@topologic said:
let’s change it to @DADA_universe’s suggestion: “Talk on Topologic: Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars”
I´d have said algebra instead of grammar, but I thought twice and I think the difference is very important and not subtle at all.
IMHO @brunopostle is working on topological grammar, to produce correct results according to a set of rules whereas I am working on topological algebra to build sense out of the internal opperations that can be conducted among the topological entities.
Am I making sense myself?
For me, not yet. I guess it makes perfect sense but I can't grasp it yet.
I understand that @brunopostle is using a preset list of objects that is going to be adapted into situations happening in the base geometry input. The final result is produced that way and I understand how this relates to grammar: a set of rules that are applied to create a language.
A+B=B+A whereas A-B ≠ B-A
I´m defining not the rules as to what is A, where is A and how should A be transformed into a construction object but as in + operation can be used to... then you can take information X and information Y (which I think in @brunopostle construct is not yet) and operate them together in this way.
After this fact , select all the objects that have these topological properties BOOLEAN OPERAND HERE this informational content and transform them into that construction object.
So @brunopostle is striving for correction/truth and therefore a predefined set of rules exists. His roofs should always be roofs.
I´m striving for sense that needs user agency and control, there will be a set of rules/operations but the importance is the content of these operations and not their construction of truth. My roofs could be clerestories, walls, gardens or clouds... whatever the user wants them to be.
I think I understand, but isn't the difference only in the amount of elements and rules to append them?
You seem to be creating a set of questions that mix together to formulate new questions. Once all questions are formulated you will then move on to provide answers to them. Your aim might be to find new questions that will provide you creative paths. But in the end won't you have to apply elements to each answer? A cloud or a roof are just elements that answer your questions.
@brunopostle seems he as defined that most architecture has preset answers to typical questions. He aims to solve those first, which doesn't mean that new and untypical questions can't be answered with new and non standard elements. If a space has a roof or a cloud isn't that part of a dictionary? And if Homemaker is to have an UI for this wouldnt it be possible to say that space A would have a cloud or be a cloud?
@DADA_universe said: @JQL, the name Homemaker is indeed quirky but I find it to work in its quirkiness, after a fashion, with the way it places emphasis on making a home, rather than just making a house, and this speaks to the ethical, aesthetic and ergonomic concerns @brunopostle is trying to address through computation. Perhaps there can be another name that captures the same essence more eloquently, till we see such a name, let's keep homemaking ;o)
I agree with you that making a home, in a certain sense, is a poethical metaphor of what architecture is all about.
However, in another sense, making a home feels like reducing of the scope of what homemaker is capable of to small domestic applications. It might even resemble that kind of phone software for interior design and decoration......
Hmmm.....you do make a strong case.
Thinking about it, is there any reason not to start that Homemaker thread now? There is a Blender add-on which makes it more accessible, and we're already dissecting the name, next thing we'll be trying for a logo right here on this thread! ;o)
Core discussions related to its use of Topologic can still happen here.
Hmmm.....you do make a strong case.
Thinking about it, is there any reason not to start that Homemaker thread now? There is a Blender add-on which makes it more accessible, and we're already dissecting the name, next thing we'll be trying for a logo right here on this thread! ;o)
Core discussions related to its use of Topologic can still happen here.
I'll create a new Homemaker add-on thread by posting the README, and I'll dig out some of the other documentation from the code. The 'Homemaker' name for the overall project is fixed as I have it excluded in/from my employment contract.
I believe there is a huge difference. The conceptual grounds are fairly identical, but the goals, processes and outcomes are quite different.
As I see it, and you reaffirm with your view, @brunopostle is asking questions and giving them an answer. That, for me is truth seeking. Science.
I, on the asymptotic curve, am deploying conditions, the spatial and the informational objects are not predefined and in that they are combined within the process, there is no truth to seek, but sense to build.
AFAIK @brunopostle builds a mesh and then homemaker transforms it into an architectural construct according a predefined set of rules that homemaker optimizes so that the maximum set of rules are met.
My paratypes host spatial objects, which are then informed, operated upon and queried to be converted then into construction elements through a variable set of rules.
See the "Kommentare" in the parameters column. They are extracted from the informational objects at the beginning (graphML) and routed till the end BIM component.
I still struggle to understand where the real difference is.
In the end, what I see there is a window system instead of a wall and I'm imagining that it has been created there because of some set of rules. That set of rules could lead to the same window system in homemaker, if the library of objects and rule sets would result in it.
So, if that is true, what you are talking about must be something else that I fail to see.
Is it related to how you get to defining the ruleset?
Your use of Topologic allows you to explore interconnections of spaces, functions, needs and query those to get a list of combinations right?
These combinations then might lead you to create specific answers to them. A library of answers too.
@brunopostle 's proposal implies that the architect (actually he might not be an architect after all :) ) draws interconnected spaces, and define them in a classic way, organizing them as you would in a direct modeling approach. When this is done, you create and apply a library of answers too.
I've seen some of your videos and I see you directly modelling spaces geometry and position and that affects the colors and texts being displayed (sorry for such a basic way of saying it, I imagine this as queries to information and final data generation).
You're not randomly modeling, you know what the effect of your modelling will produce, in that sense, aren't you doing the same as what we should do with Homemaker?
Or is the difference the display of data instead of a direct conversion to final form?
@JQL said:
I still struggle to understand where the real difference is.
You got it almost right. The main difference is that I´m adding a separate but linked information layer. I got a topological model, same as @brunopostle , but his AFAIK is querying just the topological conditions and relationships (already a huge amount of complexity) but hasn´t added a semantic layer yet.
My model is more focused in the semantic side. I model the spatial entities at will and after add the semantic layer through the topologic dictionaries and then assign the dictionaries to the spaces.
This gives a (several order of magnitude) higher level of complexity at the hands of the designer.
Where (and please correct me if I'm wrong) @brunojust deals with topologic complexity, I work on it (not so strong as you see in my examples) but add several layers of information I can interoperate with and query.
From working with raw space to working with raw informational space...
About the goals. As I said, I see @brunopostle looking for a machine to produce the correct answer to the problem where I'm looking for a system that can harness as much complexity as possible and empower designers to explore any option that makes sense to them.
@arquitextonica said:
About the goals. As I said, I see @brunopostle looking for a machine to produce the correct answer to the problem where I'm looking for a system that can harness as much complexity as possible and empower designers to explore any option that makes sense to them.
The Homemaker add-on is deterministic, so it should produce exactly what you expect it to produce without any surprises. The benefit of this is that a 'designer' can iterate different designs quickly and hopefully easily. In this sense it is the complete opposite of the original Homemaker tool which does its own thing, replacing the role of 'designer' entirely. The downside of the add-on is that there is nothing to stop awful architecture, and the downside of the original Homemaker is that you cede all control.
I think that we need something in-between these two extremes, the add-on assumes that you know a lot of architectural domain-knowledge, such as how to sequence rooms, or simply how big things should be. The way this could improve is for the software to give fast and early feedback on the design, I want to make use of the pattern language here, but also give feedback on costings and other practical aspects (and the non-manifold mesh combined with the graph model gives us a great way to get at this kind of stuff). But another way it could develop is for the software to anticipate your intentions, and find possibilities for the geometry, swapping uses of rooms, or even holding a superposition of uses that may only become concrete as the design becomes finalised, or never. One thing I have found from playing with the add-on is that even though assigning uses to spaces is fairly easy, it breaks the flow, requiring detail at a stage when things should be more fluid - and I think this kind of problem is related to the direction @arquitextonica is pursuing.
Completely agree @brunopostle I think our approaches are quite, quite similar and differ mainly on goals and principels, but the framework is prety identic. As you say, you are pursuing a more deterministic procedure, but are hitting all the right buttons. For the purpose of my research, I'm trying to develop a model that fits your processes and mine also, so generalistic and encompassing, to build the theoretic framework.
You are building your model for your process (superb coherently I must add), I'm trying to produce a model that explains the concepts needed and enables users to develope their models.
Hi everyone,
Just in case you do not follow the TopologicBIM twitter account, Topologic on sverchok/Blender has progressed quite a bit. Almost 90% of the functionality of the Dynamo and Grasshopper versions has been ported and some new exclusive functionality is available in this version that does not exist elsewhere. To get you started with Topologic, I have created a YouTube channel specifically for it and so far it has three videos: 1) An introductory video on how to merge two cubes, 2) A video illustrating how to transfer dictionaries, 3) A video on how to create a twisted tower CellComplex. Please find them at: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLomMn11gzPwTtQMZEWMU0zakg1YRdNuif
I am happy to entertain suggestions for new videos that you would find useful.
Apart from that, if you manage to install Topologic for Sverchok on Linux, Windows OS, or MacOS, please share your experience and screenshot with us.
@topologic said:
Apart from that, if you manage to install Topologic for Sverchok on Linux, Windows OS, or MacOS, please share your experience and screenshot with us.
I didn't succeed :( ...
@topologic said:
I am happy to entertain suggestions for new videos that you would find useful.
One on how to install it on Windows? xd
I'm following this but "pip install cppyy" ends with lots of warnings and errors.
@topologic said:
Apart from that, if you manage to install Topologic for Sverchok on Linux, Windows OS, or MacOS, please share your experience and screenshot with us.
I didn't succeed :( ...
@topologic said:
I am happy to entertain suggestions for new videos that you would find useful.
One on how to install it on Windows? xd
I'm following this but "pip install cppyy" ends with lots of warnings and errors.
Those are almost always because you have Visual Studio 2019 or newer somewhere installed. You need to completely uninstall VS 2019 or newer and only install VS 2017. After installation and running it, you can re-install 2019 or newer as you wish.
I am both a practicing architect (albeit, who currently has suspended the practice due to concentration on my design software) I am wondering how many here are actually practicing architecture. (I think @DADA_universe is a practising architect?) I am trying to digest all this from the point of view of actually designing with this kind of technology.
I am of the firm opinion that unless theories of this nature does not tackle the wicked, hazy situations of designing; it can often remain quite esoteric. Is there any link/discussion that talk about human issues that can influence the arrangement of spaces? I have seen far too often, two spouses sitting in front of me in my architectural practice and arguing about various issues each of them have regarding the apartment I happened to design. ... and I am trying my level best to get a grip around their requirements because there would a lot more apartments in that housing complex. So obviously, I have other valid concerns too.
Apartment purchase in many parts of the world is a very costly decision (possibly the costliest) and so the end users happen to look at all this from a very different point of view. And they are obviously right from their pov.
It is not just a simple case of packing together some spaces cleverly and geometrically. One needs a 360 degree point of view; not just in terms of geometry but in many other aspects of human life. Getting all those parameters later into considering is when the proverbial horse has already left the stables.
@Sabufrancis I totally agree. You cannot solve all aspects of design in software. I believe you can solve many aspects and that will allow you to focus on what is important and unique to your human abilities (eg dealing with wicked problems or conflicting human desires). Topologic asks you to think deeply about the geometry, the topology, and the information embedded in your design. It then can reward you with its ability to analyse the design, or to operate on it in logical ways that would be difficult to do otherwise. It doesn’t pretend to be a couples therapist for your clients ?. It can never do that, but it can help you focus on more important tasks and to model and analyse more cleanly and deeply.
When people encounter new technologies or new methods, they usually take one of two positions. They are either rapidly judgmental or they are curious. Apathy or lack of interest is a form of judgment (“I judge this to be of no relevance or interest to me”). I try to be curious so I can learn as much as I can before I pass judgment (not always possible due to lack of time). I worry if I judge too quickly that I will miss something potentially interesting or revolutionary.
Topologic is both simple and complex depending on how you look at it, but most people: 1) find it initially hard to understand, and 2) fail to quickly see its relevance. So I have to ask for their benefit of the doubt and for their patience. It is something that I continuously work on through tutorials, workshops, zoom meetings, forum discussions, tweets, and in-person meetings. But once people understand it and can imagine how it can be used, they find it “amazing”, “elegant”, “powerful”, “revolutionary” (but also sometimes “slow”, “rigid”, “buggy” like all other research software). I made it open source so anyone can improve it if they want and if they can. ?. I can only imagine use case scenarios up to a point. Others can imagine far more than I can.
I hope I am not misunderstood. I am also deep into tech -- up to my ears, in fact. I was talking of how to prioritize the points that shape technology. It is not the strawman argument about couples arguing in front of me when practicing but it is about what about their points that need to be considered in my technology that I would offer. There are a million ways to skin the cat, as they say. I am keen to know what would be the way by which a design evolves in such a manner that the shapers of geometry are not just mathematical algorithms. It is not a complex point.
But it is a complex point. I have yet to see a coherent mapping from a vague desire such as (I want a comfortable cozy corner to read and enjoy the sounds of birds outside my window) to a rigorous geometry that accurately and definitely solves that problem and offers a geometric solution. I am suggesting that we continue to leave that to the best algorithms for solving such problems that we know: humans and to let technology give you as much information as possible and act on the geometry and topology in ways that have the highest possible fidelity to your design intent.
Pardon me, I was talking of the complexity of my point. I meant, it is a simple point to understand. Tackling it would have its own level of complexity. One needs to grapple with the complexity if that is indeed the nature of the beast. As Einstein had once remarked (supposedly): Make things simple. Not simpler.
The technologist needs to decide how much of the complexity one needs to handle. This takes to the old debate between reductionism and holism. For some reason; reductionist approaches -- which basically says, "I will divide and conquer the problem with whatever way I know and let the world decide if the boundaries on which those complexity was cleaved was correct or not. I will shrug my shoulder and say; this is what I can do. Now you decide how to stitch it all up and make use of it"
The culture in the East is more prone to handle the holistic nature of the beast rather than the analytically accessible nature of the beast. There are very interesting approaches this leads to -- each underpinned by the driving philosophy. There are many examples where the solution to a problem was considered too complex but in fact, a very different; holistic approach did a much better job
Sorry I misunderstood. You are right. And I think Topologic, like many other pieces of software that had limited resources and limited time to complete, had to draw a very clear boundary and solve interesting, pragmatic, and useful problems only within that boundary. We couldn't tell our funders we want to solve design holistically, they would have not funded us and would have told us this is not feasible given the amount of money and time they are willing to give us. We also, perhaps due to our limitations, could not think of a simple holistic approach to design that can be solved by five people in three years and £300,000. What we did think of is that the fundamental representation of space (or lack thereof) in BIM systems is woefully deficient and we set out to represent space using Non-manifold topology and imbue it with custom and active information. This is the main core of Topologic. Everything else is icing on the cake.
If you try Topologic, I would love to hear your take on it and perhaps you can point to a way it can be used (or changed) to solve more interesting or larger design problems.
@topologic said:
I have yet to see a coherent mapping from a vague desire such as (I want a comfortable cozy corner to read and enjoy the sounds of birds outside my window) to a rigorous geometry that accurately and definitely solves that problem and offers a geometric solution.
Dear @topologic you have hit the nail in the head... no tool should solve and offer a solution to that desire. It is us, architects (Mr. @Sabufrancis besides my allegedly 50% PhD research I´m an 80% practising architect) who have to propose (a term I prefer to use instead of solve). What I fimrly believe we should abandon is the search for truth and start seeking sense and it is through this mapping between information AND space that we can do on @topologic (and AFAIK no other software had done it before) where we architects gain the necessary agency to achieve this construction of sense.
I am happy to announce that the porting of Topologic nodes to Blender/Sverchok is now complete! 194 nodes! Truly enjoyed this journey and still lots more to do:
1. Interface with @BlenderBIM/ ifcopenshell
2. Improve installation experience
3. Build amazing domain-specific apps
Perhaps this is worth a news article on OSArch.org? I think there are plenty of great visuals and it can be a great introduction to those new to Topologic. @topologic would you be interested in writing an article?
@Moult said:
Perhaps this is worth a news article on OSArch.org? I think there are plenty of great visuals and it can be a great introduction to those new to Topologic. @topologic would you be interested in writing an article?
Not sure if anyone has posted this here but I really enjoyed this interview with @topologic . Helped me once again get my head around the topologic concept. "BIM Requires Complexity first, Topologic Does Not!"
Comments
I´d have said algebra instead of grammar, but I thought twice and I think the difference is very important and not subtle at all.
IMHO @brunopostle is working on topological grammar, to produce correct results according to a set of rules whereas I am working on topological algebra to build sense out of the internal opperations that can be conducted among the topological entities.
Am I making sense myself?
For me, not yet. I guess it makes perfect sense but I can't grasp it yet.
I understand that @brunopostle is using a preset list of objects that is going to be adapted into situations happening in the base geometry input. The final result is produced that way and I understand how this relates to grammar: a set of rules that are applied to create a language.
Can you elaborate on algebra?
A+B=B+A whereas A-B ≠ B-A
I´m defining not the rules as to what is A, where is A and how should A be transformed into a construction object but as in
+ operation can be used to... then you can take information X and information Y (which I think in @brunopostle construct is not yet) and operate them together in this way.
After this fact , select all the objects that have these topological properties BOOLEAN OPERAND HERE this informational content and transform them into that construction object.
So @brunopostle is striving for correction/truth and therefore a predefined set of rules exists. His roofs should always be roofs.
I´m striving for sense that needs user agency and control, there will be a set of rules/operations but the importance is the content of these operations and not their construction of truth. My roofs could be clerestories, walls, gardens or clouds... whatever the user wants them to be.
I think I understand, but isn't the difference only in the amount of elements and rules to append them?
You seem to be creating a set of questions that mix together to formulate new questions. Once all questions are formulated you will then move on to provide answers to them. Your aim might be to find new questions that will provide you creative paths. But in the end won't you have to apply elements to each answer? A cloud or a roof are just elements that answer your questions.
@brunopostle seems he as defined that most architecture has preset answers to typical questions. He aims to solve those first, which doesn't mean that new and untypical questions can't be answered with new and non standard elements. If a space has a roof or a cloud isn't that part of a dictionary? And if Homemaker is to have an UI for this wouldnt it be possible to say that space A would have a cloud or be a cloud?
What's the real difference in the end?
Hmmm.....you do make a strong case.
Thinking about it, is there any reason not to start that Homemaker thread now? There is a Blender add-on which makes it more accessible, and we're already dissecting the name, next thing we'll be trying for a logo right here on this thread! ;o)
Core discussions related to its use of Topologic can still happen here.
I'll create a new Homemaker add-on thread by posting the README, and I'll dig out some of the other documentation from the code. The 'Homemaker' name for the overall project is fixed as I have it excluded in/from my employment contract.
I believe there is a huge difference. The conceptual grounds are fairly identical, but the goals, processes and outcomes are quite different.
As I see it, and you reaffirm with your view, @brunopostle is asking questions and giving them an answer. That, for me is truth seeking. Science.
I, on the asymptotic curve, am deploying conditions, the spatial and the informational objects are not predefined and in that they are combined within the process, there is no truth to seek, but sense to build.
AFAIK @brunopostle builds a mesh and then homemaker transforms it into an architectural construct according a predefined set of rules that homemaker optimizes so that the maximum set of rules are met.
My paratypes host spatial objects, which are then informed, operated upon and queried to be converted then into construction elements through a variable set of rules.
See the "Kommentare" in the parameters column. They are extracted from the informational objects at the beginning (graphML) and routed till the end BIM component.
I still struggle to understand where the real difference is.
In the end, what I see there is a window system instead of a wall and I'm imagining that it has been created there because of some set of rules. That set of rules could lead to the same window system in homemaker, if the library of objects and rule sets would result in it.
So, if that is true, what you are talking about must be something else that I fail to see.
Is it related to how you get to defining the ruleset?
Your use of Topologic allows you to explore interconnections of spaces, functions, needs and query those to get a list of combinations right?
These combinations then might lead you to create specific answers to them. A library of answers too.
@brunopostle 's proposal implies that the architect (actually he might not be an architect after all :) ) draws interconnected spaces, and define them in a classic way, organizing them as you would in a direct modeling approach. When this is done, you create and apply a library of answers too.
I've seen some of your videos and I see you directly modelling spaces geometry and position and that affects the colors and texts being displayed (sorry for such a basic way of saying it, I imagine this as queries to information and final data generation).
You're not randomly modeling, you know what the effect of your modelling will produce, in that sense, aren't you doing the same as what we should do with Homemaker?
Or is the difference the display of data instead of a direct conversion to final form?
You got it almost right. The main difference is that I´m adding a separate but linked information layer. I got a topological model, same as @brunopostle , but his AFAIK is querying just the topological conditions and relationships (already a huge amount of complexity) but hasn´t added a semantic layer yet.
My model is more focused in the semantic side. I model the spatial entities at will and after add the semantic layer through the topologic dictionaries and then assign the dictionaries to the spaces.
This gives a (several order of magnitude) higher level of complexity at the hands of the designer.
Where (and please correct me if I'm wrong) @bruno just deals with topologic complexity, I work on it (not so strong as you see in my examples) but add several layers of information I can interoperate with and query.
From working with raw space to working with raw informational space...
About the goals. As I said, I see @brunopostle looking for a machine to produce the correct answer to the problem where I'm looking for a system that can harness as much complexity as possible and empower designers to explore any option that makes sense to them.
The Homemaker add-on is deterministic, so it should produce exactly what you expect it to produce without any surprises. The benefit of this is that a 'designer' can iterate different designs quickly and hopefully easily. In this sense it is the complete opposite of the original Homemaker tool which does its own thing, replacing the role of 'designer' entirely. The downside of the add-on is that there is nothing to stop awful architecture, and the downside of the original Homemaker is that you cede all control.
I think that we need something in-between these two extremes, the add-on assumes that you know a lot of architectural domain-knowledge, such as how to sequence rooms, or simply how big things should be. The way this could improve is for the software to give fast and early feedback on the design, I want to make use of the pattern language here, but also give feedback on costings and other practical aspects (and the non-manifold mesh combined with the graph model gives us a great way to get at this kind of stuff). But another way it could develop is for the software to anticipate your intentions, and find possibilities for the geometry, swapping uses of rooms, or even holding a superposition of uses that may only become concrete as the design becomes finalised, or never. One thing I have found from playing with the add-on is that even though assigning uses to spaces is fairly easy, it breaks the flow, requiring detail at a stage when things should be more fluid - and I think this kind of problem is related to the direction @arquitextonica is pursuing.
Completely agree @brunopostle I think our approaches are quite, quite similar and differ mainly on goals and principels, but the framework is prety identic. As you say, you are pursuing a more deterministic procedure, but are hitting all the right buttons. For the purpose of my research, I'm trying to develop a model that fits your processes and mine also, so generalistic and encompassing, to build the theoretic framework.
You are building your model for your process (superb coherently I must add), I'm trying to produce a model that explains the concepts needed and enables users to develope their models.
Hi everyone,
Just in case you do not follow the TopologicBIM twitter account, Topologic on sverchok/Blender has progressed quite a bit. Almost 90% of the functionality of the Dynamo and Grasshopper versions has been ported and some new exclusive functionality is available in this version that does not exist elsewhere. To get you started with Topologic, I have created a YouTube channel specifically for it and so far it has three videos: 1) An introductory video on how to merge two cubes, 2) A video illustrating how to transfer dictionaries, 3) A video on how to create a twisted tower CellComplex. Please find them at: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLomMn11gzPwTtQMZEWMU0zakg1YRdNuif
I am happy to entertain suggestions for new videos that you would find useful.
Apart from that, if you manage to install Topologic for Sverchok on Linux, Windows OS, or MacOS, please share your experience and screenshot with us.
I didn't succeed :( ...
One on how to install it on Windows? xd
I'm following this but "pip install cppyy" ends with lots of warnings and errors.
Those are almost always because you have Visual Studio 2019 or newer somewhere installed. You need to completely uninstall VS 2019 or newer and only install VS 2017. After installation and running it, you can re-install 2019 or newer as you wish.
I think my proposal for FreeCAD BIM WB can help you do manage your Spaces
the concept is simple, I create 3 Sketches, XY, ZY, and ZX, extruded, and use boolean rules.
the result was a low cost (CPU resources), simple, and fast way to manage our 3D.
IMHO this is or should be the Futuro for FreeCAD BIM WB, and with Sverchok can be integrated with Blender.
if you wish more info the original post here: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58731&p=505185#p505185
I am both a practicing architect (albeit, who currently has suspended the practice due to concentration on my design software) I am wondering how many here are actually practicing architecture. (I think @DADA_universe is a practising architect?) I am trying to digest all this from the point of view of actually designing with this kind of technology.
I am of the firm opinion that unless theories of this nature does not tackle the wicked, hazy situations of designing; it can often remain quite esoteric. Is there any link/discussion that talk about human issues that can influence the arrangement of spaces? I have seen far too often, two spouses sitting in front of me in my architectural practice and arguing about various issues each of them have regarding the apartment I happened to design. ... and I am trying my level best to get a grip around their requirements because there would a lot more apartments in that housing complex. So obviously, I have other valid concerns too.
Apartment purchase in many parts of the world is a very costly decision (possibly the costliest) and so the end users happen to look at all this from a very different point of view. And they are obviously right from their pov.
It is not just a simple case of packing together some spaces cleverly and geometrically. One needs a 360 degree point of view; not just in terms of geometry but in many other aspects of human life. Getting all those parameters later into considering is when the proverbial horse has already left the stables.
@Sabufrancis I totally agree. You cannot solve all aspects of design in software. I believe you can solve many aspects and that will allow you to focus on what is important and unique to your human abilities (eg dealing with wicked problems or conflicting human desires). Topologic asks you to think deeply about the geometry, the topology, and the information embedded in your design. It then can reward you with its ability to analyse the design, or to operate on it in logical ways that would be difficult to do otherwise. It doesn’t pretend to be a couples therapist for your clients ?. It can never do that, but it can help you focus on more important tasks and to model and analyse more cleanly and deeply.
When people encounter new technologies or new methods, they usually take one of two positions. They are either rapidly judgmental or they are curious. Apathy or lack of interest is a form of judgment (“I judge this to be of no relevance or interest to me”). I try to be curious so I can learn as much as I can before I pass judgment (not always possible due to lack of time). I worry if I judge too quickly that I will miss something potentially interesting or revolutionary.
Topologic is both simple and complex depending on how you look at it, but most people: 1) find it initially hard to understand, and 2) fail to quickly see its relevance. So I have to ask for their benefit of the doubt and for their patience. It is something that I continuously work on through tutorials, workshops, zoom meetings, forum discussions, tweets, and in-person meetings. But once people understand it and can imagine how it can be used, they find it “amazing”, “elegant”, “powerful”, “revolutionary” (but also sometimes “slow”, “rigid”, “buggy” like all other research software). I made it open source so anyone can improve it if they want and if they can. ?. I can only imagine use case scenarios up to a point. Others can imagine far more than I can.
I hope I am not misunderstood. I am also deep into tech -- up to my ears, in fact. I was talking of how to prioritize the points that shape technology. It is not the strawman argument about couples arguing in front of me when practicing but it is about what about their points that need to be considered in my technology that I would offer. There are a million ways to skin the cat, as they say. I am keen to know what would be the way by which a design evolves in such a manner that the shapers of geometry are not just mathematical algorithms. It is not a complex point.
But it is a complex point. I have yet to see a coherent mapping from a vague desire such as (I want a comfortable cozy corner to read and enjoy the sounds of birds outside my window) to a rigorous geometry that accurately and definitely solves that problem and offers a geometric solution. I am suggesting that we continue to leave that to the best algorithms for solving such problems that we know: humans and to let technology give you as much information as possible and act on the geometry and topology in ways that have the highest possible fidelity to your design intent.
Pardon me, I was talking of the complexity of my point. I meant, it is a simple point to understand. Tackling it would have its own level of complexity. One needs to grapple with the complexity if that is indeed the nature of the beast. As Einstein had once remarked (supposedly): Make things simple. Not simpler.
The technologist needs to decide how much of the complexity one needs to handle. This takes to the old debate between reductionism and holism. For some reason; reductionist approaches -- which basically says, "I will divide and conquer the problem with whatever way I know and let the world decide if the boundaries on which those complexity was cleaved was correct or not. I will shrug my shoulder and say; this is what I can do. Now you decide how to stitch it all up and make use of it"
The culture in the East is more prone to handle the holistic nature of the beast rather than the analytically accessible nature of the beast. There are very interesting approaches this leads to -- each underpinned by the driving philosophy. There are many examples where the solution to a problem was considered too complex but in fact, a very different; holistic approach did a much better job
Sorry I misunderstood. You are right. And I think Topologic, like many other pieces of software that had limited resources and limited time to complete, had to draw a very clear boundary and solve interesting, pragmatic, and useful problems only within that boundary. We couldn't tell our funders we want to solve design holistically, they would have not funded us and would have told us this is not feasible given the amount of money and time they are willing to give us. We also, perhaps due to our limitations, could not think of a simple holistic approach to design that can be solved by five people in three years and £300,000. What we did think of is that the fundamental representation of space (or lack thereof) in BIM systems is woefully deficient and we set out to represent space using Non-manifold topology and imbue it with custom and active information. This is the main core of Topologic. Everything else is icing on the cake.
If you try Topologic, I would love to hear your take on it and perhaps you can point to a way it can be used (or changed) to solve more interesting or larger design problems.
Dear @topologic you have hit the nail in the head... no tool should solve and offer a solution to that desire. It is us, architects (Mr. @Sabufrancis besides my allegedly 50% PhD research I´m an 80% practising architect) who have to propose (a term I prefer to use instead of solve). What I fimrly believe we should abandon is the search for truth and start seeking sense and it is through this mapping between information AND space that we can do on @topologic (and AFAIK no other software had done it before) where we architects gain the necessary agency to achieve this construction of sense.
I am happy to announce that the porting of Topologic nodes to Blender/Sverchok is now complete! 194 nodes! Truly enjoyed this journey and still lots more to do:
1. Interface with @BlenderBIM/ ifcopenshell
2. Improve installation experience
3. Build amazing domain-specific apps
Congrats! And please, please, please... get number 2!!! :)
Look forward to support to installation on FreeCAD :)
Congratulations @topologic
My main wish too!
Perhaps this is worth a news article on OSArch.org? I think there are plenty of great visuals and it can be a great introduction to those new to Topologic. @topologic would you be interested in writing an article?
Sure! We can discuss when we meet
Not sure if anyone has posted this here but I really enjoyed this interview with @topologic . Helped me once again get my head around the topologic concept. "BIM Requires Complexity first, Topologic Does Not!"