Any one into Generative Design ?

exactly

exactly.

The understanding of design as a management of constrains is not new. The understanding that nature’s designs are based on generative designs are not new. The understanding that computers can devise strategies that beat the best human players is not new. The use of computers as intelligent design tools is not new.

But for most IDe’rs the concept that the computer is more than a 3d drawing tool seems to be very new and hard to digest.

So to answer the question, what is generative design ? its about using the computers for design exploration.

I know I’ve had happy accidents in modeling programs before. Does that count? =)

Just imagine if you can choose from 1000’s of accidents. That is how nature designs.

That’s not really a fair comparison, because nature designs by incorporating subtle mutations and relying on natural-selection over many generations to pass on the strongest attributes.

I don’t understand why you’d want a computer to generate meaningless design for a designer to choose from. As a designer, I want more meaning to go into form-giving, not less.

Again, can you provide a case study?

SK, this is brilliant! Thanks for sharing. I have seen loads of these architecture concepts around and I use it for recent project inspiration.

I’ m jumpin’ on.

Grasshopper, right?

Why not Chris, this is easily done using computers. They have been doing this over many decades now, using what is called Evolutionary Algorithms. There is an excellent book by Peter J Bently “Evolutionary Design by Computers” it has many examples of applications in engineering. Most engineering applications use what is called fitness functions to select the strongest attribute. This is problematic when the numerical evaluation of the attribute becomes uncomputable - as in design. So this process has to be modified for seeking the designers judgment and it has been.

…for simple reasons. It can do a far better job, faster and cheaper. It can extend human imagination. This is what architects are using generative design for.

Wonder if you will find a cheap turbocharded CAD monkey, that can work by itself - of some assistance to you ?
You don’t have to pay this monkey, but need to guide it (but too much).

As I have said - the ship has left the harbor quite some time ago. You will find about 300,000 references in google now, and about 100,000 images if you search for “generative design”

Yes, almost all architecture students all over the world are using generative design . You don’t need to be a programmer to be able to do generative design. Rhino has introduced grasshopper that makes it possible for people with no programming experience to rig out generative schemes and it has been wildly successful.

Brook, there are many views and many approaches for generative design and many definitions too. For a long time engineers have been using what is called parametric design - to be able to model “properly” in a way that variations can be created using design tables. They use this approach a lot at the optimization stage of the design. You can invert this same method and use if for generating designs. But most people who currently do generative design have not got to this stage yet. Architects have embraced parametric design with “proper” modeling techniques. This allows them to explore 100’s of design variations. They often call this generative design. I don’t. But from here true generative design is only a simple step a way. Once you have a properly structured CAD model, you can use random numbers within limits to create design variations. That’s all there is to generative design.

But then, this changes the game - entirely, opens up so many other issues, that you will discover for yourself.

You may look up http://www.opengenerativedesign.com an open design initiative I have launched with some Rhino and SolidWorks examples, which may be of interest to you. Hope you will enjoy playing with those models and hope it will open up a new world of possibilities.

Maybe the problem with ID users not picking up on this en masse is that as-is, it doesn’t contribute much to the design process. A “Randomize Parameters” tool is a rather different beast than “Fill in this space with stuff, make it strong, and use as little material as possible.”

Architects seem to be using the latter approach in your given Beijing Olympics examples. While ID and Architecture share many aspects (Both are designing things ultimately for the benefit, comfort, and safety of people, taking materials and space/shape in consideration) there’s a big difference in scale. Simply making random designs is nice, but what if you could teach the computer styling and form? The architects weren’t just getting random width and height walls and windows on a concrete rectangle, and until the tools for ID can move past that stage I see this being rather hit or miss for benefits.

Perhaps if you could teach the computer about form and style, give it a parts library it can work from or build off of.

In generative design, the designer is very much is control of style. Generated designs in most cases apear to belong to a design family, very often with strong stylistic commonalty.

The big difference between those who use generative design and those who remain skeptical is that the first sector focuses on what it can do and the second in what it cannot - for now.

I am disappointed by the responses you are getting from this topic SK. If so called designers cannot think of a use for this tool, then what is the state of our design thinking? Man ppl, you need to up the ante big time in your creative levels and progressive thinking.

Now the cat is out of the bag might as well throw out a few uses for this tool: footwear design, speakers and grills, micro textures, textures in general, button layouts, grills in general, wheels, tread patterns, accessories, bags & cases, clothing and the list is infinite to the power of dope. Only limit is that which is lacking in imagination.

Not to mention furniture and the most obvious, graphics. Oh I forgot, thats not in the id realm.

Don’t be. This is typical. Its wrong to assume that designers are creative thinkers and open minded. I have not found them to be. Many are extremely focused on creating meaningless variations - which is infact, what inspired my interest in generative design. Generative Design is for those who are unfamiliar - is threatening. Designers spend a life time honing their work process. Naturally they are reluctant to entertain disruptive thinking. So I do not blame them.

Its was the same in architecture. Only the younger generation has embraced this technology. The older guys can’t deal with it. It is just too much. But for long, they sensed that there is something in the technology for optimization and for marketing some form of hi-tech design approaches. The main difference in architecture was that there were many dedicated academics who had worked unrecognized for decades on futuristic design technology. However, what made it fly was the availability of easy to use tools like rhino and the sheer enthusiasm of designs students who are now busy out competing each other in generating designs.

I have floated some product designs generated some 5 years ago.

Imgur

but again like in that u-tube video, we need to be prepared to be entertained by what it cannot do. I have compiled about 200 reasons, it will be good to add a few more.

Nice link SK. The point has undisputedly been made.

Damn, I need to get Windows on my mac instantly.

When I look at all those renderings of differently proportioned MP3 players, I just see “meaningless variations” so I guess you’ve succeeded.

Chris, you make a valid point. But they were generated in 4 to 5 seconds and hundreds of them. Wonder if you would agree that there are 1000’s of such meaningless designs floating in the market, designed made and available for sale at much greater expense time and cost. The good thing about digital design now is that you are able to see what is being designed or generated and kill those that you don’t like. If you have skill, nothing is stopping you from modifying it to your liking as your sure do with your other designs.

What you create, I can guarantee will not be liked by quite a few others. If they are IDers themselves, then we will possibility be down to a fractional percentage. Nothing to do with your design. But I am sure you would agree, that is the with the "I like or don’t? " (full stop) - People. Now, if you ask those connoisseurs who do not like your design, non of them are likely to blame SolidWorks or ProE or any other CAD package you use.

I don’t consider myself a competent product designer. I a clearly not. So, the designs displayed suffer in quality. This has been pointed out many times and I accept the short coming. But I am not sure why many intelligent designers are unable to distinguish the quality and capability of CAD tools from sample designs created by it ? Wonder if you can help explain ?

Perhaps some see limitations as problems, while others sees them as goals.

So, basically generative design is, the manipulation of the architectural constraints of an object (the “genes”) in order to generate as many design variations as possible (offspring), and then do an artificial selection to arrive at the most fitting one towards the desired outcome (environment)?

I also think that these “genes” in objects have been labeled as temes or techno-memes, but I’m not sure if they are the same.

The 1000’s of meaningless designs were likely done without any kind of design process. They were done with a “shotgun” approach which is common in the East where manufacturing is cheap. The theory is that you flood the market first with as many inexpensive variations of a product as possible and see what sells. In the West, it’s more common to have a “rifle” approach, which utilizes a lot of research, strategy and design process to ensure the product hit’s it’s mark, reducing risk.

Generative software is great for the meaningless “shotgun” approach, but designers strive for the meaning-full “rifle” approach.

For example, if an Industrial Designer were to design an MP3 player, a good design process would be to use “generative research” (aka co-creation) to help isolate preferences among those customers. In an hour, I would make a bunch of wood or foam shapes, and hand them to research participants. I’d ask them to talk about the merits of each shape and weight, talking about how they’d use the product in their life. I would then give them a bunch of cut-outs that represent controls, like screens and buttons. I’d let them choose among them, and place them on their preferred model wherever they’d want. I’d have them discuss why. I would then go back and improve the fidelity of the concepts, by sketching and model-making. I’d then do another round of research.

Here’s why that process beats generative design:

  1. You want physical models not renderings, and today’s rapid prototyping software just isn’t as efficient as a designer carving a bunch of concepts out of for a few hours.

  2. You want to separate your research variables, and progressively-disclose choices to the user. In your MP3 example, you’ve created a bunch of renderings, but you’d really need to create thousands more to cover all the variations. That’s just not practical for the research participant. Rather than give them 10x10 choices, you want to give them 2 choices of 10: pick your shape, pick your controls.

  3. You want your subject to co-create with you. Give them a bunch of controls and have them choose what they are and where they go, and tell you why. This is cheaper, faster and gives you more meaning.

And where, pray tell, would you obtain these shapes?

-Josh