Hi everyone,
Someone a while ago (sorry this thread is way too large to go back and find out who, but you know who you are) asked if they can do stacked floor plans that are then trimmed by a faceted outer building envelope. I am happy to report that I experimented with this in the latest Topologic for Sverchok and it works as expected. Below are a few images.
A Perl library for assembling IFC data. There is nothing special here, if everything else was Python, this could be replaced by the IfcOpenShell Python library.
This is all TODO, I need to figure out how to generate IFC entities within blenderbim, so far it looks reasonably easy (though I haven't started yet).
Done, the File::IFC Perl library is now replaced by generating the IFC model entirely with IfcOpenShell and using various bits of the new python api.
Another Perl library that actually generates the IFC geometry, places windows and doors etc.. this is a bit more of a problem as this is about 1500 lines of complicated code.
This is a big job, not least because I want to change a lot of functionality: currently 3D entities such as doors and windows are loaded as DXF files, these need to pulled out of some kind of IFC library. I also intend to turn the style definition inside-out, which will enable a huge range of different buildings.
Done, the Molior Perl library has been ported to python, the style system has been changed and should be a lot more flexible. I'm still loading assets from DXF files, but once there they form an IFC library, so switching to a 100% IFC system would be trivial (once I have some idea what such a thing looks like).
Finally Topologise uses blenderbim to import the IFC into blender.
The add-on is still creating external IFC files and importing them with blenderbim, for now.
The add-on is still doing this, which involves creating the IFC model twice in IfcOpenShell, so fixing this would be nice.
So, basically the old Perl backend is gone and the add-on is now 100% python (with dependencies on topologicPy, Blenderbim and ezdxf). There is still lots to do, I started writing a roadmap in the README.
I like the name it has and it never really derailed. Homemaker is based on Topologic or isn't it?
Homemaker needs it's own thread, definitely but this one has always been a "Talk on Topologic?"
I don't relate with homemaker name though. Home making is a bit different than what I've seen about Homemaker. Homemaker is actually something around automatic architectural generator based on style rules. It doesn't make homes it generates buildings using preset codes. As I understood we would be able to set our own styles and rules for generating buildings in the future, I would think it has something to do with genetic codes for aechitecture. I'd call it "Project Genoma"
@JQL said:
I like the name it has and it never really derailed. Homemaker is based on Topologic or isn't it?
We're talking about the name of this thread. Not the name of a project. We want new visitors to the forum to have a change to understand what the different threads are about.
@JQL said:
I like the name it has and it never really derailed. Homemaker is based on Topologic or isn't it?
We're talking about the name of this thread. Not the name of a project. We want new visitors to the forum to have a change to understand what the different threads are about.
If I look back and what has been discussed in this thread, I can come up with four areas that aim to redefine BIM. Information, Grammars, Topology, and Space. So, perhaps: "Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars"
Kind of spamming the thread again with "my things" but I think the advances have enough to do with the general topic to be somewhat interesting.
It's in spanish, but you can mute it and set it to 2x speed to get to the end... Hope you all find it interesting.
@JQL said:
I like the name it has and it never really derailed. Homemaker is based on Topologic or isn't it?
We're talking about the name of this thread. Not the name of a project. We want new visitors to the forum to have a change to understand what the different threads are about.
You were talking about that, but Brunopostle was talking about his add-on name too:
To clarify what I stated, I was talking about both. Imho, homemaker has a great role in this thread but the thread is not about it, so it shouldn't figure in the name:
I don't think it's fit to have this thread cover topologic and homemaker . Homemaker, in this thread is a very interesting derivative work from topologic but the thread's core is topologic.
There are other derivative works as interesting as Homemaker, that are not being covered by the name of the thread. That isn't, imho, fair to them.
One of them, for me is @arquitextonica work, who now feels like he is spamming the thread while he is definetely not. He is showing topologic features through his very interesting work, as well as @brunopostle is.
I think changing the name of this thread was not needed, though complementing it with a more descriptive text of what topologic is about is ok too and very welcome indeed.
@brunopostle 's work is already worthwhile enough to have his own thread and wiki page, as @Moult suggested, independently from topologic's thread and eventual wiki.
Even so, as Brunopostle's Homemaker add-on is changing names from topologise to homemaker, and as I always thought Homemaker wasn't descriptive or made credit to the full scope of what his work is about, I figured out that I could meddle in this name choosing too.
In the end I meddled in everything. I was only trying to help, but I've got a big mouth. I hope that is clearer and thanks for pointing me that confusion @duncan
@JQL forums are never as good as talking. I think we've all (minus one) done a great job of communicating clearly on this forum. I've been very pleasantly surprised. Posts like yours are classic, you were half replying to me and half replying to an earlier message which I hadn't read so I thought you were only replying to me ... what a mess we made. Nice that we're all relaxed and friendly.
But seriously - yes - names are important and thread names too. That's how new users find out what's going on. I fight for the (new) users. If it's time for a separate thread - just do it! @brunopostle ? I'm always happy to split and merge if that's makes things more useful.
@duncan said:
If it's time for a separate thread - just do it! @brunopostle ? I'm always happy to split and merge if that's makes things more useful.
Thanks, but I think this thread tells a nice little story.
I'll create a new thread for the Homemaker add-on when there is something to release (though it is reasonably easy to install right now, at least on Linux).
Anyone notice the Tron reference?
Nope, do tell, I haven't seen that movie since it came out!
@JQL said:
I like the name it has and it never really derailed. Homemaker is based on Topologic or isn't it?
We're talking about the name of this thread. Not the name of a project. We want new visitors to the forum to have a change to understand what the different threads are about.
You were talking about that, but Brunopostle was talking about his add-on name too:
To clarify what I stated, I was talking about both. Imho, homemaker has a great role in this thread but the thread is not about it, so it shouldn't figure in the name:
I don't think it's fit to have this thread cover topologic and homemaker . Homemaker, in this thread is a very interesting derivative work from topologic but the thread's core is topologic.
There are other derivative works as interesting as Homemaker, that are not being covered by the name of the thread. That isn't, imho, fair to them.
One of them, for me is @arquitextonica work, who now feels like he is spamming the thread while he is definetely not. He is showing topologic features through his very interesting work, as well as @brunopostle is.
I think changing the name of this thread was not needed, though complementing it with a more descriptive text of what topologic is about is ok too and very welcome indeed.
@brunopostle 's work is already worthwhile enough to have his own thread and wiki page, as @Moult suggested, independently from topologic's thread and eventual wiki.
Even so, as Brunopostle's Homemaker add-on is changing names from topologise to homemaker, and as I always thought Homemaker wasn't descriptive or made credit to the full scope of what his work is about, I figured out that I could meddle in this name choosing too.
In the end I meddled in everything. I was only trying to help, but I've got a big mouth. I hope that is clearer and thanks for pointing me that confusion @duncan
@duncan, I largely agree with @JQL on this. The name change feels jarring and the thread was not originally about Homemaker, but the unfolding conversation led Homemaker to evolve in a unique direction. And yes other explorations being had based off the thread will be made to appear relegated. 'Talk on Topologic' is still apt and relevant to the core discussion being had on the thread, if however we're placing premium on discoverability for new forum members, then @topologic 's suggested name change would be more logical, though I'd offer a slight adjustment thus: 'Talk on Topologic: Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars' to retain the historical context which remains extant. Homemaker will have a dedicated thread and probably more random threads as more users get to experiment with it and start their own threads based on what interests them.
@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)
Seems people are not happy with the new name. I agree that Homemaker needs its own thread at a certain point. @duncan let’s change it to @DADA_universe’s suggestion: “Talk on Topologic: Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars”
The grammars part hints at homemaker’s contribution and perhaps can be used in the title of a future thread on homemaker to link the two threads.
@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.
Also, as architects we know that making a true home requires some sort of humane and creative action that shouldn't be confused with the automation of clicking a button and automatically applying a grammar of architectural elements to spatial relations.
Grammar attribution to spatial relations is capable of becoming a great method of automating some actions we must perform, freeing the architect to focus on spatial design and architectural thought. This is not exclusive of home making, it's broader scope is all architectural design, all projects. I understand that starting by homes is good as it's a smaller scale kind of projects. But @brunopostle 's work is or can be developed to be fit, not only for housing but also for every commercial, industrial, cultural applications as well as any other.
If I'd see something called "Homemaker" I would steer me away from it as it's reducing it and pushing it to a side I'm not interested in. In my case I know what it's capable of and what it's all about, so would still use it, of course, but as @duncan says, we are concerned about new users.
Comparing this to the software I mostly use: Sketchup.
Sketchup is a name that steers architects away. It relates to only a part of the project and people miss the fact that is a very robust and solid Software as they feel it's just good for concepts or presentations, or having a bit of fun modeling. It's not. It's a full fledged Architectural software, for concepts, design iteration, documentation, drafting and construction documentation that is even capable of getting in the BIM aspect of AEC. There are other things that don't help: knowing that google owned it, that users with no formation on architecture can use it to create their home designs, looking at the cartoonish design and knowing that the name can be changed to Mockup, Ketchup, Catch up, makes it feel very Unpro, even if it has a Pro version. I still use it because I know what it's capable of, but the name doesn't help much.
@topologic said:
let’s change it to @DADA_universe’s suggestion: “Talk on Topologic: Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars”
Done
I might weigh in on the bold name "Homemaker" after it gets it's own thread ;-)
@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?
Comments
Hi everyone,
Someone a while ago (sorry this thread is way too large to go back and find out who, but you know who you are) asked if they can do stacked floor plans that are then trimmed by a faceted outer building envelope. I am happy to report that I experimented with this in the latest Topologic for Sverchok and it works as expected. Below are a few images.
Another update on the addon (which I'm now calling the Homemaker add-on, because topologise was too similar to @topologic )
[snip list of things previously done]
Done, the File::IFC Perl library is now replaced by generating the IFC model entirely with IfcOpenShell and using various bits of the new python api.
Done, the Molior Perl library has been ported to python, the style system has been changed and should be a lot more flexible. I'm still loading assets from DXF files, but once there they form an IFC library, so switching to a 100% IFC system would be trivial (once I have some idea what such a thing looks like).
The add-on is still doing this, which involves creating the IFC model twice in IfcOpenShell, so fixing this would be nice.
So, basically the old Perl backend is gone and the add-on is now 100% python (with dependencies on topologicPy, Blenderbim and ezdxf). There is still lots to do, I started writing a roadmap in the README.
Finally a pretty picture, using all the styles:
Do you reckon it's ready to add to the AEC Free Software Directory? :)
Maybe one day it will have its own thread on osarch ;)
@topologic could we change the name of this thread to something more descriptive? Do you have a suggestion?
How about “Topologic and Homemaker: Spatial Modelling Tools”
I like the name it has and it never really derailed. Homemaker is based on Topologic or isn't it?
Homemaker needs it's own thread, definitely but this one has always been a "Talk on Topologic?"
I don't relate with homemaker name though. Home making is a bit different than what I've seen about Homemaker. Homemaker is actually something around automatic architectural generator based on style rules. It doesn't make homes it generates buildings using preset codes. As I understood we would be able to set our own styles and rules for generating buildings in the future, I would think it has something to do with genetic codes for aechitecture. I'd call it "Project Genoma"
We're talking about the name of this thread. Not the name of a project. We want new visitors to the forum to have a change to understand what the different threads are about.
If I look back and what has been discussed in this thread, I can come up with four areas that aim to redefine BIM. Information, Grammars, Topology, and Space. So, perhaps: "Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars"
@topologic I've changed it once already - but it's really your thread so you just tell me what you want and I'll do it.
No it is fine, no worries at all. I hadn't realised it was already changed. Thank you.
Kind of spamming the thread again with "my things" but I think the advances have enough to do with the general topic to be somewhat interesting.
It's in spanish, but you can mute it and set it to 2x speed to get to the end... Hope you all find it interesting.
You were talking about that, but Brunopostle was talking about his add-on name too:
To clarify what I stated, I was talking about both. Imho, homemaker has a great role in this thread but the thread is not about it, so it shouldn't figure in the name:
In the end I meddled in everything. I was only trying to help, but I've got a big mouth. I hope that is clearer and thanks for pointing me that confusion @duncan
@JQL forums are never as good as talking. I think we've all (minus one) done a great job of communicating clearly on this forum. I've been very pleasantly surprised. Posts like yours are classic, you were half replying to me and half replying to an earlier message which I hadn't read so I thought you were only replying to me ... what a mess we made. Nice that we're all relaxed and friendly.
But seriously - yes - names are important and thread names too. That's how new users find out what's going on. I fight for the (new) users. If it's time for a separate thread - just do it! @brunopostle ? I'm always happy to split and merge if that's makes things more useful.
Anyone notice the Tron reference?
@duncan I'd upload you a glass of portuguese wine, right now, if I could! I'm afraid of damaging my phone.
Thanks, but I think this thread tells a nice little story.
I'll create a new thread for the Homemaker add-on when there is something to release (though it is reasonably easy to install right now, at least on Linux).
Nope, do tell, I haven't seen that movie since it came out!
@brunopostle
The movie wasn't well received but worth watching just for the graphics and music.
@duncan, I largely agree with @JQL on this. The name change feels jarring and the thread was not originally about Homemaker, but the unfolding conversation led Homemaker to evolve in a unique direction. And yes other explorations being had based off the thread will be made to appear relegated. 'Talk on Topologic' is still apt and relevant to the core discussion being had on the thread, if however we're placing premium on discoverability for new forum members, then @topologic 's suggested name change would be more logical, though I'd offer a slight adjustment thus: 'Talk on Topologic: Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars' to retain the historical context which remains extant. Homemaker will have a dedicated thread and probably more random threads as more users get to experiment with it and start their own threads based on what interests them.
@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)
Seems people are not happy with the new name. I agree that Homemaker needs its own thread at a certain point. @duncan let’s change it to @DADA_universe’s suggestion: “Talk on Topologic: Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars”
The grammars part hints at homemaker’s contribution and perhaps can be used in the title of a future thread on homemaker to link the two threads.
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.
Also, as architects we know that making a true home requires some sort of humane and creative action that shouldn't be confused with the automation of clicking a button and automatically applying a grammar of architectural elements to spatial relations.
Grammar attribution to spatial relations is capable of becoming a great method of automating some actions we must perform, freeing the architect to focus on spatial design and architectural thought. This is not exclusive of home making, it's broader scope is all architectural design, all projects. I understand that starting by homes is good as it's a smaller scale kind of projects. But @brunopostle 's work is or can be developed to be fit, not only for housing but also for every commercial, industrial, cultural applications as well as any other.
If I'd see something called "Homemaker" I would steer me away from it as it's reducing it and pushing it to a side I'm not interested in. In my case I know what it's capable of and what it's all about, so would still use it, of course, but as @duncan says, we are concerned about new users.
Comparing this to the software I mostly use: Sketchup.
Sketchup is a name that steers architects away. It relates to only a part of the project and people miss the fact that is a very robust and solid Software as they feel it's just good for concepts or presentations, or having a bit of fun modeling. It's not. It's a full fledged Architectural software, for concepts, design iteration, documentation, drafting and construction documentation that is even capable of getting in the BIM aspect of AEC. There are other things that don't help: knowing that google owned it, that users with no formation on architecture can use it to create their home designs, looking at the cartoonish design and knowing that the name can be changed to Mockup, Ketchup, Catch up, makes it feel very Unpro, even if it has a Pro version. I still use it because I know what it's capable of, but the name doesn't help much.
Done
I might weigh in on the bold name "Homemaker" after it gets it's own thread ;-)
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?