Cumincad : CUMINCAD Papers : Search Results

CumInCAD is a Cumulative Index about publications in Computer Aided Architectural Design
supported by the sibling associations ACADIA, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SIGraDi, ASCAAD and CAAD futures

PDF papers
References

Hits 1 to 6 of 6

Reformat results as: short short into frame detailed detailed into frame

_id	2a5e
authors	Does, J. van der and Giró, H.
year	1997
title	Design communication and image processing
source	Architectural and Urban Simulation Techniques in Research and Education [Proceedings of the 3rd European Architectural Endoscopy Association Conference / ISBN 90-407-1669-2]
summary	In the proceedings of the first EAEA conference, 1993, I mentioned our first study focused on refining endoscopic video images of a detailed architectural model and drawings. The study was based on work with 900 subjects, of which 200 were professional architects. It has led to a number of technical improvements. In the second study we compared computer-aided design techniques with two techniques from the first study, endoscopic video recordings and coloured and black and white elevations and perspective drawings. Four different groups of 50 subjects took part in this research. We found that computer images are invariably judged to be of moderate value, while drawings yielded consistently high scores. Endoscopic video recordings of the scale model received high scores as far as emotional response is concerned, and moderate scores when the participants were questioned on the actual content of the recordings.
keywords	Architectural Endoscopy, Endoscopy, Simulation, Visualisation, Visualization, Real Environments
series	EAEA
email
more	http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/media/eaea/eaea97.html
last changed	2005/09/09 10:43

_id	e7ee
authors	Redondo, E.
year	1997
title	Analysis and Interpretation in the Architectonics
doi	https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.1997.x.q7e
source	Challenges of the Future [15th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9523687-3-0] Vienna (Austria) 17-20 September 1997
summary	The graphic intention is a peculiarity of the architectural drawing. It is enough to compare the ground plan of an unifamiliar housing insulated of Le Corbusier with another of Mies van der Rohe to realise the diversity of graphic styles, but is important to take conscience of the complexity that carries to interpret the symbols that appear in those documents, because as architects we either realize plans that the instructions are described or measures to be able to execute the work and in other occations representations for his edition aimed to a especialized public. For this reason, and because not always is arranged the best possible documentation, we consider that the majority of vectorisations they exist in the market don’t plenty satisfied our needs as teaching staff of graphic expression and CAD, althoug we can always be using the same systems of projection or codified representations, it is imposed a lot of times to interpret acording the context the different signs and graphic registers used. We know experimental applications that go beyond, they even arrive to generate a 3D model from a lifted hand draw that represents three orthogonal projections of it, but it isn’t less certain that its utility is restricted to fields very specialised and the option that we propose, there is not knowledge at least to us that it exist; commercially speaking. Our porpose has been to develope a symple metedology of vectorisation but adapted to the special idiosyncrasy of the needs of an architecture student that with frequency for his formation requires to generate with CAD models 2D and 3D of architectural projects from the information contented in magazines, and with them create several formas analysis. The most important difference in the matter to other systems is the interactivity of the procedure that let personify the exit file, even the wide diversity of graphic registers that it exist in the entrance, being the user only once has to identify and interpret the signs to detect, and then the process is realized automatically to any plant of the building or equivalent projection.
series	eCAADe
more	http://info.tuwien.ac.at/ecaade/proc/redondo/redondo.htm
last changed	2022/06/07 07:50

_id	34f2
authors	Van der Voordt, T., Vrielink, D. and Van Wegen, H.
year	1997
title	Comparative floorplan-analysis in programming and architectural design
source	Design Studies 18 (1) (1997) pp. 67-88
summary	Every floorplan may be regarded as a reflection of the goals and activities of the users as interpreted by the architect. By comparing a wide range of building layouts for similar organizations one may achieve a good understanding of the ways in which goals and values can be expressed in spatial solutions. It offers the opportunity to develop a spatiofunctional typology of design solutions. Postoccupancy evaluations focusing on underlying arguments and user experiences with different design solutions give insight into relevant points of decision, (dis)advantages for use and perception, and (dis)congruencies between spatial systems and social systems. This article demonstrates how an integration of comparative floorplan-analysis and postoccupancy evaluation may contribute to more soundly based solutions in programming and architectural design. The relationship between spatial and social configurations is illuminated by an analysis of the floorplans of two schools with different educational systems and the spatial implications of a shift from a medical care concept into a residential care concept in nursing homes.
series	journal paper
last changed	2003/05/15 21:45

_id	b4c4
authors	Carrara, G., Fioravanti, A. and Novembri, G.
year	2000
title	A framework for an Architectural Collaborative Design
doi	https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2000.057
source	Promise and Reality: State of the Art versus State of Practice in Computing for the Design and Planning Process [18th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9523687-6-5] Weimar (Germany) 22-24 June 2000, pp. 57-60
summary	The building industry involves a larger number of disciplines, operators and professionals than other industrial processes. Its peculiarity is that the products (building objects) have a number of parts (building elements) that does not differ much from the number of classes into which building objects can be conceptually subdivided. Another important characteristic is that the building industry produces unique products (de Vries and van Zutphen, 1992). This is not an isolated situation but indeed one that is spreading also in other industrial fields. For example, production niches have proved successful in the automotive and computer industries (Carrara, Fioravanti, & Novembri, 1989). Building design is a complex multi-disciplinary process, which demands a high degree of co-ordination and co-operation among separate teams, each having its own specific knowledge and its own set of specific design tools. Establishing an environment for design tool integration is a prerequisite for network-based distributed work. It was attempted to solve the problem of efficient, user-friendly, and fast information exchange among operators by treating it simply as an exchange of data. But the failure of IGES, CGM, PHIGS confirms that data have different meanings and importance in different contexts. The STandard for Exchange of Product data, ISO 10303 Part 106 BCCM, relating to AEC field (Wix, 1997), seems to be too complex to be applied to professional studios. Moreover its structure is too deep and the conceptual classifications based on it do not allow multi-inheritance (Ekholm, 1996). From now on we shall adopt the BCCM semantic that defines the actor as "a functional participant in building construction"; and we shall define designer as "every member of the class formed by designers" (architects, engineers, town-planners, construction managers, etc.).
keywords	Architectural Design Process, Collaborative Design, Knowledge Engineering, Dynamic Object Oriented Programming
series	eCAADe
email
more	http://www.uni-weimar.de/ecaade/
last changed	2022/06/07 07:55

_id	ga0026
id	ga0026
authors	Ransen, Owen F.
year	2000
title	Possible Futures in Computer Art Generation
source	International Conference on Generative Art
summary	Years of trying to create an "Image Idea Generator" program have convinced me that the perfect solution would be to have an artificial artistic person, a design slave. This paper describes how I came to that conclusion, realistic alternatives, and briefly, how it could possibly happen. 1. The history of Repligator and Gliftic 1.1 Repligator In 1996 I had the idea of creating an “image idea generator”. I wanted something which would create images out of nothing, but guided by the user. The biggest conceptual problem I had was “out of nothing”. What does that mean? So I put aside that problem and forced the user to give the program a starting image. This program eventually turned into Repligator, commercially described as an “easy to use graphical effects program”, but actually, to my mind, an Image Idea Generator. The first release came out in October 1997. In December 1998 I described Repligator V4 [1] and how I thought it could be developed away from simply being an effects program. In July 1999 Repligator V4 won the Shareware Industry Awards Foundation prize for "Best Graphics Program of 1999". Prize winners are never told why they won, but I am sure that it was because of two things: 1) Easy of use 2) Ease of experimentation "Ease of experimentation" means that Repligator does in fact come up with new graphics ideas. Once you have input your original image you can generate new versions of that image simply by pushing a single key. Repligator is currently at version 6, but, apart from adding many new effects and a few new features, is basically the same program as version 4. Following on from the ideas in [1] I started to develop Gliftic, which is closer to my original thoughts of an image idea generator which "starts from nothing". The Gliftic model of images was that they are composed of three components: 1. Layout or form, for example the outline of a mandala is a form. 2. Color scheme, for example colors selected from autumn leaves from an oak tree. 3. Interpretation, for example Van Gogh would paint a mandala with oak tree colors in a different way to Andy Warhol. There is a Van Gogh interpretation and an Andy Warhol interpretation. Further I wanted to be able to genetically breed images, for example crossing two layouts to produce a child layout. And the same with interpretations and color schemes. If I could achieve this then the program would be very powerful. 1.2 Getting to Gliftic Programming has an amazing way of crystalising ideas. If you want to put an idea into practice via a computer program you really have to understand the idea not only globally, but just as importantly, in detail. You have to make hard design decisions, there can be no vagueness, and so implementing what I had decribed above turned out to be a considerable challenge. I soon found out that the hardest thing to do would be the breeding of forms. What are the "genes" of a form? What are the genes of a circle, say, and how do they compare to the genes of the outline of the UK? I wanted the genotype representation (inside the computer program's data) to be directly linked to the phenotype representation (on the computer screen). This seemed to be the best way of making sure that bred-forms would bare some visual relationship to their parents. I also wanted symmetry to be preserved. For example if two symmetrical objects were bred then their children should be symmetrical. I decided to represent shapes as simply closed polygonal shapes, and the "genes" of these shapes were simply the list of points defining the polygon. Thus a circle would have to be represented by a regular polygon of, say, 100 sides. The outline of the UK could easily be represented as a list of points every 10 Kilometers along the coast line. Now for the important question: what do you get when you cross a circle with the outline of the UK? I tried various ways of combining the "genes" (i.e. coordinates) of the shapes, but none of them really ended up producing interesting shapes. And of the methods I used, many of them, applied over several "generations" simply resulted in amorphous blobs, with no distinct family characteristics. Or rather maybe I should say that no single method of breeding shapes gave decent results for all types of images. Figure 1 shows an example of breeding a mandala with 6 regular polygons: Figure 1 Mandala bred with array of regular polygons I did not try out all my ideas, and maybe in the future I will return to the problem, but it was clear to me that it is a non-trivial problem. And if the breeding of shapes is a non-trivial problem, then what about the breeding of interpretations? I abandoned the genetic (breeding) model of generating designs but retained the idea of the three components (form, color scheme, interpretation). 1.3 Gliftic today Gliftic Version 1.0 was released in May 2000. It allows the user to change a form, a color scheme and an interpretation. The user can experiment with combining different components together and can thus home in on an personally pleasing image. Just as in Repligator, pushing the F7 key make the program choose all the options. Unlike Repligator however the user can also easily experiment with the form (only) by pushing F4, the color scheme (only) by pushing F5 and the interpretation (only) by pushing F6. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show some example images created by Gliftic. Figure 2 Mandala interpreted with arabesques Figure 3 Trellis interpreted with "graphic ivy" Figure 4 Regular dots interpreted as "sparks" 1.4 Forms in Gliftic V1 Forms are simply collections of graphics primitives (points, lines, ellipses and polygons). The program generates these collections according to the user's instructions. Currently the forms are: Mandala, Regular Polygon, Random Dots, Random Sticks, Random Shapes, Grid Of Polygons, Trellis, Flying Leap, Sticks And Waves, Spoked Wheel, Biological Growth, Chequer Squares, Regular Dots, Single Line, Paisley, Random Circles, Chevrons. 1.5 Color Schemes in Gliftic V1 When combining a form with an interpretation (described later) the program needs to know what colors it can use. The range of colors is called a color scheme. Gliftic has three color scheme types: 1. Random colors: Colors for the various parts of the image are chosen purely at random. 2. Hue Saturation Value (HSV) colors: The user can choose the main hue (e.g. red or yellow), the saturation (purity) of the color scheme and the value (brightness/darkness) . The user also has to choose how much variation is allowed in the color scheme. A wide variation allows the various colors of the final image to depart a long way from the HSV settings. A smaller variation results in the final image using almost a single color. 3. Colors chosen from an image: The user can choose an image (for example a JPG file of a famous painting, or a digital photograph he took while on holiday in Greece) and Gliftic will select colors from that image. Only colors from the selected image will appear in the output image. 1.6 Interpretations in Gliftic V1 Interpretation in Gliftic is best decribed with a few examples. A pure geometric line could be interpreted as: 1) the branch of a tree 2) a long thin arabesque 3) a sequence of disks 4) a chain, 5) a row of diamonds. An pure geometric ellipse could be interpreted as 1) a lake, 2) a planet, 3) an eye. Gliftic V1 has the following interpretations: Standard, Circles, Flying Leap, Graphic Ivy, Diamond Bar, Sparkz, Ess Disk, Ribbons, George Haite, Arabesque, ZigZag. 1.7 Applications of Gliftic Currently Gliftic is mostly used for creating WEB graphics, often backgrounds as it has an option to enable "tiling" of the generated images. There is also a possibility that it will be used in the custom textile business sometime within the next year or two. The real application of Gliftic is that of generating new graphics ideas, and I suspect that, like Repligator, many users will only understand this later. 2. The future of Gliftic, 3 possibilties Completing Gliftic V1 gave me the experience to understand what problems and opportunities there will be in future development of the program. Here I divide my many ideas into three oversimplified possibilities, and the real result may be a mix of two or all three of them. 2.1 Continue the current development "linearly" Gliftic could grow simply by the addition of more forms and interpretations. In fact I am sure that initially it will grow like this. However this limits the possibilities to what is inside the program itself. These limits can be mitigated by allowing the user to add forms (as vector files). The user can already add color schemes (as images). The biggest problem with leaving the program in its current state is that there is no easy way to add interpretations. 2.2 Allow the artist to program Gliftic It would be interesting to add a language to Gliftic which allows the user to program his own form generators and interpreters. In this way Gliftic becomes a "platform" for the development of dynamic graphics styles by the artist. The advantage of not having to deal with the complexities of Windows programming could attract the more adventurous artists and designers. The choice of programming language of course needs to take into account the fact that the "programmer" is probably not be an expert computer scientist. I have seen how LISP (an not exactly easy artificial intelligence language) has become very popular among non programming users of AutoCAD. If, to complete a job which you do manually and repeatedly, you can write a LISP macro of only 5 lines, then you may be tempted to learn enough LISP to write those 5 lines. Imagine also the ability to publish (and/or sell) "style generators". An artist could develop a particular interpretation function, it creates images of a given character which others find appealing. The interpretation (which runs inside Gliftic as a routine) could be offered to interior designers (for example) to unify carpets, wallpaper, furniture coverings for single projects. As Adrian Ward [3] says on his WEB site: "Programming is no less an artform than painting is a technical process." Learning a computer language to create a single image is overkill and impractical. Learning a computer language to create your own artistic style which generates an infinite series of images in that style may well be attractive. 2.3 Add an artificial conciousness to Gliftic This is a wild science fiction idea which comes into my head regularly. Gliftic manages to surprise the users with the images it makes, but, currently, is limited by what gets programmed into it or by pure chance. How about adding a real artifical conciousness to the program? Creating an intelligent artificial designer? According to Igor Aleksander [1] conciousness is required for programs (computers) to really become usefully intelligent. Aleksander thinks that "the line has been drawn under the philosophical discussion of conciousness, and the way is open to sound scientific investigation". Without going into the details, and with great over-simplification, there are roughly two sorts of artificial intelligence: 1) Programmed intelligence, where, to all intents and purposes, the programmer is the "intelligence". The program may perform well (but often, in practice, doesn't) and any learning which is done is simply statistical and pre-programmed. There is no way that this type of program could become concious. 2) Neural network intelligence, where the programs are based roughly on a simple model of the brain, and the network learns how to do specific tasks. It is this sort of program which, according to Aleksander, could, in the future, become concious, and thus usefully intelligent. What could the advantages of an artificial artist be? 1) There would be no need for programming. Presumbably the human artist would dialog with the artificial artist, directing its development. 2) The artificial artist could be used as an apprentice, doing the "drudge" work of art, which needs intelligence, but is, anyway, monotonous for the human artist. 3) The human artist imagines "concepts", the artificial artist makes them concrete. 4) An concious artificial artist may come up with ideas of its own. Is this science fiction? Arthur C. Clarke's 1st Law: "If a famous scientist says that something can be done, then he is in all probability correct. If a famous scientist says that something cannot be done, then he is in all probability wrong". Arthur C Clarke's 2nd Law: "Only by trying to go beyond the current limits can you find out what the real limits are." One of Bertrand Russell's 10 commandments: "Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric" 3. References 1. "From Ramon Llull to Image Idea Generation". Ransen, Owen. Proceedings of the 1998 Milan First International Conference on Generative Art. 2. "How To Build A Mind" Aleksander, Igor. Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, 1999 3. "How I Drew One of My Pictures: or, The Authorship of Generative Art" by Adrian Ward and Geof Cox. Proceedings of the 1999 Milan 2nd International Conference on Generative Art.
series	other
email
more	http://www.generativeart.com/
last changed	2003/08/07 17:25

_id	0024
authors	Breen, J. and Dijk, T. van
year	1997
title	Modelling for eye level composition; design media experiments in an educational setting.
source	Architectural and Urban Simulation Techniques in Research and Education [Proceedings of the 3rd European Architectural Endoscopy Association Conference / ISBN 90-407-1669-2]
summary	In order to simulate the visual effects of designs at eye level, it is necessary to construct models from which (sequences of) images can be taken. This holds true for both Optical Endoscopy and Computer Aided Visualisation techniques. In what ways can an eye level approach stimulate spatial awareness and create insights into the workings of a design concept? Can Endoscopic methods be used effectively as a creative environment for design decision-making and teamwork and even to stimulate the generation of new design ideas? How should modelmaking be considered if it is to be of use in an ‘impatient’ design process, and how can students be made aware of the opportunities of both direct eye level observations from design models and of the more sophisticated endoscopic imaging techniques? This paper explores the theme of eye level modelling by focusing on a number of formal exercises and educational experiments carried out by the Delft Media group in recent years. An attempt is made to describe and evaluate these experiences, in order to draw conclusions and to signal possible new opportunities for eye level composition for the benefit of both design education and practice...
keywords	Architectural Endoscopy, Endoscopy, Simulation, Visualisation, Visualization, Real Environments
series	EAEA
email
more	http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/media/eaea/eaea97.html
last changed	2005/09/09 10:43

No more hits.