Assignment 5: Flowlines

Assignment 5 Set-Up: 10 Line Interval Domains

Because we anticipated some axis errors, we decided to control the script and break it down into smaller domain ranges. The entire script had 150 lines total, (~3150 mm in total) and we exported a 10 line src file, each with a designated sharpie color so it was easy to locate where/when errors may occur. As expected, the middle range on the entire script (51-100) had the most errors where the robot was crossing itself on the 5th axis..with some surprises during some of the "yellow" (41-51) and the extraneous errors during the "purples" at the end.

Zhe Lin's Reflection on Reading 3: models protoypes archetypes

Today ‘File to factory’ has become the mainstream in architectural field. Architects and architectural students all use ‘File to factory’ on some extent. The writer took part in the construction of Sagrada Familia Church, so he gives many examples of the church in this passage. We can see how digital fabrication is being used in the construction of an architecture which was designed in 19^th Century, which I think is very interesting and valuable.

Gaudi didn’t use any parametric design, but we still can construct the church in a parametric way. Digital fabrication can free the craftsmen. For example, they don’t have to the rough cutting of the stone, so they could focus on the perfection of the surface. Jordi Barbany even used seven-axis robot, which resembles what we are using, to produce the columns of Sagrada Familia Church. The robot can be very precise to complete sophisticated project.

What’s more, I hadn’t thought of the differences between models and prototypes until I read this passage. During my architecture study, I always treated the models just as models. I used models to convey my ideas to others and examine the space of architecture. However, the writer mentions that models can be used as prototypes sometimes, like the column models of Sagrada Familia Church. The column models didn’t follow other prototypes, while they are the original pattern or model. After they are tested, they will become the archetypes for subsequent decisions. This is a further function of models. In this process, digital fabrication allows the appearance of this new prototype.

Reading 3 Response: Jay Tyan

I found it a bit hard to follow this essay as a whole, so I took it in small chunks.  First, the author mentions about many examples where it is important to differentiate model, prototype, and archetype in the design process.  I can't help but relate this to my Hot wheels-flash drive projects again.  Because each car is different, the final product serves as each of the three things throughout production.  Either that or the prototype and model do not exist, but that wrongly implies that experimentation is nonexistent, which is not true.   I guess this is why hand-making things from scratch is so extremely inefficient and often yields inconsistent results.

Re-skilling of the human worker, as was addressed in class, was also mentioned in the essay.  Where robots are usually used to do precise tasks, the modelers of the Sagrada Familia did it the other way around, using the robots to lop off the big chunks of stone while the masons fine-tuned the curves.  

Reading 3 / Kallie Sternburgh: Models, Prototypes and Archetypes

Mark Burry discloses his lessons learned and new observations on the role of digital technology and architecture. In building the Sagrada Familia Church Passion Façade, he points out that there are essentially two alternate ways in which technology offers a methodology towards the practice of architecture: (1) Technology used to extend traditional practice, and (2) How technology is forcing us to reconsider our representational paradigms, including the model.

The first account looks in detail in his project where he is using digital technology to accurately cut/extract stone, a rather traditional practice with excavated, raw materials.  However, the stone is cut to a point, where the skill of the stonemason is still required to finish the surface by hand, and he is freed of the responsibility of reduction (A phenomena of “Re-skilling” of the craftsman, rather than completely replacing him with the machine).

The second account looks at the role of the design model, where documentation of Antoni Gaudi’s Glory Façade relies only on two photographs of a scale model to complete his work.  As the convergence of digital design and fabrication facilitates an ever more fluid workflow between “file to factory,” we must re-define the definitions between model and prototype. Can a model, commonly used for traditional means of representation (or abstraction for communicative purposes only) also be used as a prototype, or measured for a course of action? 

It would appear that there is a grey area in how digital models are used throughout a design process today; as digital models are commonly iterative testing grounds for which we can discover architectural invention, there is a point at which the model can become a prototype for which we measure and assess our observations. And then there is a point at which the prototype becomes an accepted source for all subsequent copies and decisions: the archetype.

Reading Response 3 Manufacturing the Bespoke Di Fan

The author described a project of that he participated in -- the continuing construction of Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia Church. He applied robotic fabrication and bespoke the columns for that church. I think using robot to bespeak certain shapes of construction pieces is a very novel way, as those shapes are difficult to complete by hand. The columns looks like sculptures, which are very complex and match well with the church at the same time. In ancient times, only those well trained craftsmen could built such beautiful art works. For now, although computer aided design is already a well developed system and people can realize them in computers, it is still difficult for us to deal with those columns in real world. However, robots provide us a possible way to fulfill our ideas. It is a bridge connecting real and virtual world.

So I feel excited about our class now. In the past month, I experienced a difficult time. At first, I feel questioned about the class as I think it may not be useful because robot is not pervasive. Then I felt difficult to study Grasshopper and I could not do anything about the program but turning for my group members. When class went in depth, I gradually got more fun once we together finish an assignment as there were infinite potentials. I think I have already overcome some of the difficulties and I will continue to overcome more. I think using robot to bespeak pieces will become an important part in the future.

Assignment 4: Endoscope - '65 Mustang

Assign 4: Troubleshooting the Toolpaths

Zhe Lin’s Reflection on Reading 2: Manufacturing systems and strategies

This passage is about the manufacturing systems and strategies. It involves different types of manufacturing systems, components of manufacturing systems and approaches and strategies which are more philosophical.

From this passage, I have a basic understanding of modern manufacturing. We can choose different types of manufacturing systems during our needs, such as the amount of products and the flexibility of products. For example, the job shop is designed for small production quantities. People and equipment there are employed flexibly. The products are always unique, so users can produce experimental product in job shop. However, the time costs and money costs can be very high, which is not suitable for high-volume production. In order to produce a good deal of products, the producer had better use flow shop, transfer line or flexible manufacturing cell. There are also some combinations of these manufacturing systems.

I found what has the closest relationship with this course is the introduction of different types of robots. We are using articulated robot, which are highly maneuverable. There are also many other types of robots being used in manufacturing system. They have different characteristics, such as the area which they can reach, way of movement, flexibility, and speed. They are chosen according to our needs too, like manufacturing systems. We should understand the differences between the robotics and manufacturing systems and choose one according to our needs.

At last, this passage also tells about manufacturing philosophies and attitudes, such as Just-in-Time, lean manufacturing, total quality management program. These strategies are combined with the manufacturing systems. These strategies help reduce the costs in manufacturing systems and improve the quality of products. These strategies are widely used in industrial field and let me get a glimpse of the actual producing process.

Reading 2 / Kallie Sternburgh: Digital Design & Manufacturing

I’m not going to lie; this reading was a bit difficult to get through, but needless to say, it is interesting to observe how fine grained the differences are between different types of robots and manufacturing systems. There is a degree of specificity in each type of system that favors certain production processes over others. Which is clear as our class starts to understand even the differences and ranges of work envelopes between Tighty and Mighty. Understanding the successful characteristics of each machine allows us to take advantage of its productive abilities.  It’s appropriate to ask ourselves the questions: “When are tools needed for automation?” versus “When are tools needed for assembly tasks?” or even “What tool and when is it most cost-effective to get the product or production required?”

A design strategy (or plan of action) is an important, and even vital point for opportunity in a design process.  And understanding how to get what we desire out of selected machinery in a fabrication process is sometimes the most difficult part, if we are not fully well versed in the advantages and disadvantages of each one.

As we have these tools at our fingertips, and as we gain some proficiency, we can begin to understand how we can apply the machinery and their specialized qualities into our design processes, and hopefully, elevate the potential of digital design and manufacturing in architecture.

Reading Response 2 Manufacturing Systems and Strategies Di Fan

This article is a very obscure for me to get understand, but as is mentioned a little bit about the relationship between robotic and manufacturing system, I want to discuss something of my own feeling about the class and manufacturing.

I do admit robotic is a very useful tool for us to enhance our design and I enjoy the class so much. But I still consider there are some flaws with robotic during our assignments. The robot is not as intelligent as we expect and it runs mistake easily. Also, the range of the arm it can reach and move is limited by its joints. So have to spend more time to fix those mistakes. As those mistakes sometimes occur frequently, we have to compromise to simplify our code and even our original ideas of the assignments. I think we have lost our destination of using robots. When this article claimed that some certain machines like CNC cannot realize manufacturing in factories, I think that might because robotic is still a comparatively ineffective tools for us to fulfill those complex commands. 

Anyway , robot is a technique that can help us improve our designs, not a barrier. So does manufacturing.

Reading 2 Response: Jay Tyan

I feel like the general idea of this reading elaborated upon many of the points we have discussed in class, such as what production methods are suitable for certain volumes of production.  While reading, I also related some things I've learned on my own to the terms introduced here.  For example, I have a few Hot wheels cars that I've turned into flash drives and everybody's first reaction is "Woah, you could sell those!" Well, eh. I take it as a compliment, but I believe the type of manufacturing system I have with my own two hands is the simplest form of a job shop.  Everything is hand-cut, measured, and hot glue must be carefully applied, reapplied, and reapplied again.  The production process is very slow (typically takes a few hours to finish one car) and each car is a different model, so there's no point in creating a standard jig to speed things up.  Just like the article states, job shops are don't usually sell things for profit; they're usually there to build prototypes, and each car here is essentially a prototype for itself.

First one.  Same car, just repainted it after two years 

A few later, a '97 F-150 with a slide-out USB

The amount of time invested in hand-making these would make the price quite high, but the customer wouldn't get his/her money's worth due to the poor quality of workmanship.  In order for selling these to be a practical option, I'd have to at least expand to a project shop, having components made for me (many for one type of car), greatly reducing the assembly time and headache involved in getting these done.  At this level, even if I still had to gather all of the pre-produced parts and assemble them by hand, I'd be turning out one car every minute.  The only thing that prevents me from being able to do so is the prohibitively high cost of tooling and factories.  You see where this is going.

So no, I could not sell these.  ;)

To get back on topic, I'm sure we're all aware that our class so far has been using the robots in a job shop fashion.  All assignments are one-off pieces.  Sure, the robot helps with repetitive, "precise" tasks, but in the end, we as humans are still lining up foam boards by hand and placing nails by hand so the robot can grab them.  The human factor also greatly reduces the precision often associated with robots, as is evident in our nail project.  However, in a way, just like how ramping up production efficiency first necessitates high initial cost for tooling, the slow process of educating us students will more likely result in an overall boost in efficiency for relevant projects in the future.

Assignment 4 - Jay Tyan

Since I have no prior Grasshopper experience (except for what we did in this class) and am pretty new to Rhino, I had to follow Luis's video very carefully, step by step.  I was amazed at first that everything seemed to be working, something that is rare for the digital technology in my life.  Everything worked up until the last step when I tried to display the robot and I realized that the toolpath and guide plugs weren't happy and I didn't know what to do to fix them at the moment.  

I then tried to use 123D Catch on my android tablet and it was extremely hard getting the little spinning circle indicator to correspond with the photo angle. I tried everything, including cheating by first lining up the indicator and then turning my car to face the correct way.  It seems like my accelerometers are out of whack and I have no idea of what to do about it.  Below is my model, a 1:36 scale '65 Ford Mustang with a door open.  What you see here is the best take out of at least four tries, done on my friend's somewhat-more-keen android device.

I'm not sure how the patina'd appearance came about but I found it interesting.  Also, since only half of the car showed up, the driver's side is just the reverse side of the passenger's.  .

This is what it was supposed to be ...

Project 4.1_Zhe Lin

Assign04

Assign 4 - Kallie

123dcatch

Endoscope Successfully Place - Screenshot

Assignment 3: Light Bright

Pictured below is the digitized image in Rhino, what was supposed to be a Christmas tree.  

The four long-exposure photographs are the result of running the program.  

Circular

Linear

Point-to-point

Spline

We forgot to capture a video of us running the program.  

Reflection on First Reading: Jay Tyan

So much of this went over my head, I started thinking it might be because I'm still a sophomore and I haven't learned to think that deeply yet.

One of the more significant thoughts I had was when Pandora was mentioned, releasing forces that couldn't be controlled.  In the context of this piece, it was talking about architects "recklessly" unleashing new methods without thinking of consequences.  Something that could possibly relate that to this class is the movie I, Robot, where robots suddenly almost wipe out a city due to the "core" of artificial intelligence gaining too much knowledge.  In the near future, people could possibly design robots that not only carry out our commands repeatedly as they already do, but program them to learn from mistakes and experiences to make processes smoother and faster without having to stop the production line to fix a bug.  With this system, there is a chance that the designers will overlook certain sources from which the robots can "learn" and in turn, recreate the scenario in the movie.

We, as a society, are already advancing toward this point.  Almost every digital machine in use by regular people is connected by the internet to some sort of large server, wherever it might be.  Personal computers, for example, are already capable of looking for system updates and installing them automatically.  Even cars are so computerized that they can be hacked into and controlled from outside, as shown in this video (one small reason why I will never buy a new car).  People are also writing programs with malicious intent, purposely telling computers to do unwanted, sometimes dangerous tasks from remote locations.  Architects have already been using computers for decades, their dependence upon them increasing rapidly.  As is the case with this class, architects are also learning that robotic fabrication can be a big help in prototyping and actual building.  It is possible that some day, whether by viruses and hacking or by self-learning, too heavy a reliance on robots can pose a risk to humanity.

The Model Machine Reading Assignment 1: Kallie

Reflections on the text Pandora and the Modern Scale Model Machine

We have all experienced in architecture school how the role of the architectural model can both probe and communicate an organized intension.  As a model of representation is both the output and the means in which we define meaning, it is less understood that the process of our discoveries can also be used to measure or discuss new relationships, or in the text’s terms, to define a “reference standard,” that in which logic and truth is measured against.

I appreciated the text especially for its taxonomy of several different types of “model machine” examples, and it also presented a nice palette of insight into the range of agendas that scale models can execute; from the work of Antonio Gaudi and his aesthetic ideology for mathematical truth in his catenary arch studies, to Vladimir Tatlin’s more collective, utilitarian vision in his Monument of the Third International. El Lissitzky had a similar social agenda, yet with the role of a “Proun” (Project for the Affirmation of the New) to deploy new systems and collective goals for a developing Marxist society.  Louis Kahn exercises a scale model machine in his proposal for the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs and discovers it a tool that questions his own understanding of order.  Daniel Libeskind, (considering his body of work is predominately drawings and model representations) has an unhinged archetype of model machines in a world without governance, and with that endless freedom, both opens and inhibits his own imaginative opportunities.

The text sheds light on how the architectural model can be used both as a device of invention and understanding. To understand the process of model making is to also develop a new mechanism of imagination, of possibilities that can be created through measurement, speculation, and prodding intensions.