I just read about a new software that says it can create design variations very quickly (Plastics News China Newsletter). I haven’t downloaded it yet (though I plan to) so I do not have all of the details. I wanted to let you try it also for this discussion. The software is called Genometri and it was created in Singapore. http://www.genometri.com/
They make it sound like it you can set certain parameters as constants and then it will randomly generate alternatives to the design. Even if it doesn’t live up to what it states it is, how does this affect the profession of Industrial Design? Will our job become knowing which parameters to keep constant and then sift through the results? Will this type of tool be beneficial on certain projects?
I am not trying to be a “doom and gloom” person. I think we should have an interesting discussion on what happens when the computer can create hundreds of design variations for us. This is way I put this in the general design discussion section and not the software and technology section.
The developer posted here on the forum last year. He interpreted the forum response as hostile, although my recollection was that it wasn’t overly hostile. If you do a search on the name it might pop up.
I’ve recently traded some emails with him. During that exchange one thing did strike me: this may not be an especially useful tool for designers (iirc that was my point in the earlier forum thread), but there are an increasing number of DIY types out there who will benefit from it. There’s one area in particular where I think it could be extremely useful, actually.
Last I recall tho, it’s only for SolidWorks; but I think he mentioned eventually moving it over to some other CAD apps. If there had been a Pro/E version, I’d have tested it, but there isn’t.
It’s unfortunate that designers think of “parametric modeling” as something for engineers to save time and effort. We should be using it like Del Coates suggests in “Watches Tell More than Time.”
Ever used the “variations” tool in Photoshop? Now imagine using a tool like that for 3D instead of color.
no- because knowing what is important and then progressing through the possibilities is one thing we have done all along. As we get better, this just happens in our heads before putting anything down on paper.
This probably works great for engineering applications… but to be honest the designs it produces are just mathematically different… they in no way offer a different emotion or anything.
It will be a sad day in design when you have to meet certain math parameters for your design… then instead of emotion, you end up with “standard deviation”
I DL’d the trial for engineering’s sake… but I’ll never design anything “artistic” with it
I set up models in Pro-Engineer with relationships and bounding boxes that let me make my own variations in design quickly and efficiently… if I have time to set that up for a particular model, if it matters … for that particular design.
Random variations? That doesn’t sound to useful to me. I want deliberate variations … if I have a robust model to begin with, I can get it without any special additional software at all.
I don’t often USE that method though, but I learned it and expect to have a reason to use it … every so often.
Will it change our process? – it will, and it already has for some people using this technology. It is inevitable that the computer is the most favored design tool of our time and it is also inevitable that designers will begin to use its capacity for creative activity. There may be some discomfort in this –as there was in the use of computers for design.
Will our job become knowing which parameters to keep constant and then sift through the results?
Much of engineering Engineers is about modeling and testing designs on the computer – designers are also doing the same. Computer should be used to do what it can do much better and faster than human designers – run through thousands of designs. The problem of design becomes then a problem of selection.
You may have noticed that after the internet information selection or search technology becomes very valuable – it may be a bit too late to buy googgle shares. Yes, the problem of design will soon become problem of search – between billions of possibilities. Google does that in a few seconds – we haven’t figured out how to do that in design.
The short answer is:
no- because knowing what is important and then progressing through the possibilities is one thing we have done all along. As we get better, this just happens in our heads before putting anything down on paper.
I doubt if this is true all the good designers I know change direction on the way inspired by what emerges from their sketches.
This probably works great for engineering applications… but to be honest the designs it produces are just mathematically different… they in no way offer a different emotion or anything.
You will be surprised to notice the very different emotional appeals that are thrown up. This is something you cannot drive but but can select from.
Random variations? That doesn’t sound to useful to me.
You are right ! it took more than 3 billion years to design us.
But the method of generating randomly and choosing the best works. All life on earth is designed by this process.
On a standard PC it is possible to generate something like an mp3 player in about 10 to 12 seconds. You are likely to find an interesting design amongst the first hundred - which is still much much faster than doodling all day with the vague possibility of ending up with something interesting.
Manual design exploration may be massively inefficient.
