Shot in 1962, this video of Ivan Sutherland’s Sketchpad is almost 50 years old. It shows Sutherland (just 25 year old) demoing his PhD project, a project that wins him the Turner prize (the Nobel prize of computer science). The program is running on the TX-2 – the last computer in America ‘to have its own roof’ (see the TX2 instruction manuals). There are a number of remarkable things about sketchpad:
It is the first use of a Graphical User Interface and the first CAD program. Prior to Sketchpad computers were just switches, lights and punch cards.
It is the first use of Object Oriented code. This is a coding paradigm which forms the basis of many modern programming languages.
It is an early example of a program not running as a batch. In batch mode there is no interaction, you put in the inputs and it would give you the outputs, in 1962, being able to interact in real time with the computer is quite remarkable.
For me the most amazing part is the way Sutherland constrains the lines. I thought seeing this done recently in Digital Project (2009, $30,0000 per licence) was cool, but to see Sutherland select a series of lines on different angles and morph them until they are orthogonal is pretty mind blowing. Using todays computer it would still be non-trivial to get the lines to morph into the right place, much less do it in real time on a computer that requires its own room. This feature makes Sketchpad not only the first CAD program, but also the first parametric CAD program. I also think the way objects can be referenced into the drawing is cleaver, and even Digital Project struggles to make instances of object like Sketchpad does.
A-periodic tiles are sets of 3-8 tiles that are specially shaped so that no matter what way they are joined they produce a pattern that never repeats. It seems counterintuitive to have a small set of regular shapes that can only make irregular shapes when joined. There is probably a mathematical proof for this but I have been trying to force a pattern, and disprove the theory, for long enough today to admit defeat. These shapes provide the potential in architecture is to create irregular structures from regular members; a building like the Watercube could be developed without needing to custom manufacture every joint and member.
The facade of Federation Square in Melbourne is made from pinwheel tiling. Just five regular shapes make the irregular pattern on the building.
Pinwheel tiling on the left (Source: Wikipedia), the same shapes are used in Federation Square, shown on the right (Source: Wolfram).
Marc Fornes’ creations use three-dimensional aperiodic tiling. While they look chaotic and irregular, if you look at his CNC cutting templates they are comprised from regular shapes. I am not sure of the exact tiling he uses but a basic version is the Danzer tiles.
The regular shapes cut out on the left, make the irregualr form on the right using 3d a-periodic tiling. Source: The Very Many
Graphemes is a spring based design tool developed by Sawapan. The interface – like the program – is unconventional, playful and esoteric. Steve Jobs would have a fit seeing something so non-standard running on an Apple computer, thankfully it only runs on Windows. Despite its unconventional nature, it is quite easy to grasp with a wee bit of playing, and judging by the videos you too can become a Graphemes ninja.
Essentially Graphemes allows the manipulation of a spring based topology that seeks equilibrium in real time. Analysis graphs can also be overlaid – showing bending moments and stress in the structure. Designing a spring based structure is probably of little utility (unless you are designing a space station) but what Graphemes hints at is a future where the design/analysis cycle has been compressed into a just a design cycle. This allows the parametric model to have a dynamic topology and embedded logic. An unconventional design paradigm wrapped in an equally unconventional interface.
Graphemes is free to download from the Sawapan website (click on Graphemes to the left).
Caliper Studio’s Genetic Staircase translates obscure computer code into an accessible metaphor. The literal correlation between a genome and the metal woven between the coiled stairs, produces an easy to understand diagram of a genetic algorithm. It is not the first time a genetic algorithm has been used to design (see my past post on Archikludge) but for many people this will be the first time they understand what a genetic algorithm does. As a communication device the Genetic Staircase is exceptional but as a staircase I still wonder if the genetic algorithm has been successful.
The program for the Genetic Staircase was a Rhino script. The script generates a population of individual staircases, each one with the diagonal members in different places. These individuals are then evaluated in an external structural analysis program (CADRE lite). The most successful designs produce offspring by splicing their diagonal members together using a single crossover point (Video of the crossover process). As an aside I think this is a technically limited method since Rhino script is slow and the structural analysis program had no scripting interface – both of these factors greatly limit the potential of the program to rapidly iterate between options.
The actual stairs are manually defined using a parametric model, as are the main runners and the handrails. It is only the criss-cross of diagonal members under the stairs that have been created by the genetic algorithm.The problem is so well defined that the solution found by the genetic algorithm could have been anticipated beforehand; it was always going to be random diagonal members running under the stairs. The genetic algorithm therefore is not operating as a discovery tool but more as an optimisation tool. But what is it optimising? The staircase is not cheap, lightweight or easy to construct. Presumably the algorithm has some variables that balance the cost of the staircase with the visual weight and structural stability. Correlating such variables in my experience is problematic since they are all in different units – creating a formula to balance structural stability against cost gives a false sense of authority to the process.
It is here that the Genetic Staircase is unsuccessful: it is great at explaining how a genetic algorithm works, but it does not demonstrate why the genetic algorithm could be better than the normative design methods. Then again I could have this all wrong and the genetic algorithm may just be there as an advertising device. If it is, Caliper Studio have done a wonderful job capturing the attention of non-geeks. A bold and exciting first step by Caliper Studio.
rss feed
