Module 3

Virtual Environments

Hugh Stanford

583128

Semester 1, 2012

Module 3

Hugh StanfordVirtual Environments

Earl.Pinto pride themselves on using “materials and technologies that are readily avail-able”. The designers form digital models of their structure, breaking it down into separate sub units to be cut out and manufactured into the final lantern. The use of wood cutting machines allows a highly computer generated modelling process.This is similar to my lantern, where many sub-units of my design were cut out of a piece of paper using technologies similar to that used by Earl.Pinto.Using similar technologies presented similar design possibilities and issues.

Design Precedents


The Anise Pendent by design company Earl.Pinto uses natural materials, such as natural or high gloss ply wood, to accomplish a clean simple design. When designing the lamp, Earl.Pinto had a major issue with the their joint structure. Originally adhered by glue, this resulted in an overflow from joint, compromising the clean, simple aesthetic that was intended.By using friction to connect the pieces together, they simplified the design, allowing it to remain true to their original intentions.

After making a significantly over complicated design proposal, I realised my design had varied from the origin intentions I possessed.By halving the density of the my panelling grid, and creating a simplified panelling unit, I was able to return my design back to a more simple design, more honest to my original idea.


Buckling of the panelling pattern presented an issue in fabrication. To overcome this I increased the num-ber of triangular units in my pattern. This change would inevitably result in a drastic alteration in my final design.

Prefabrication Editions

By increasing triangular units, my design became significantly more detailed and convo-luted.





During the triangulation process, the original progression of shapes became impossible to main-tain. I initially continued to use the 6 analytical sketches patterns for the panelling, but now they weren’t in progressive order, they lacked the original purpose of aligning with the curve of the model. By focussing on only one of the analytical drawings, I was able to still display the original inspiration for the panelling unit, but also elude the now moot point of pattern progression. Furthermore, it was easier to fit into the simplified model, enabling a more rigid form of the final design.


Once triangulated, the design became far more complicated than originally planned. This posed issues for fabrication. More importantly however, it distracted from the original shape of the lantern.

By halving the grid density and altering the panelling pattern, a simpler form was able to be produced. This final model did not distract from the original shape, it in fact added a rigidity to the otherwise fluid curves of the lantern. A juxtaposition that added another dimension to the previously one dimension form.




The initial pattern orientation presented all the panelling units in an upward facing direction. This produced a relatively symmetrical surface.When simplifying my design, I decided to use a continues cyclical arrangement. This produced a less predictable, more calculated chaotic form.My goal at this point was to use the inspiration I had acquired from my natural process and warp it to produce a new unrelated design. My intentions were to disassociate from the original natural process and for someone to only understand the design process undertaken once the de-sign had been explained. The original pattern displayed more of a diagrammatic representation of the original natural process, this contradicted my ambition and had to be changed.



Originally the midline panelling form was a combination of a unit from the Gibbon arm and from the Human arm. After the simplification process, I decided on creating a new midline pattern, one which resembled the base pattern in which both the new Gibbon and Human units originated from


Prototyping

I attempted Prototyping of potentially high risk areas. The junction between several lines was an example of this.

Fabrication process


Prototyping


I found that when building prototypes, the shape of my virtual model was altered slightly when put together. Prototyping allowed me to understand the form in which it would alter, as well as seeing if the change would effect the fabrication.

Final Model


I chose to use 300gms black card for my model. This enabled the possibility of a self supporting structure. By using black material, I hoped the lights would juxtapose the card, causing a stronger visual effect.

Final Model


When constructing the ‘Midline’ arm of my model, I found that through the fabrication process the way the triangular sub-units in-teracted varied from the virtual model. There were two major design changes due to this alteration.

The physical model had a curved shape. This represented the original sketches of two bones meeting each other.

Changes at the pointed end of arm formed a angled head which resembled the original inspira-tion for the arm closer than that of the virtual model.


Final Model

There were two consequences of the fabrication process which effected the physical design of my model once put together.The supporting spines were too rigid at maintaining the original shape of the design. By not allowing for the plasticity of the fabrication process, the spines resulted in a disjointed connection between all the parts; this caused many drastic and unfavourable form changes.During the fab lab laser cutting process, the cut of many units was mir-rored to what was initially planned. This resulted in a rounder corner between triangular units, causing issues with fitting. This overall effected the final appearance of the design.

Final Model


To fix the problems that arose with the building of my lantern, many alterations occurred with the human arm’s virtual design.By decreasing the grid density from 7 vertical points to 6, the gap originally filled by the spine was removed.The spines were a disruption to the calculated chaos of the hu-man arm. They acted as an oasis between segments of jagged triangulations. Removing these disruptions allowed for a more uniform pattern across the surface of the model.


Reflection

Through the various trials and tribulations of the design process, I fell my ability to continually represent my original natural process has not only been main-tained but also evolved. As each junction in the road to progress has appeared over the horizon, I have made alterations to the depth of my interpretation.

This module brought about a drastic simplification process that allowed a greater integration between the panelling sub-unit and the core shape of the lantern. Where originally the panelling simply draped the undulations of the models form, by decreasing the complexity, a more jagged shape was produced. These irreg-ularities altered the base shape of the model. I found that changing the orientation of the panelling unit further altered the form of the lantern. By experimenting digitally with the panelling unit, I was able to make a less literal, more interpretive representation of my natural process.

When constructing the physical model, the major cause of design variation was the way in which the card responded to bending. Virtually, complex shapes do not need to progress through a linear fabrication process. Once you need to physically build a model from one end to another, the ability to create shapes differs. With this change comes the formation of new, less even patterns. When managed well, this can result in interesting new design developments, when managed badly, this can have drastically detrimental construction repercussions.

The issues I faced during this module, unfortunately were unavoidable. Naïvety in previous processes had resulted in too much time having to be spent simplify-ing. This resulted in a domino effect, causing me to miss the priority fab lab time period, resulting in insufficient fabrication time. By not building more detailed prototypes, I was unable to understand the pitfalls that would inevitably effect my final model. My new found knowledge of the fabrication process has inspired many solutions to present issue. The main thing I will focus on for the final module is construction more subdivision of respective arms, with the joining of these divisions occurring as a last step. By creating entire arms as singular units, I found a minor misalignment early in the arm, could cause a significant issue with the positioning of units further down the arm. Subdividing arms will cause a buffer, isolating mistakes to a specific area.

Module 3

Documents

Transcript of Module 3