Any one into Generative Design ?

Which is why you’d somehow need to build on what’s going on here.

As I said before, the architects aren’t just pressing a randomize button either. If they were, few would see the value of this either.

They have a question they want answered, they may know roughly what the answer should be, but the human-time to get it is quite large. The computer can just create 1000 variations, run physics simulations, and delete the 900 that fall apart.

But teaching it aesthetics is a bit different than teaching it to make a strong roof.

The point I was making was that having generative design software to create things like truly random shapes is exactly the sort of tool he’d need for the design process he’s talking about.

I think the shotgun/rifle dichotomy being set up is meaningless. There’s an element of randomness requisite in creativity, and generative design is great for that. It’s not like the final product is being spit out by the program and sent straight into production with zero analysis with regard to usability or aesthetic or structure or whatever else. (On the flipside, it’s not like there isn’t a randomly-generated-shapes aspect when we sit down in front of a piece of paper and draw shoes. Whatever we’ve got going on the radio gets assimilated and processed.)

Re: algorithms & aesthetics, exceptionally simple evolutionary algorithms can do amazing stuff. If you think that we couldn’t generate aesthetics with user input, you’ve clearly never used Pandora. :wink:

-Josh

Neat. It takes a while but eventually it figures out a “bicycle” is the best solution with a “tower” shape just behind, until the tower wobbles over. Also reminds me a bit of this: http://sodaplay.com

Now, this is a serious point of difference. In the early days, flint lock guns were as dangerous to the user as the enemy. Shot guns do scatter and target a larger area. But it all depends what you are shooting at. If you are going for ducks then shot guns will do, as ducks fly in a group (products too are similar and belong to groups). So they are many satisfactory solutions (its ok if your bring one of those flying fellows down). With a rifle, if you get the target wrong it is a miss. Not so with a shot gun. Its wrong to assume that you know exactly what will succeed, so a rifle approach is a gambling approach. But gamblers always believe they will win - else they won’t gamble. But companies have less and less use for gamblers. This is a reality that few would argue with.

The description of your own design process is useful, but it is the best ? You don’t seem to be using any of the capabilities that computers can provide you.


Often you need a combination. Desktop printers are going to be sub 1K in a few years. So if you want to prototype a lot of designs then you will find generative to be most useful.

The range of designs that you can generate are in the billions. So you will never cover the entire range of possibilities - even if you wanted to. It is up to you, to narrow it down to a few that you like to show your clients.

Agreed. Generative design is perfect for this. Because genetic model can also be driven by consumers (replacing random inputs). Pls take a look at the workshop on allowing consumers to co-create.http://www.genometri.com/DIY/
another example in mass customization http://no-retro.com/home/2009/11/01/from-configuration-to-design-capturing-the-intent-of-user-designers-part-2/

I hope I have convinced you of the merits of generative design.

the generative designer… 12:50, press return




Seriously though, to get a computer to spit out 10 quality concepts, or to even pick 10 good ones from your 1000s of generative iterations… you are still going to have to understand the design problem and customer, input all the key variables in careful ways, and spend the time to refine whatever get’s spit out. It’s going to take just as much time to do it (with the target consumer in mind), and I still don’t think you would be able to capture all the critical information needed to generate the best solution - the human brain mixes variables in ways computers cannot

Fractal patterns is one thing, but I don’t believe your system will be spitting out iPhone killers any time soon

Exactly.

I’m just curious, but has anyone here actually read anything about or related to this subject? Anything that has been published anyways.

Babies don’t run as soon as they are born. Generative Design is still in its early stages. In it’s late stages those who do not use it will not be in the business of design.

Chess Masters once thought that they were unbeatable, not very long ago.

Maybe for engineering type challenges this is a perfect approach… evaluate designs for certain constraints, kill off the bad ideas, and mutate the good ideas, ie. finding the optimal shape for a fuel injector in an engine.

Design that resonates with people is much more than just product geometry. Who exactly is going to be setting the criteria that this program would use to judge and evolve the products? Who is going to judge the resulting designs, and to what criteria?

To know the right criteria to input is like the wicked problem that can happen in design, which is to figure out exactly what the problem is in the first place. Afterwards the answer is more straightforward to solve.

that’s obviously the designers job. I was reminded by an old professor - that there was similar reaction, when CAD was first introduced. Generative Design is a powerful design/search tool. Designers should not be threatened by it.

Good writers are not threatened by word processors.

You’ve got the shotgun/rifle thing backwards. The shotgun approach is the gambling approach since most of the shots will fail to hit the target. This won’t work for western companies that have brands to protect–they need to ensure the products they create hit the mark and build positive brand equity. Western retailers won’t allow it either: Wal-Mart will only sell one or two of your coffeemakers, not fifty.

Desktop printers: not only will they have to get cheap, they’ll have to get really fast to beat the typical Industrial Designer in carving foam. Let’s not forget that there is some upfront time programming the generative model to create all those variations. In a timed side-by-side comparison, I guarantee the Industrial Designer will get to a preferred solution much faster and with less waste.

Creating billions of options: it’s just not practical to weed through that many concepts. A progressive approach to both creation and down-select is more efficient.

Co-creation: I’m a believer in this but sitting a participant in front of a computer and letting them find their ideal design is really just user-friendly CAD, not generative-design.

Being convinced: I’m not. I still want a case study that shows that Generative Design adds value to the design process.

From what I’m hearing, generative design is about automating the process of creating “meaningless designs” like spoons. This may be useful to someone, but not me. I’m looking for tools that help me put more meaning into my designs. If I was designing a spoon, my approach would be to spend a lot of time with people using spoons. To look at their style choices. To look at their cultural standards. To look at the use-cases. To understand their priorities when buying a spoon. From that information, I would design.

Can generative design process all that input and arrive at a better spoon? If not, then it’s just a distraction.

9 photoshopped blue-tooth headsets on 9 different heads doesn’t convince me either.

You just made my point.

Of course it’s the designers job - he has done the groundwork, has the experience, and spent the research time to know what the ideal solution would be. If he’s worth his salt, he could sketch 10 focused concepts without ever needing to sift through the generative designs, making the whole system needless.

Designers do a lot more than just sketch and pump CAD - experience and creative problem solving is our value

I love how people still don’t know what GD is actually for. That’s great.

-Josh

Are the moderators taking my and possibly other’s comments off this topic?

no, not that I am aware of. Why something missing?

R

Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers.

-Josh

So the higher ups in your company will let you spend that much time and money on a spoon design? I want to work where you work! :smiley:

Spending a lot of time with people using spoons? C’mon man. The sad reality is that it comes down to whether or not the buyer at a retail store or big box chain likes the shape and quality of your spoon. All that research time and money can be flushed right down the toilet if the buyer looks at it and says “meh”. Research is important, but sometimes all you really need is a s3xy shape that utilizes your taste and skill as a designer. Consumers don’t always know what they want until they see it. Same goes for buyers and bosses. Design isn’t ALWAYS about solving problems. Sometimes it just has to be functional mass produced art that people want to buy. Are we not supposed to set the trends? Does everything you design need to be inspired by focus groups? Isn’t that the reason terrestrial radio stations suck?

That’s not to say your points aren’t valid, but there are situations where this TOOL would come in handy. Lets say a glassware company for example. Set the parameters for a martini glass and let it rip! Worst case scenario is that it sparks an idea you didn’t have before. What’s so wrong with that?

I think it would be a fun to have a generative design option available to me. Set certain parameters, look at the results, pick a few of the best ones, tweak the parameters a bit, look at more results, pick out a few more, narrow it down to three, show the boss, make some tweaks if you need it. Done.

IT IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE ENTIRE DESIGN PROCESS. It is a very cool option you can have ready in your tool box if you need it.

sheesh!

What matters here is bringing them ducks down. Thats what designers are paid for. The reality is that, multiple rifle shots (as the consumer-ducks see it) is very similar to a volley of shot gun shots. In the past, Western companies hired a whole lot of rifelist - which they do not now, because shotgunist closer to manufacturing centers can produce the same volley faster and cheaper - aimed at the general direction of the ducks, which are brought down profitably. You may not fancy their methods, but most ducks nowadays are brought down this way.

I am informed by reliable duck anthropologists, that ducks in advanced consumer economies not only breed less (bringing duck population down) but are reportedly getting very selective , fussy and fickle. Worse still, these ducks seem to want to now get invovled in creating stuff. Important thing to note is that in advanced consumer economies it is the ducks that are in charge. They get to choose how they want to get shot.

So it ain’t easy for western companies to deal with these ducks. Hiring out more rifilist, or making more accurate rifles is no longer working for them. They need to focus on smaller fussier segments of duck populations and seek ways of engaging them. More about this http://mass-customization.blogs.com/mass_customization_open_i/ . Soon these companies will will be hiring people who can help them in this approach - Rifilist (not shot gunnist) - with specialized skills as it has already happened in architecture.

ZCorp printing is now down to couple of $ per cubic cm. Check out http://www.shapeways.com if you wish to study the trend. I am beginning to sense a general skepticism on the potential of any technology here. Some relief to note, that it is not reserved for generative design.

You make a good point here. Current research and effort is to improve this capability. There are ways to pick out distinctively different designs automatically out of billions of designs. I am also aware of some research that helps designers select by studying how they select, using neural networks.

True, this is not the classic use of generative design. If you put a consumer in front of a CAD machine, perhaps with scroll bars. They will scroll it out of cost, maneuverability and usability. Generative design is not only about creating generic models but also about constraint it within these limits - so as to limit the creative freedom to make it viable. This is called by engineers as constrained parametric modeling. So such web deployed constrained models are great for mass customization and consumer engagement.

I am not giving up on you Chris.

That’s the problem with designers - wanting to put in meaning. Ask your boss if he wants meaning or money ?

Generative Design has been a total distraction for me. I hope that it will be the same for you. :imp: So that you start talking in a language that only a few understand - not for long, but till they catchup.

I hope you will thank this discussion when you find the herd behind you :smiley:

Now you’ve lost me. That’s not the way to sell your product. Why aren’t you involving us in your process, by empathizing with our process? We are all your potential customers, right? What the boss really wants are happy clients. Clients don’t want second rate, product failures in the market place.