears
 

Hi

"Brian D" skrev i en meddelelse
news:hO9db.595111$Ho3.115248@sccrnsc03...

I don't see posts or email from either one. Everyone else around here
seems pretty cool otherwise. If I were you guys, I'd follow the usual
"don't feed the troll" rule and don't entertain him with any discussion of
his design efforts at all.

You describe yourself quite well Brian D. ----------- You are the class bullie,
that take the chance and throw dirt as soon as you think it will not hit
yourself, then you hope Usenet live up to what you want Usenet to be, a place
where dryass Usenet fanatics can enter a group without knowing a clue, and start
pick on the one they think is the weak guy ; as this is what most old Usenet
dryass find more exiting, than opening their mind for that the screen infront,
can carry other things than words.
But _you_ are the one who come with hate, you are the one that admid you already
closed your eyes, as othervise you can't fart and make that smell , that remind
what is rotten in the state of denmark,

Now there is a great difference if you occupy yourself as how you do , bragging
about how unfair you are, and bragging about somthing you don't even have a clue
about , and what I do , with lots of positive reply.
You hate me for the succes this already given, guess that's your main problem
but your whole attitude unfortuatly is quite common ; you know I never talked
about paper even then you throw dirt as that is what it is about , for you. You
brag about your hate and want Usenet to be a stinking sump of what you want the
most, --------- now all you want is to be unfair and keep close your eyes , and
as you don't even read what I write , why shuld I care ; there are more people
who wan't a promise of a bright future and new jobs, than people who want Brian
D. to be the profet of the new hate impire, Brian D. on the other hand, want
you all to follow the advise of the class bullie , this is what Brian's world is
about, ---------- he never claimed to make you all happy, but do as he say and
you get exactly what you invested in.
P.C.

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

"P.C." skrev i en meddelelse
k...
Hi

Snip

-------- now all you want is to be unfair and keep close your eyes , and
as you don't even read what I write , why shuld I care ; there are more people
who wan't a promise of a bright future and new jobs, than people who want
Brian
D. to be the profet of the new hate impire, Brian D. on the other hand, want
you all to follow the advise of the class bullie , this is what Brian's world
is
about, ---------- he never claimed to make you all happy, but do as he say and
you get exactly what you invested in.
P.C.


Is anyone surprised that Brian D. is a fake ?

That Brian D. posted the group with a fake mail address , --------- now let
this fact entlighten the critic about Per Corell and this fantastic building
system , or rather clearly show, that when an old dryass Usenet profet get mad
that somone ,after a decade of work , develob a new fantastic building method
---------- then he find himself in his "right" to use the most dirty Usenet
tricks ; "throw dirt and say he stink" , attack the person when what he
develobed is better than what you will ever find out.

Brian D. attack like a coverd bullie, like the class bullie and he hope you all
to join in , what do that say about the critic ?

P.C.

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

Hi

"Ron Thornton" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Dear PC,


Snip

You are quite right.
The thing about real and fake mail addresses is what ruin it all, you se there
is nothing more frustrating than somone who fake out of any discussion with a
fake address, ------ I know I provoke , but I do so under my own name. I don't
think anything that is "said" with a fake address is wrong, but when you use it
for social harasment it is more than wrong.

P.C.

P.C. Idears
 

"Syd Mead" wrote in message news:fhZcb.6374$Rd4.3448@fed1read07...


(big snips)


Don, (a draftsman/designer in alt.architecture) began calling Per "a true
visionary" etc.
It all went downhill from there.


........................

For the record...I like Don.

As for his judgement regarding our dear friend Pers....

I will only say.....


I like Don.

Don likes the rebel in Pers....Don likes and encourages the guy who
has a passion and follows it.

I think Don cares less about the quality of Per's idea in this case
than the passion of Per the idealist.

I accept Don's attitude....more than Per's ideas.

But I also like Per. ...more than I like his ideas.

Christopher

P.C. Idears
 

"Christopher K. Egan"
"Syd Mead"

(big magic snips)


Don, (a draftsman/designer in alt.architecture) began calling Per "a
true
visionary" etc.
It all went downhill from there.

.......................

For the record...I like Don.
As for his judgement regarding our dear friend Pers....
I will only say.....
I like Don.
Don likes the rebel in Pers....Don likes and encourages the guy who
has a passion and follows it.
I think Don cares less about the quality of Per's idea in this case
than the passion of Per the idealist.
I accept Don's attitude....more than Per's ideas.
But I also like Per. ...more than I like his ideas.

So-o-o, what exactly are you saying? ;o)

P.C. Idears
 

Hi

"Christopher K. Egan" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
"Syd Mead" wrote in message
news:fhZcb.6374$Rd4.3448@fed1read07...


(big snips)


Don, (a draftsman/designer in alt.architecture) began calling Per "a true
visionary" etc.
It all went downhill from there.


.......................

For the record...I like Don.

As for his judgement regarding our dear friend Pers....

I will only say.....


I like Don.

Don likes the rebel in Pers....Don likes and encourages the guy who
has a passion and follows it.

I think Don cares less about the quality of Per's idea in this case
than the passion of Per the idealist.

I accept Don's attitude....more than Per's ideas.

But I also like Per. ...more than I like his ideas.

Christopher

Thank's for the nice words.
I just wonder how many of groups members who realise if it is easy or difficult
, to build from scratch clearing a new road.
Esp. when the last thing you want to do, is to build from scratch as if you pick
a brick your lead is done , and why pick a new road when you anyway will build
from bricks.
Ok , you then can decide that this new road must be projected with computers, so
after you spend your time not just being a user, but a super user and
application develober , then you are sure you don't just use the old method in
new clotches , ------ what the hell is then all these bricks laying around, when
the last thing you wanted to do, was to continue out of the Lego-Mind road .
Right then you get glad, as people with hands-on experience and knowing the
weight of the materials and the actural trouble with these must be the right
direction, ------ but then why is it the boxwork seem so damn'ed square , when
technology let you form and create just as you form, ------- why must one wall
have the weight of 500 ton, to hold millimeter thin sheets in the air ; is all
this hount for high-tech and fancy , just an attitude ?
Now I don't know if you fully understand when I say, that from mid 90' and even
before, the claim to visionary artists, been to be master of high-tech ; know
and master the software aswell as software , as "we want somthing new"
---------- Problem is, that even millions spended and just as much cluless
writing , all that came out of this hount for an image , is the sentense that
follow the claim "we want somthing new and fantastic high-tech " acturly the
next claim is ; " But the new thing we ask, must be somthing we already know".
Now this already fit with the idear that "the new" must be somthing
revolusionary , ------ except a few details. First it must not mean a revolution
and secondly it must not question the emporor. "The new" must not be so
difficult that the old architcts lose their posision and it must be so easy that
the same ones can lecture . You se "the new" and exiting options must not prove
better than a brick and it must work as how we laied bricks for thousands of
years , as if not it is not "new" , right ?
Beside when steel been cut and assembled with rivets ,bolts and welding for
decades, a "new" thing must ofcaurse be as rigid as alway's , as what is more
important than just getting a bright new Vision that bring new jobs is, that it
in not to be seen as somthing that question the settled way, --------- "we want
somthing new and fancy, but it must not look as being better than the old scrap,
and it must not challance our good friends".

The fight against the advanced high-tech tools I been bringing, have most often
not been a fight based on technical facts, ------- but one thing I learned in
these discussions is, that nomatter my self critic and systematic following the
few safe tracks I document with true knowleage about what I speak, and within I
work, ---------- You my friend can only understand the image you already want
to se. No one want "the new" , as this mean that a self thought guy, will
challance the gains and the social inviroment , -------- the emporors clotches
is not missing they just carry visual stealth and the thief alway's needed a bad
exchouse , a bad exchouse allow any academic to steal whatever , as long as the
rest of the crowd back up the bad exchouse, ------- just wait and se, social
harasment within the architectural world is not just about bullying , but I made
it a bit more difficult by publishing my works on the web.

Let me point to an old example ; I filed in to a contest and as you proberly
will know, I spended some halve of the short written presentation , to point out
that this was about new building methods and a direct link production method,
explained with good drawings and calculated in terms of cost pr.sq. meter build
, I recived the jury's papers that on first page wrote ; " not one single of
the 47 suggestions, did even scratch the surface or point to the obvious options
connecting the computer drawing with the actural production of the building
element" ---------- as so it continued.
Now please ansver me, if somthing is rotten in the state where the architects
display Liebskinds suggestion about a wtc rebuild ?

Please tell me if what you tell the students is not just one big lie.

You want another example , or can anyone already tell where all the nice
buildings that could have been , has gone.

P.C.

P.C. Idears
 

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...
"Syd Mead" wrote in message
news:fhZcb.6374$Rd4.3448@fed1read07...


(big snips)


Don, (a draftsman/designer in alt.architecture) began calling Per "a
true
visionary" etc.
It all went downhill from there.


.......................

For the record...I like Don.

As for his judgement regarding our dear friend Pers....

I will only say.....


I like Don.

Don likes the rebel in Pers....Don likes and encourages the guy who
has a passion and follows it.

I think Don cares less about the quality of Per's idea in this case
than the passion of Per the idealist.

I accept Don's attitude....more than Per's ideas.

But I also like Per. ...more than I like his ideas.

Christopher

I like that. And I like your observations.

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

Brian who? Me? My email works fine. Just remove the 'NS's (for No Spam)
from it when you reply. Flames gladly accepted ...quite often good
conversation! (But if it's a flame war, private is best, not the
newsgroups).

Brian

"Ron Thornton" wrote in message
...
Dear PC,

You should think of doing two things before you post again:

1. Build ANYTHING with your methode and post the pictures. Go
ahead and post them here, we will make it easy for you by waiving the
prohibition on binary posts (don't say anything, see #2 below).

2. Find a good PR guy. For whatever reasons, your presentation is
hurting you effort.

Regards, Ron

PS. Brian is a whoos. My e-mail is real.

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

Brian,

It was an attempt at levity. Not necessarily a good one, but an
attempt.

Regards, Ron

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

Hi

"Brian D" skrev i en meddelelse
news:ZwKdb.617635$YN5.450647@sccrnsc01...

Brian who? Me? My email works fine. Just remove the 'NS's (for No Spam)
from it when you reply. Flames gladly accepted ...quite often good
conversation! (But if it's a flame war, private is best, not the
newsgroups).

Brian

Who care lowlife , you also lie ;


I kill-filed him long long ago. Same with
JAX. I don't see posts or email from either one. Everyone else around here
seems pretty cool otherwise.
Brian

P.C.

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

PC, Your spending too much time at the computer. Pleeeeease go back
to the shop and build something.

Ron

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

Who? Me? I am building something. Look:
http://www.advantagecomposites.com/tongass On the home page, mine'll be more
like the one on the right. A Pacific Northwest style recreational fishing
boat.

Brian


"Ron Thornton" wrote in message
...
PC, Your spending too much time at the computer. Pleeeeease go back
to the shop and build something.

Ron

P.C. Idears ( P.S.)
 

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:28:54 GMT, "Brian D"
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

ummm.... " PC, Your sp"

PC is who you are arguing with.


Who? Me? I am building something. Look:
http://www.advantagecomposites.com/tongass On the home page, mine'll be more
like the one on the right. A Pacific Northwest style recreational fishing
boat.

Brian


"Ron Thornton" wrote in message
...
PC, Your spending too much time at the computer. Pleeeeease go back
to the shop and build something.

Ron



************************************************** ****************************************
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
The rest sit around and make snide comments.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

P.C. Idears
 

My dear Per....

First...I want to offer you my respect for your passion and commitment
to your idea(r).... although I do not agree with your approach. The
world has too many people who do not think and imagine and try to
reach beyond the ordinary...and you are one of the wonderful people
who are trying to do something new and creative.

For that I thank you and respect you.

Now I would like to offer you two thoughts that explain why I am not
yet a believer in your "3D-H" approach to architecture. My words are
meant to be friendly and helpful... they are not meant as an attack.

1. My first concern may seem technical...but I would like to point
out that... exactly because it is technical.... it is a very serious
concern. There is a question that many have asked you...and I have not
heard a good answer from you. That question is ... "What material do
you intend to use? ...and how will this particular material be formed
into the shapes you recommend?" Now maybe you think this is just a
minor detail...but I do not. In every human art....painting,
sculpture, music, ceramics, photography, computer graphics,
architecture... the relationship between form and technique is at the
very heart of the art. In other words, the form we choose cannot be
divorced from the materials and technology we use to make those forms.
Michelangelo's sculpture of David is not wonderful because of his idea
for it....but because he found within a highly veined piece of local
stone a form that he could use to express his idea of David. In art,
the idea and the making are not separate issues. This is profoundly
true of architecture. For example.... In ancient Babylon, the
beautiful city walls and arched gateways were made of mud bricks faced
in glazed tiles (btw....these arches were built a few thousand years
before the Roman Empire... so it is not true that the Romans invented
the arch!). Without the beautifully painted glazed tiles, the walls
and entry gates would not survive the extreme Iraqi climate. So the
details of the materials were a critical component of the
architectural form ...from the very beginning!!! Similarly, the
structural forms of the Greek classical temples were direct
reflections of the structural characteristics of the stone used for
columns and beams....as can be seen when we look at the radically
different architecture of the Japanese palaces at Kyoto....which also
used columns and beams....but now with wood instead of stone...so that
the spacing, proportions and openness are completely different. We can
move forward to any great moment in architectural history and see that
the physical forms are direct manifestations of the particular
qualities of the specific materials used. The wonder of the Gothic
cathedrals is the brilliant and sophisticated mastery of the stone
material available...which the architects (yes...these were designed
and built by professional architects, despite the nonsense folklore
that says they were built by the uninformed faith of the masses!) used
in ways that pushed the material to the absolute limit of its
capacities. We can jump ahead to the first masterpiece of the
Renaissance, the dome of the Cathedral of Florence...and we can see
that the form was ONLY possible because the architect, Brunelleschi,
understood that stone or masonry by itself WAS INCAPABLE of achieving
the form he wanted, so he introduced a chain of tensile material to
counter the forces created by the stone! If we jump ahead a few
hundred years, we see that the original stimulus for modern
architecture was the development....by industry and engineers....of
new materials that made possible forms that architects had never even
considered! It was in the search for how to use these new materials
that we get the wonders of Labrouste's libraries in Paris, the Crystal
Palace in London or the simply wonderful masterpieces of the Villa
Savoye and the Barcelona Pavilion. The fact is that the specifics of
how we make a thing are at the heart of what we make....whether we
are talking about the weave of a piece of cloth or the hand-marks on a
piece of thrown pottery or the rivets of a 19th century iron bridge or
the tension cables of a Calatrava structure. You have proposed
dramatic new forms.... but you have not told us what they are or how
they are made.... and this makes them either meaningless or ....at
best.... undeveloped as architectural proposals.

2. The second point is one I think I suggested to you a few years
ago....and it is equally important. Architecture is not really about
structures....it is about spaces for humans and their belongings and
their activities. Therefore, the shape of architectural space must be
driven by the human actions instead of by the construction. Any means
of construction is simply an interesting curiosity unless it forms the
spaces needed by humans. In other words... if the spaces are driven by
the structural system, it is simply an engineering novelty ...not a
work of architecture.

So...if I can summarize.... when you can demonstrate...through a
constructed example used by humans.... that your system is well-suited
to accommodate a wide variety of human uses, and is readily built by
humans ...then I will gladly pay attention!

Until then I will applaud you as a welcome visionary ...but not as an
architect.

Christopher

"P.C." wrote in message . dk...
Hi

"Christopher K. Egan" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
"Syd Mead" wrote in message
news:fhZcb.6374$Rd4.3448@fed1read07...


(big snips)


Don, (a draftsman/designer in alt.architecture) began calling Per "a true
visionary" etc.
It all went downhill from there.


.......................

For the record...I like Don.

As for his judgement regarding our dear friend Pers....

I will only say.....


I like Don.

Don likes the rebel in Pers....Don likes and encourages the guy who
has a passion and follows it.

I think Don cares less about the quality of Per's idea in this case
than the passion of Per the idealist.

I accept Don's attitude....more than Per's ideas.

But I also like Per. ...more than I like his ideas.

Christopher

Thank's for the nice words.
I just wonder how many of groups members who realise if it is easy or difficult
, to build from scratch clearing a new road.
Esp. when the last thing you want to do, is to build from scratch as if you pick
a brick your lead is done , and why pick a new road when you anyway will build
from bricks.
Ok , you then can decide that this new road must be projected with computers, so
after you spend your time not just being a user, but a super user and
application develober , then you are sure you don't just use the old method in
new clotches , ------ what the hell is then all these bricks laying around, when
the last thing you wanted to do, was to continue out of the Lego-Mind road .
Right then you get glad, as people with hands-on experience and knowing the
weight of the materials and the actural trouble with these must be the right
direction, ------ but then why is it the boxwork seem so damn'ed square , when
technology let you form and create just as you form, ------- why must one wall
have the weight of 500 ton, to hold millimeter thin sheets in the air ; is all
this hount for high-tech and fancy , just an attitude ?
Now I don't know if you fully understand when I say, that from mid 90' and even
before, the claim to visionary artists, been to be master of high-tech ; know
and master the software aswell as software , as "we want somthing new"
---------- Problem is, that even millions spended and just as much cluless
writing , all that came out of this hount for an image , is the sentense that
follow the claim "we want somthing new and fantastic high-tech " acturly the
next claim is ; " But the new thing we ask, must be somthing we already know".
Now this already fit with the idear that "the new" must be somthing
revolusionary , ------ except a few details. First it must not mean a revolution
and secondly it must not question the emporor. "The new" must not be so
difficult that the old architcts lose their posision and it must be so easy that
the same ones can lecture . You se "the new" and exiting options must not prove
better than a brick and it must work as how we laied bricks for thousands of
years , as if not it is not "new" , right ?
Beside when steel been cut and assembled with rivets ,bolts and welding for
decades, a "new" thing must ofcaurse be as rigid as alway's , as what is more
important than just getting a bright new Vision that bring new jobs is, that it
in not to be seen as somthing that question the settled way, --------- "we want
somthing new and fancy, but it must not look as being better than the old scrap,
and it must not challance our good friends".

The fight against the advanced high-tech tools I been bringing, have most often
not been a fight based on technical facts, ------- but one thing I learned in
these discussions is, that nomatter my self critic and systematic following the
few safe tracks I document with true knowleage about what I speak, and within I
work, ---------- You my friend can only understand the image you already want
to se. No one want "the new" , as this mean that a self thought guy, will
challance the gains and the social inviroment , -------- the emporors clotches
is not missing they just carry visual stealth and the thief alway's needed a bad
exchouse , a bad exchouse allow any academic to steal whatever , as long as the
rest of the crowd back up the bad exchouse, ------- just wait and se, social
harasment within the architectural world is not just about bullying , but I made
it a bit more difficult by publishing my works on the web.

Let me point to an old example ; I filed in to a contest and as you proberly
will know, I spended some halve of the short written presentation , to point out
that this was about new building methods and a direct link production method,
explained with good drawings and calculated in terms of cost pr.sq. meter build
, I recived the jury's papers that on first page wrote ; " not one single of
the 47 suggestions, did even scratch the surface or point to the obvious options
connecting the computer drawing with the actural production of the building
element" ---------- as so it continued.
Now please ansver me, if somthing is rotten in the state where the architects
display Liebskinds suggestion about a wtc rebuild ?

Please tell me if what you tell the students is not just one big lie.

You want another example , or can anyone already tell where all the nice
buildings that could have been , has gone.

P.C.

P.C. Idears
 

Christopher K Egan says:

My dear Per....

First...I want to offer you my respect for your passion and commitment
to your idea(r)....

snip-de-dip!

and is readily built by
humans ...then I will gladly pay attention!

Until then I will applaud you as a welcome visionary ...but not as an
architect.

Dear Christopher,
First, I want to let you know that your prose is wonderful and your grammar
close to good, but your punctuation stinks.
Once you have presented a post that uses commas where they should be instead of
multiple ellipses (as in the plural of "ellipsis"), then I will applaud you as
a writer and welcome you to cross-post in rec.boats.building.
;-)

Steve
PS - top-posting doesn't help, either.

P.C. Idears
 

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote
You have proposed
dramatic new forms.... but you have not told us what they are or how
they are made....

Can this not be said of any advancements in the past?
Thomas Edison *conceived* the idea of the lightbulb with no knowledge of
what the key element shall be, the filament. He tried well over 1000
materials before he found that bamboo worked excellently. (in fact here at
the Fort Myers Edison Museum they have original bamboo filament light bulbs
that have been lit continuously since Edison was alive.)

A problem is identified and then a solution is discovered.
This is what Per is professing.
The limitations (problem) with *Lego* style construction, and a solution,
3DH.
Though he has not identified the steps taken to get from Lego to 3DH his
vision is totally possible in the future.
Now, having said that, I am not married to Pers concept as it is largely
speculation at this point and I am a naturally skeptical person.
I do believe however that the way we now do construction will continue to
advance, to become more streamlined and less complicated, less costly, in
the future. Who knows, maybe our grandkids will live in self sufficient
extruded 50' diameter x 200' long gravity tubes hovering 500' in the air in
the late 21st century as all the land will be used up, the resources and
animals gone and geopolitical turmoil will rule the earth.

and this makes them either meaningless or ....at
best.... undeveloped as architectural proposals.

Pers ideas are not meaningless except to those that lack vision and
imagination, and I am not sure his ideas can be limited to the
*architectural* field.

P.C. Idears
 

GS/Don quote: "Edison tried over 1000 materials...." How many has Per
tried? Even at and economical scale?
I believe Thomas Edison spent most of his time in the lab, creating and
testing. He did not merely suggest the potential
for the lightbulb and expect every to buy into it. I suppose anyone willing
take a guess at what 'might be' in the future
is a "visionary". So Don, I guess you are right. Enjoy basking in the
bliss.

Syd














"Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com wrote in message
...

Can this not be said of any advancements in the past?
Thomas Edison *conceived* the idea of the lightbulb with no knowledge of
what the key element shall be, the filament. He tried well over 1000
materials before he found that bamboo worked excellently. (in fact here at
the Fort Myers Edison Museum they have original bamboo filament light
bulbs
that have been lit continuously since Edison was alive.)

P.C. Ideas
 

This is not an esoteric concept. The various building materials that
could be used are obvious to me, they are just not tested yet. Per has
many times talked of various materials. As to boat building, we have
discussed plywood, sheet metal composite panels and if I understand him
correctly, even some type of particle board when it becomes advanced
enough to us in marine applications, because (good and maybe all)
plywood might be on its way out. I'm sure the guy who originally
invented the wall did not think of dry wall as a material. Materials
evolve in a construction method as it is developed for various
applications.

I can see a lot of ways to use this method. I would love to try it on a
radio controlled airplane or boat. But I am not going to invest in the
software and hardware necessary to do it without seeing it done by
someone else first. As Tom Edison bore the responsibility and reaped
the rewards of developing his design, Per has the same responsibility.
Again, I say to Per with all sincerity, BUILD SOMETHING.

Ron

I new Tom Edison. Tom Edison was a friend of mine. There are no Tom
Edison's here.

P.C. Idears
 

Hi
Sorry the snip

,
Christopher


You are quite right, but just emagine such cruel charecters exist, that would
build the cheapest, strongest and best , as they wanted to make a lot of money.
Most educated who know 3D-H just know, that the best way to do the best, with
any cheap sheet materiel , --- that nomatter how wrong you try do it, a 3D-H
will alway's provide just the right structure, with the lowest weight .
Also why point as I would point when there is no point even. Why infront show
why and where all sorrow and pain. Great show ; the architect can't draw, the
develober don't want to make money, and still somone think you just open your
mouth, and fried birds come flying. Sure they do, but maby not the right kind .
But you have not lost any vision when somone can point to the same already , I
am sure the result will be better, if another generation architects, provide the
actural structure, for the defined volumes, -------- my advise don't make
highrise from it even doubled up ; you can't pile a bunch of furnitures , and
think they will fly in the air, not unless 3D-H .
Pipeworks all types is the real challance for 3D-H , but as long as you Romans
find out , that there is more then 4 bits, just emagine the best clasic
architecture in 3D-H , it will blow your mind.
Also you are right that the world would need many more Einsteins, Newtons,
Mozart's , Edit piaf's , and guess what if you want one real you must pay the
100 notquite Einsteins , if you don't tread them right, they never yield the
one and best "Einstein", beside I love stories esp. those where those living as
rats in urban slum, get the chance to change al the old junk, ------- sure 3D-H
build a highrise without trusses and hangers, but it also will provide a
fireprove house.
Can be done with old 8 bit technology , this my fellow designers, is your tools,
not go chase beauty :))
What's wrong with that architect, even he can't draw he shuld be able to build
up a team that can provide jobs and new technology, you never bring me to admid
I can not draw 3D, as if you want a train station, I will provide the cheapest
in 3D-H .
But no cruel buisness man maby se the only right modern way to save a third the
cost on any structure making it four times as strong, and nicer than a box.
Anyway talking about the emporors clotches, all you guy's know , that if you
gave me 14 month, I alone would provide full-scale drawings, for a cooling unit
part spacecraft hull, that will make shuttles as safe as a row boat, but you
Romans want to draw fancy airliners . Even the emporors new clotches can _only_
be made with 3D-H , as that is the only "material" that provide visual stealth ;
http://w1.1396.telia.com/~u139600113/:))/tuba-ff.jpg
http://w1.1396.telia.com/~u139600113/:))/tuba-d.jpg

Still I guess most who join the list, time after time, get to know more and more
about the digital design tools, artists who master the digital options, have at
hand.
I never questioned the architect but I don't think he can draw, maby I can't
either but then I can develob a building method.
P.C.

P.C. Ideas
 

Hi

"Ron Thornton" skrev i en meddelelse
...
This is not an esoteric concept. The various building materials that
could be used are obvious to me, they are just not tested yet. Per has
many times talked of various materials. As to boat building, we have
discussed plywood, sheet metal composite panels and if I understand him
correctly, even some type of particle board when it becomes advanced
enough to us in marine applications, because (good and maybe all)
plywood might be on its way out. I'm sure the guy who originally
invented the wall did not think of dry wall as a material. Materials
evolve in a construction method as it is developed for various
applications.

I can see a lot of ways to use this method. I would love to try it on a
radio controlled airplane or boat. But I am not going to invest in the
software and hardware necessary to do it without seeing it done by
someone else first. As Tom Edison bore the responsibility and reaped
the rewards of developing his design, Per has the same responsibility.
Again, I say to Per with all sincerity, BUILD SOMETHING.

Ron

I new Tom Edison. Tom Edison was a friend of mine. There are no Tom
Edison's here.


I was just about to write the group, and kind of exchouse, that a train station,
I shuld never have commented with my own suggestion, I never would anyway have
the chance to suggest, discussion in another group, couls post highrise waves by
cross post, by the reactions only.
This web thing realy became alive as my mailbox recive atleast 5000 posts a day
now.
3D-H somtimes can get out of hand , esp. when what you fancy is both good
quality and nice design, but 3D-H is ment as a new strong option, if you want a
cotteage or a sailboat, ----------- bad luck the guy who invented it, can't both
project a shuttle ,at the same time as making the subways easyer to build, so I
guess this is as far you can go, at some point you refined your goals and means
and still you havn't tied the last strains.
True ------ even this is off-topic, I think I must join with the sheet material
issue ; if you knew how cheap you can produce a boat in chipwood, and how well
performing one in even pressed heystraw sheet will perform , you realise the
fact, that some woods, is "better " than steel . Sheet material can be cut with
a jigsaw, and when you can replace trusses and hangers in a steel structure, by
one in 3D-H , the main issue will be the material charecter and ease, what's
easier than 8 bit and sheet material ;))
Any new alway's been an option, but when it cost one $ per cut meter , when the
method is there everywhere or just where somone rather cut with water, than
sharpening drills.
The discussion in the architect group often get out of hand , from my
posision ------- with architecture you must have the ansver already with boats
building the ansver is already there , a nice boat .
Please check a very strong and proberly not so expensive framework, for a
building that must be covered with sheet material, it's projected in 8 mm steel
sheet assembly and can easily be made hold fire proving and or heating chanels ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/2573.html

P.C.

P.C. Idears
 

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...

2. The second point is one I think I suggested to you a few years
ago....and it is equally important. Architecture is not really about
structures....it is about spaces for humans and their belongings and
their activities. Therefore, the shape of architectural space must be
driven by the human actions instead of by the construction.

At a certain scale I agree with you. But I would argue that at a certain
scale physical dimensions of the space takes precedence, e.g. the dome of St
Peters or the Eifel tower. I just don't believe that the relationship is
one way. Program is not always that important (though it usually is).


Any means
of construction is simply an interesting curiosity unless it forms the
spaces needed by humans. In other words... if the spaces are driven by
the structural system, it is simply an engineering novelty ...not a
work of architecture.

P.C. Idears
 

"Syd Mead" wrote in message
news:QbAeb.9058$Rd4.3063@fed1read07...
GS/Don quote: "Edison tried over 1000 materials...." How many has Per
tried? Even at and economical scale?

You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

P.C. Idears
 

You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

Apples and apples. Edison had an idea and tried to implement it. Per found
the "boolean" button in his 3d program, threw some inaccurate adjectives at
it and talks it up like it's cross sliced bread.

P.C. Idears
 

"gruhn" wrote in message
...
You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

Apples and apples. Edison had an idea and tried to implement it. Per found
the "boolean" button in his 3d program, threw some inaccurate adjectives
at
it and talks it up like it's cross sliced bread.

Not at all.
Per has suggested sheet steel and plywood.
Many other materials can be implied including composites.
For what its worth, I saw a *new* material recently, 2 sheets that when the
sheets are pulled away from each other it automatically creates *webs*
(structural) in between the sheets (sort of like corrugated cardboard or
luan doors).
As I've said all along Per has simply suggested a *way* to do things, and
has implied the materials.
I'm suggesting that the method AND the materials are yet unknown.
Face it, to chastize Per is to spit in ones own face as he is speaking of
the future and none of know what that holds.
As for me I will continue to observe and be skepticle of all things, and I
will try to hold my tongue regarding things I am not an expert on.

P.C. Idears
 

Don...I really think you missed my whole point...pleasae re-read my
post.

I applaud Per as a visionary, but his idea is not architecture....and
this is a forum for architecture. Personally I think you hit the nail
on the head with your reference to Edison.... yes, he had the idea,
but he didn't rest until he had found the material and the technique
to make it work. That is what Per needs to do....and then I will be
among the first to applaud his work.

Christopher


"Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com wrote in message ...
"Christopher K. Egan" wrote
You have proposed
dramatic new forms.... but you have not told us what they are or how
they are made....

Can this not be said of any advancements in the past?
Thomas Edison *conceived* the idea of the lightbulb with no knowledge of
what the key element shall be, the filament. He tried well over 1000
materials before he found that bamboo worked excellently. (in fact here at
the Fort Myers Edison Museum they have original bamboo filament light bulbs
that have been lit continuously since Edison was alive.)

A problem is identified and then a solution is discovered.
This is what Per is professing.
The limitations (problem) with *Lego* style construction, and a solution,
3DH.
Though he has not identified the steps taken to get from Lego to 3DH his
vision is totally possible in the future.
Now, having said that, I am not married to Pers concept as it is largely
speculation at this point and I am a naturally skeptical person.
I do believe however that the way we now do construction will continue to
advance, to become more streamlined and less complicated, less costly, in
the future. Who knows, maybe our grandkids will live in self sufficient
extruded 50' diameter x 200' long gravity tubes hovering 500' in the air in
the late 21st century as all the land will be used up, the resources and
animals gone and geopolitical turmoil will rule the earth.

and this makes them either meaningless or ....at
best.... undeveloped as architectural proposals.

Pers ideas are not meaningless except to those that lack vision and
imagination, and I am not sure his ideas can be limited to the
*architectural* field.

P.C. Idears
 

This thread was brought in from rec.boats.building. so **** off. Also
Per's "3D-H" topic has more in common with
boats than architecture anyway.


"Dazed and Confuzed" wrote in message
...
be limited to the
*architectural* field.

Please take the time to not cross post to rec.boats.building!


--
Beer, it's not just for breakfast anymore.......

P.C. Idears
 

On 01 Oct 2003 11:38:01 GMT, ospam (Stephen Baker)
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

I prefer to assume that I am up with the thread, and want to read what
the guy who has just posted says, before I read the rest, should I so
desire.

Actually, I reckon this top-post, bottom post grap, is a big
bigendian-smallendian, and does not really matter.

PS - top-posting doesn't help, either.

************************************************** ****************************************
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
The rest sit around and make snide comments.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

P.C. Idears
 

That's okay, Syd- it is after all from Dazed and Confused. ;-)

....And remember; boating and booze are a dangerous mix! Be safe, be 'dry',
wear a life-vest, Or be a landlubber!
-- This public service announcement brought to you from alt.architecture.

Richard

"Syd Mead"
This thread was brought in from rec.boats.building. so **** off. Also
Per's "3D-H" topic has more in common with
boats than architecture anyway.


"Dazed and Confuzed"
be limited to the
*architectural* field.

Please take the time to not cross post to rec.boats.building!


--
Beer, it's not just for breakfast anymore.......

P.C. Idears
 

Don...again I agree with your philosophical support for Per the
visionary...but the fact is that ...no...he has not suggested a
"method". He has only suggested a form...and he doesn't know how it
can be made or of what it can be made.

It is quite possible that someone in the 14th century thought
"Wouldn't it be cool if buildings could have 100 floors!" That isn't
architecture and I would never suggest that such a comment was the
idea for the tall buildings of the 20th century. Those were the work
of architects who solved the technical and artistic problems involved
in making such forms.

I agree with you that I like Per...but don't give him credit for what
he hasn't done.

Christopher

"Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com wrote in message ...
"Syd Mead" wrote in message
news:QbAeb.9058$Rd4.3063@fed1read07...
GS/Don quote: "Edison tried over 1000 materials...." How many has Per
tried? Even at and economical scale?

You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

P.C. Idears
 

Hi

"Christopher K. Egan" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
Don...I really think you missed my whole point...pleasae re-read my
post.

I applaud Per as a visionary, but his idea is not architecture....and
this is a forum for architecture. Personally I think you hit the nail
on the head with your reference to Edison.... yes, he had the idea,
but he didn't rest until he had found the material and the technique
to make it work. That is what Per needs to do....and then I will be
among the first to applaud his work.

Christopher

What I think is, that when the 3D-H idear catch on, it could be in a different
application than what any of us could emagine.
There are several resons I focused on the "material" "method" aspect of it.
First I am not any very good architect , ----------- surely a complete new form
language , or if this is not the right defination then a compleatly new tool
that leave a result that as much as 3D-H do, uncover the actural structure .
Will allow somone like me to put some exiting designs on display, but compared
what I know a skilled younger person , somone with a better feel or somone who
didn't need to spend his or her potential, getting to know computers the way I
had to fight my way thru, -------- somone who can focus on the creative process
more than I have had to focus on the technical solutions to the extents, that
the CAD program "said" , " well if you can't find the functions you emagine
shuld be in a CAD program, then write them yourself in Lisp".
But you are right with another issue ; as while the method in itself is quite a
raw idear that need some develobment, -------- then just that develobment will
bring a lot of new options, a lot of small or big gadgeds like the small tricks
you se the steel workers master, to make the final hands-on touch , that acturly
make the whole thing work together.
Realy the core idear is so simple , but isn't the Roman bridges simple and based
on a "simple" idear. Now back to the designs I used to recive that valuable
critic that I would not be without, then even a few of you maby think that this
dane is so square , that nothing will bite on him, ------- then please know that
without this critic , I would just think that this method or material system ,
is so great that I would end up so arogant that the whole thing would be
forgotten in a few years ; This method is so primitive that just that fact fuel
a lot of relevant critic about it. First it realy is not the best, if the one
who develob a method such as 3D-H , also promote him/her self as architect or
artist, when your strong side is _not_ architecture. Also when you read some of
the promoting I tried to put forth, I start promoting new materials for the
space industrie and end pointing to pressed hay sheets --------- realy even this
is a primitive thing, it realy gat you around. Just emagine you know some 300
english words, and must explain why and how floors grow by magic , just as a
side effect when you put an assembly produced in a special way
together, ----------- then when everyone finaly get the clue about why sheet
material is the essential matter, then you in a particular design , must explain
that now "sheet material" shuld be seen more widely, and that a tube also in
some sense can be seen and must be seen as "sheet material", as then you as a
side effect solved the problem about fire proving, as now you can cool the core
building structure in a building system, that in the most surprising way , solve
some of the fundamental fysical problems bringing the cooling water to the right
place, without stressing the structure as how the tradisional way of doing it
would effect.
How to promise new jobs and a promising future, if this shuld not involve a lot
of develobment and more new idears.
Still I know one way that this could work, that's architecture. As if you have
the same vision I had about what can be achived if you give this
method-material-system a chance I repeat ,it will blow your mind ; ---------- I
know what a skilled architect could progress with a new material , but that ask
the architects to deal with that detail that slipped out of post modern
architecture. Beside the whole concept ask a different aproach , -------- now
the basic knowleage about the programming and the 3D computer issues is easy
grasped, and even understood in pictures ; you don't need to be able to do the
somwhat difficult calculations that better than any modern architecture
application, explain you what 3D is about. But you need to know the difference
between a block on block program . You got to know and realise the dead-end with
modern architect applications, that even they do what most architects need,
place an invisible mental gate, that will keep you from realising the
oppotunity's that could grow from a new aproach , ---------- as you are quite
right, it proberly will not "end" with 3D-H , but 3D-H could start a complete
new lead, that acturly reshape the role of the architect ,-------------- now
that role already changed a few times already, but the challance with new tools
, that allow you to point in the air to reflect a vision in your mind could seem
a bit lazy for those who rather go into detail and create wonders, but if those
then did go into detail with a new digital method , the result would speak for
itself and with a better architect than I, this method would speak it's own
language .
P.C.