ALGORITHMIC SKETCHBOOK studio air
Amy tremewen 2014
a.1. design futuring Practise lofting between curves using both Rhino and Grasshopper Whilst lofting is a relatively fundamental yet simple process within Rhino, the algorithmic approach in Grasshopper forced users to consider this task in a new light. To a certain extent, Grasshopper removed the visual connections that Rhino offers, and whilst the operations were essentially the same, working separately to the Rhino interface was offputting. However, Grasshopper’s ability to retain information about curves and control points quickly allowed more detailed curves and therefore lofts. This is evident in Image 5, where much tighter curves were created without missing gaps or particularly large amounts of time invested. It was also easy to slightly alter the shape without repeating the process. Lofts could also then be input into other surface geometry algorithms, as seen in image 8. This Delauney input dramatically altered the loft shape quickly, in ways the designer may not have previously considered. However, these algorithms are pre-set, and may be limiting designers to ‘stock-standard’ designs.
IMAGES: One: Loft between two open curves Two: Addition and alteration of control points Three: More addition and alteration of control points Four: Loft options: tight, rebuild from 10 to 20 Five: Three new curves and loft Six: Loft with straight sections Seven: Loft of two closed circles Eight: Input to Delauney Method
a.2. computational design Using a pre-determined data set, create a set of points, then curves, then a surface, and reverse the process Again using seemingly basic Rhino/ Grasshopper functions of lofting and creating curves, this exercise highlighted how information can be broken down and rebuilt (or vice versa), important for constructing in real-life scenarios with important criteria to meet. Data was able to be not only portrayed, but scewed, for example, by the degree and precision of the curve. The information can also be complicated, whilst still remaining its original features. This data was also able to be put into pre-set surface algorithms such as Delauney and Voronoi. However, it was in this process that the essense of the initial data input was lost. Being able to form the surfaces whilst maintaining curves requires further exploration. IMAGES:
One: A lower curve created from a data set (Degree 1), the top curve at Degree 7 to create an aggregated shape. Two: Top curve altered to Degree 3 Three: Boolean True on both curves Four: Loft options: Contour in even sections Five: Contours created evenly on surface Six: Points regained evenly along curves Seven: Input to Voronoi Method Eight: Input to Delauney Method
a.3. Composition/generation Create your own definition (pattern) that makes sense of connected lines/ polylines on a surface Using arcs between points to connect curves represents one of the most fundamental methods of creating patterns along surfaces, either in diagonal lines or more extravagent arcs. This method is also not restricted like many of the included algorithms may be on design. However, these patterns may also reflect the line drawn between computation and generation, and the composition or realisation of an object. Whilst these arcs are largely constructable, even through the use of smaller curved sections, the more complicated patterns may challenge construction methods. Equally, construction may be possible, however so painstakingly slow it becomes no longer a worthwhile process. IMAGES: One: Arcs lofted between three basic elipses Two: Arcs lofted between three basic elipses Three: Curve control points offset to create a pattern and warped shape Four: A second layer of arcs to create a pattern Five: When things go wrong - misaligned curve control points