Reply
User avatar
yo
Administration
Administration
Posts: 17288
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
SK wrote:
Can we take the replacement fear out the discussion here ? If there is fear about 3 lines of code, you got to seriously rethink what you are doing.

I don't think anyone is scared. I think dubious would be a better word, or even realistic. I would however appreciate answers to my questions.
yo wrote:
SK wrote:I
NURB wrote: you have absolutely no respect for the design process..
.

This is spot on. How did you guess ? I have even more to say on this. The current design practices that you respect - are medieval :evil: and should have been discarded quite some time ago .

SK, I think you are confusing the design process with design tools. The process, the way I define it and practice it, is largely thought based, working from abstraction to specificity, from generalities of a notion, or hunch, and moving to a solution. CG has made some fantastic posts outlining the design process of identifying needs, conceptualizing solutions, proving them out, and finally implementing them in production.

Sketches, models, and renderings are not the design process, they are tools and techniques. As KRS1 put it "rap is something you do, hip hop is something you live."

I'm going to ask a question, and I hope it does not come of horribly, but I'm looking for a little context to your posts. Have you ever brought a product to production? And if so, in what area? Have you gone through a full design process as outlined? I feel that if you had, you have more understanding of the scope of what you propose as a tool, and not the process.
User avatar
mrtwills
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 732
Joined: August 30th, 2007, 7:06 pm
Location: Chicago
yo wrote:
Can we take the replacement fear out the discussion here ? If there is fear about 3 lines of code, you got to seriously rethink what you are doing.

I don't think anyone is scared. I think dubious would be a better word, or even realistic. I would however appreciate answers to my questions.
hope it does not come of horribly, but I'm looking for a little context to your posts. Have you ever brought a product to production? And if so, in what area? Have you gone through a full design process as outlined? I feel that if you had, you have more understanding of the scope of what you propose as a tool, and not the process.
[/quote]


You want answers Yo? Here are your answers. Generative answers. Ask away.
myreply.jpg
myreply.jpg (70.25 KiB) Viewed 1825 times
arje06
Posts: 1
Joined: May 24th, 2010, 12:54 am
wods wrote:The companies that have developed into big brands are not because they were playing with some 1000 random shapes and sizes but they had a vision, and developed their own design language, a design philosophy, which became their identity. And yes designer's have played a foremost role to develop this big brands and will remain so.

Will it number the days of designer's.? No. It reminds me of 'doom's day' theory, and how every culture, country and religion have their own interpretation that it is gone happen. When everybody knows it will not happen, even my dog knows that.

Will it be helpful for designer's?.Yes. Rather than generative design, I will call it a '' Curious Tool'', because every designer will fancy to see what a software can do with his original design. In the process he may get inspired for something new.

Generative design in product design will be like employing 1000's of designer's, to develop a product and then there will be endless debates on which one suits our brand, culture,etc. I would rather prefer to work with 10 then 1000. :o
Yes, you are right with that matter wods and I agree with you. :D There are things in this world that we really need to have to live. And it is better to start in lower level, and you made me admire of you because of that.
User avatar
Greenman
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 1217
Joined: April 26th, 2004, 10:31 pm
SK wrote:
This is spot on. How did you guess ? I have even more to say on this. The current design practices that you respect - are medieval :evil: and should have been discarded quite some time ago. They,

1) Do not acknowledge 150 years after Darwin, that are alternate design process based on mutation and selection.
2) Inhuman: we are differentiated from others species by our ability to use tools well. Designers do it badly.

We moved out of the monkey state only when we started using tools. It transformed the way our brains worked, and changed the course of our evolution.
True and False, monkeys also use tools, but for pure utility. Monkeys do not use or devise tools like instruments to create music or writing utensils to record their thoughts. Man has developed these tools to express ourselves, we have done this with intent out of a desire to communicate, inspire, and create.

Your argument suggests that Generative Design is an evolution of design tools that allows you to develop product evolution in following Darwin's theories, but you aren't making a very good case for intent here. What is the intent? To me these tools simply make aesthetic variations easier. These tools could make iterative design so much easier and less painful, but who's judging the variations? Who is giving the tools the intent? What experience in aesthetics is required? Are you suggesting that maybe these tools could and should be used by anyone like the consumer, the marketing person, or the engineer?

If you believe that these tools should be made available for everyone to design I submit the following wiki for your consideration and then ask you to contemplate why it is designers may be so resistant to accepting your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
All dots connect, even the tiny blue one
User avatar
cg
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2498
Joined: January 10th, 2004, 12:21 am
Location: San Diego
As the number of concepts approaches infinity, their value approaches zero.
Generating concepts is only as useful as your ability to adequately select from them.
alexmazzardo
Posts: 1
Joined: May 24th, 2010, 4:43 am
Hi everyone,

I was reading this discussion with interest, as my company solidThinking offers a related solution (I’m Alex Mazzardo, VP of Product Strategy and Marketing).

Through research on topology optimization, generative design tools based on structural algorithms found in nature (such as the structures which give our bones strength) have been developed to help provide designers and architects design options, accelerate product development and provide a baseline for a structurally sound design.

Mimicking natural processes also creates materially efficient forms because the technology uses the minimal amount of material needed based on the function of the product or building structure. This way, designers can have a new source of inspiration. Output results can be interpreted by the designer literally or more freely making his/her design truly unique. This is a key point: the technology does not alter the central role of the designer or the architect.

Below are a few examples of generative design using our company’s concept design tool, solidThinking Inspired. solidThinking Inspired uses morphogenesis, a form-generation technology that we introduced last year in September.

One example showing how generative design tools can impact the structural development of a motorcycle:
http://www.youtube.com/user/solidThinki ... 9RhoyKI5go

Another example of how morphogenesis can be used by architects; applied to a coliseum:
http://www.youtube.com/user/solidThinki ... 06RWQmo2XI
User avatar
cg
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2498
Joined: January 10th, 2004, 12:21 am
Location: San Diego
Alex, thanks for adding your expertise to the thread!

Those are pretty cool examples. It looks like it's eroding the envelope shape right up to the point of structural collapse, and then providing that to the designer as a starting point. That's pretty useful.

I wish the motorcycle example showed how the morphology drove more of the design--to me it looks like the design inputs, and designers sketch had the most impact:
cycles.jpg
cycles.jpg (84.87 KiB) Viewed 1738 times
User avatar
mrtwills
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 732
Joined: August 30th, 2007, 7:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Those are great examples but it still seems like a lot of heavy design work. If this is the case, it brings us back to generative design as single tool in the entire process of design. I'm not sure it makes the whole process any faster, or even better but it's useful for coming up with alternative initial ideas. I think every ID student at one point had to do a design influnced by nature right?
User avatar
nxakt
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 1031
Joined: March 15th, 2010, 5:11 am
Location: Central Shanghai
Image
The motorcyle image that sticks most in my memory. Retro yes, medieval perhaps. Interesting to see the similarities in the solidthinking exploration at the forks and rear frame.
From Chicara Art
lyfk
step one
step one
Posts: 36
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 3:47 pm
Coroflot: 188826
Location: Edmonton, Alberta - Canada
Video from Patrik Schumacher (Zaha Hadid Architects) on what he has named, 'Parametricism'. He also has a new book coming out called, 'The Autopoeisis of Architecture'.

http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Videos/ ... nsive.html

Image
User avatar
SK
step three
step three
Posts: 140
Joined: February 14th, 2005, 5:37 am
Location: Adelaide
Greenman wrote:Your argument suggests that Generative Design is an evolution of design tools that allows you to develop product evolution in following Darwin's theories, but you aren't making a very good case for intent here. What is the intent? To me these tools simply make aesthetic variations easier. These tools could make iterative design so much easier and less painful, but who's judging the variations? Who is giving the tools the intent? What experience in aesthetics is required? Are you suggesting that maybe these tools could and should be used by anyone like the consumer, the marketing person, or the engineer?

If you believe that these tools should be made available for everyone to design I submit the following wiki for your consideration and then ask you to contemplate why it is designers may be so resistant to accepting your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
You raise some relevant points. But first of all its not my argument. The proposition I take, is not new at all, and not mine either. It's widely used as you can see form the video I posted last. The architectural firms using generative components are the most renowned.

The monkey argument is well known and been refuted adequately by Richard Dawkings. His book "the blind watch maker" may be worth a read. The framing of the problem is the monkey sitting on a mechanical device randomly doing stuff that may appeal to higher human sensibilities is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons.

In nature:

1) The monkey, the type write, the words and the meaning of words are co-evolved.
2) Evolution is a tediously slow and gradual process - so blobs of lead and some bits of noise making bacteria should slow and steady through billions of years move gradually towards the monkey, type writer, Shakespeare scenario.
3) Genetic evolution is not random combination. It is a complex beautifully orchestrated process with infinite sophistication working over billions of years refining itself continuously. Else, it would not have produced human beings. On the other hand if you believe that God created you that's fine. This argument will not make sense.
4) Evolution designs by selection - by subjecting solutions to life and death tests. Billions of typewriters, monkeys and evaluators from the most elemental form would have to be born learn and put to death by the shake spear test and only the ones that survive this brutal test will be allowed to reproduce.

So this would be the equivalent model. The other discredited view of evolution is typhoon blowing over a parts factory and producing 747. But these are discussed well in so many books where you may follow the long concluded argument in detail.

The biggest difficulty designers face in understanding nature's design process is its apparent lack of intention. This is false, the intent is to reproduce itself and pass on the genes. This is a very specific intent.

Now, in most generative design methods it is possible to embedded intent. But the execution of that intent is done by selection and that's left to the designer.
cg wrote: Generating concepts is only as useful as your ability to adequately select from them.
Quite right. So this is one of the key issues in generative design.

So what I find that most designers struggling with, is the concept of "design by selection" . Design selection panels do this, but then they see themselves in the business of selection not design. Designers see themselves now (not the one's in the video) as those in the process of generating. That is why generative design irks them. It should not.
Last edited by SK on May 26th, 2010, 7:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
nunoCR
step two
step two
Posts: 61
Joined: April 6th, 2009, 1:28 pm
nunoCR wrote: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.
SK,am I right here?

I see this going 2 ways, people who see generative design as their overall design process, the "design by selection" approach to every element from beginning to end, diverging and converging, and those who see it as just part of the process as simply a divergence tool.
Diagram_DM.gif
Diagram_DM.gif (31.82 KiB) Viewed 1679 times
The Zeitgeist Movement
the best things in life are not things.
User avatar
SK
step three
step three
Posts: 140
Joined: February 14th, 2005, 5:37 am
Location: Adelaide
nunoCR wrote: I see this going 2 ways, people who see generative design as their overall design process, the "design by selection" approach to every element from beginning to end, diverging and converging, and those who see it as just part of the process as simply a divergence tool.
I wish I knew the answerer to this. Right now, the work processes are still evolving. Like CAD in the early days, no one imagined what it would end up like. Different designers are using it differently. I am looking at it more from the perspective of technology adoption. CAD drew very similar reaction from designers as it went from the labs in the 60's to general use in the 90's. These are the typical phases of any technology adoption.

1) Not noticed - laughed at and believed by a handful , no immediate practical applications.
2) Reaction - noticed, early adopters start engaging and non adopter oppose it vehemently.
3) Adoption - every one is using it and apparently nobody had anything against it.

In architecture generative design is in stage 3 with major practice using it and all major schools teaching it. In ID (judging from Core77 discussions) we were in 1 in 2005 and moving on to stage 2 now, given the current level or reaction, curiosity and engagement that we are seeing. So it is about 5 years behind Architecture.

In terms of use, I think it will evolve for differently in ID. I am watching this space with keen interest . Typically, when people first encounter new technology they put it to old use. CAD for the first 20 years was based on replicating the drafting board, it took another 20 years for people to realized that it is a modeling tool and then as an analytical tool. Tools inevitably change the process, some times radically, but not immediately. I guess most architects see it as cool creative tool. The percentage of people who see its fundamental potential remain relatively small. But none that I know in architecture question its potential. Hence my surprise at the reactions here.

Architects are not easily rattled by new ideas. For along time starting from the 70's (from the time of the architectural machine group at MIT ) there has been talk about partnering with machines in creative process and now, it is finally happening. In architecture I see different 3 different approaches.

1) Older and mature firms are using it for optimization (as in the bubble stadium) This fairly old stuff done by engineers routinely now used by architects.

2) Younger architects, using it for form and surface patterning exploration and using the outcome. This is mostly based on parametric design and the exploration is manually driven and is called generative design by most.

3) Truly generative design - where the form is generated purely by generative processes, this is still rare, but happening.

So we are seeing many different approaches. Interesting, some architectural educators see value in the challenging role of generative design as it challenges students to consider so many 'what if' possibilities - purely for inspiration. I think these differences in approach and use will remain and that architects will be know for thier own styple of using generative design which will give their designs unique personality and character.
User avatar
yo
Administration
Administration
Posts: 17288
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
SK wrote:
Architects are not easily rattled by new ideas.


Have to love broad brush stroke statements like this backed by what exactly?
SK wrote:For along time starting from the 70's (from the time of the architectural machine group at MIT ) there has been talk about partnering with machines in creative process and now, it is finally happening. In architecture I see different 3 different approaches.
So there not scared by new ideas as long as they have 40 years to think about it? Which one is it SK?

For context, I'd still like to know if you've brought any products to mass production? and if so what kinds? Just a question to see where you are basing some of these evaluations. I'll keep posting it.
iab
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2685
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:03 pm
SK wrote:1) The monkey, the type write, the words and the meaning of words co-evolved.
I have no idea what this means.
SK wrote: 2) Evolution is a tediously slow and gradual process - so blobs of lead and some bits of noise making bacteria should slow and steady through billions of years move gradually towards the monkey, type writer, Shakespeare scenario.
Incorrect. Evolutionary changes can occur in a generation or 2. Read up on epigenetics and get back to us.
SK wrote: 3) Genetic evolution is not random combination. It is a complex beautifully orchestrated process with infinite sophistication working over billions of years refining itself continuously. Else, it would not have produced human beings. On the other hand if you believe that God created you that's fine. This argument will not make sense.
Correct. Genetic evolution is random mutation. But it is most definately not orchestrated, that implies a creator. You have completely contradicted yourself.
SK wrote: 4) Evolution designs by selection - by subjecting solutions to life and death tests. Billions of typewriters, monkeys and evaluators would have to be born learn and put to death by the shake spear test and only the ones that survive this brutal test will be allowed to reproduce.
Incorrect. Again, read up on epigenetics.



But I must say I am beginning to enjoy the irony. First you claim your software cannot give meaning to products yet you give long-winded and flawed metaphors to give your software meaning.

Its just software. Like any Photoshop filter. Big whoop.
Reply