The creation of an    image representation   at    small scale    with     multiple iteration     using AutoCAD .



Project-Equation Discussion

22 Responses to 01.01

  1. Nick Nick says:

    I am not completely sure if I fully understand the rules on this but I am going to give it a shot.

    The creations of an image representation at a huge scale with multiple iteration using AutoCAD.

    My reasoning is that AutoCAD would be best suited for a huge scale production. AutoCAD had a relatively simple way to deal with mass geometry that can produce a larger quantity of mass’s than Revit could and still have a reasonable file size. As for the multiple iterations, I think this will help to develop some techniques to producing a huge scale models in the future. I was struggled to decide between a working application file and image representation because I think either would be suitable. Being that things will get complicated fast with a huge scale, I think it would be best to work with an image representation so that we may have more control over the views that will be presented. I welcome any feedback to discuss if this is a reasonable way to go.

  2. peteredwardatwood says:

    The rules are completely arbitrary and up for consideration, which is what we are engaged in right now. Your response is excellent!

    My initial thoughts about project 01.01 was mainly concerned around using autoCAD as well, however it was because I feel it is the “simplest” of the three programs. In other words a good first project program to investigate. Yet I like your thoughts much better. I agree that AutoCAD deals with “simple geometry” and this allows the file size and operational cost on computing power to be greatly minimized. Considering that our investigation is centered around parametric techniques, how does AutoCAD’s “simple geometry” relate to this I wonder?

    I think what I hear you saying is that if we were to use AutoCAD to create a large quantity of mass’s (which you seem to be associating with a huge scale) and then introduce a parameter, the program could still keep up without having to process all the other “heavy” information which programs like Revit put in.

    I really enjoy your thoughts on how many iterations and what type of creation we should make, however before I comment further I want to ask how you would define “multiple iterations” and “image representation”

    Finally I would like to go as far as suggest that we not consider using Revit or Rhino for project 01.01, but this is only a suggestion.

  3. Zhe Liu says:

    what is “iteration” mean and what is the different between “single”, “pair” and “multiple” iteration relate to the project?

  4. peteredwardatwood says:

    Zhe, I moved your comment to the 01.01 project page not because it isn’t a question, rather I really want this question to be a part of the discussion about project 01.01

    To answer your question bluntly and simply, I think that iteration means repeating some process/technique/something and using the result to start the next process/technique/something. It can also mean the singular result of a process/technique/something. This may or may not make sense.

    To answer your question less bluntly I think that determining what “single” “pair” and “multiple” have in relation to the project is very important. Nick already started talking about this by suggesting the multiple iteration could develop techniques that could be used in the future. Here its interesting to think that the repetition of a technique would have the end goal of creating better techniques. However what is the first iteration technique and is the technique used for the iteration different then the goal of the iteration, “some good techniques”?

    Does anyone have a different idea about…
    – iteration?
    – multiple?
    – the other two options?

  5. gabrielabaierle says:

    The creations of an hybrid at small scale with a pair of iterations using _____________. Do we have to use the List 4 values or can we go on a different direction?

  6. Zhe Liu says:

    Thanks Peter, I have a better understanding of the idea of iteration: single iteration means create something from the result of the first process/technique/something; a pair of iterations means find something valuable of first /process/technique/something, and use it to create the final work. Is my understanding correct?
    i like the idea of iteration, it offers some different choices and opportunities for designer and gives some inspiration from every iteration. Very interesting.
    My sentence would be:
    The creation of an image representation at small scale with multiple iterations using Autocad.

  7. peteredwardatwood says:


    I think you description of iteration is excellent although it is not exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my previous response. However this is perfectly fine and actually desirable. Before I make a more specific comment I would like to say YES, your understanding is correct, however I would rather say that your understanding is CRITICAL. I have always been confused how we define correctness or incorrectness and find the issue very boring. I would much rather value the level of critical response, or in other words the familiarity or defamiliarity. (I’m sure I will end up speaking more on this later)

    Now for a real response….
    What I see as so critical about your response is how you have clarified a difference between single iteration and pair of iterations, in relation to actually doing something. I understand that although multiple iterations exist in each, the difference is whether or not the first iteration is found or looked for and determined to be valuable for the production of the second iteration, which would be the “final” iteration. This is a very important and interesting distinction.

    A question I have in response would be, if iteration offers different choices and opportunities for designers does it matter if they are using a single iteration or a pair of iterations? In other words does it matter that they find a valuable iteration to work from or can they just use anything? Why are multiple iterations important in your equation?

  8. peteredwardatwood says:

    Gabriela and all,

    You are welcome to use anything you would like, however here is my clarification on this.

    Because this Investigation is “Re-Engaging Para-Metrics” we are concerned with the idea of something defined. Hence defining a project equation from defined values. Why would it be helpful to not use one of the values defined? If the intention is to critically engage a topic does it not make sense to unify its values so the similarities and differences (familiarity and defamiliarity) become more apparent?

    I will say however that at 11.59pm on 06.21.13 I (as the administrator of this investigation) will choose one value from each list and this will be the project equation for 01.01 which will then be open for reaction projects. The conformance of your project to the project equation is up to you. I will choose the project equation based on the discussion which leads up to it however. Currently AutoCAD and image representation have the most support.

    I might be tempted at this point to explain why page 00.00 states that parametric is not new but actually very old. In greek the word parameter comes from ‘Para’ meaning “besides” and ‘Metron’ meaning “measurement”. Besides in this case is better understood as in comparison with rather then a physical proximity. So the word’s meaning is understood as “in comparison with measurement” or something which is defined in comparison to another defined thing. This greek word was used in a similar way we use characteristic. Of course all this is my own interpretation and anyone with better knowledge of greek can clarify or contradict.

  9. Ari Anderson says:

    I’m going to change mine:

    The creations of a hybrid at SMALL scale with multiple iterations using Rhino.

    I see the small creation of small objects as a good beginning because it can then relate to people. I can use the parametrics of Rhino + Grasshopper to adjust these relationships and create a multiple set of iterations. As the project continues, I will increase in scale and scale back the iterations to a pair of iterations, each branching from what was done previously and moving into other programs such as AutoCAD or Revit.

    As for the hybrid drawings, they allows for me to move in either direction, form a programed measured drawing to an intangible expressive drawing. Each could play an important role in the beginnings of the project. I envision images of people working very well alongside images of various iterations in the object that is made.

  10. Zhe Liu says:

    The understanding of “valuable iteration” is attractive, interesting iteration. The different direction could give me more ideas or even inspirations when I design. I believe there are so many different ways of design and for me, the way of collecting ideas are the most important and difficult. The idea of iteration could help me to do it.
    To think critically, I need to modify my idea of iteration, since we dont know what the result after multiple iterations(because iteration is very open), maybe we need to pick up the best which suit to the design, and then work in it.

  11. peteredwardatwood says:


    Your phrase “the way of collecting ideas are the most important and difficult” is very intriguing. Are you suggesting that there are different ways of collections ideas. What would be an example of one of these “ways”.

    To everyone,
    Before we close this conversation tonight at 11.59pm, I would like to talk a bit more about the actual software applications we are proposing. List 4. So far it seems like we are leaning toward using autoCAD for the first assignment. Why is this, and what does it mean to the other values in list 1-3?

    I think Nick’s first post did a really good job at starting a discussion on this topic and I would like for us to continue it.

  12. gabrielabaierle says:

    Personally, I happen to be more proficient in AutoCAD compared to the other software, this is why I would choose it. However, I am down for whatever the class decides.

  13. Ari Anderson says:

    I’m going to give it a shot:

    The creations of a hybrid at large scale with multiple iterations using Rhino.

    I chose Rhino because I like using the Grasshopper plugin; and I like the use of multiple iterations to explore a range of possibilities; and I want to use a hybrid, because I want to create a working application file which can be used and reused, but I also want to create various images to illustrate the potentials of each iteration.

  14. peteredwardatwood says:

    Considering that this session, 01.00, will contain three projects, 01.01-01.03 and none of the values can be used more then once to create a project equation. Why do you think it would be good to have rhino be part of the first project instead of a later one? Or why is this combination of values a good combination for project 01.01?

    Also Nick, in his previous post mentioned that AutoCAD would be the best program to use for a huge scale because, as I understand his response, it simplifies geometries and makes working with information less taxing on the computing. Is Rhino the best suited for a large scale, and then Revit best suited for a small scale?

    Finally what do you think the importance of image representations along side an application file, how would an image “illustrate the potentials of each iteration” specifically the plurality you suggest when saying potentials. In other words, how can a static image represent more then one thing?

  15. peteredwardatwood says:


    I think I agree with you that starting with something which can relate to people is good. Here it sounds like a small scale thing would be at the scale of a human being, or some kind of scale we feel comfortable with. Perhaps we could even say that a small scale is more familiar then the other scales listed as values. However I still have questions about what software program we should start with. You suggest we start with Rhino + Grasshopper, why is this? Is it the best program to use for creating a hybrid for a small scale with multiple iterations? Or is it simply more familiar of a program.

    If the later, I would assume based on your comment that it is personally more familiar to you. I am less familiar with the program which is why I am hesitant to start with it. Yet a conversation I think is far more interesting concerns universal familiar of software applications. What makes AutoCAD, Revit, or Rhino more familiar or less familiar. Also what is the importance of familiarity. Does it belong at the start or end of a project or somewhere in between?

    So far it seems like we have support for a small scale value and definitely not a single iteration. Yet we are undecided on if its a hybrid or an image and which program to use.

    Here are my questions to help resolve this.

    Should we start with something familiar or unfamiliar?
    Can a software program be universally more familiar?
    At which point in a project is it important to submit just the application file?

  16. Ari Anderson says:

    [Should we start with something familiar or unfamiliar?]

    Making things that are unfamiliar familiar (a), is very different than making familiar things unfamiliar (b). The first (a) is a way of bringing things closer towards understanding which can lead to discussions involving phenomenology and questions of what it means to have an “understanding’ of things.

    The latter (b) is a way of teasing out new potential and previously unknown or unrealized ideas. This seems like it could lead to a discussion involving Postmodernism or Deconstructionism and what it means to create something “new”.

    We should start with something which will allow us to have a discussion.

    [Can a software program be universally more familiar?]

    It can facilitate the movement of things towards familiarity or away from. I believe parametric software defines relationships in a way which engages an order of operations; or instead of static 3dimentional relationships, parametrics allows one to define how things relate without committing to any specific size, distance, shape or other type of dimension.

    I’m sticking with Rhino + Grasshopper to see how I can begin with something familiar and by switching scales and programs move it towards something “new” and unexpected.

  17. Nick Nick says:

    “Can a software program be universally more familiar?”
    I believe the answer to this is yes. AutoCAD is a great software for this. This program is very basic with lines and basic geometry that can link well with drawing with a pen and paper. With that in mind, it could easily act as a gateway into more complex parametric software. I also believe this software to be more widely known for most users and can establish a good baseline for the beginning of this class.

    “Should we start with something familiar or unfamiliar?”
    For me, starting with the familiar is a good way to get the ball running. This way we can get a better understanding of the course. It takes me a little while to fully comprehend the boundaries of the course and the best way for me is to use a techniques I am familiar with.

    “At which point in a project is it important to submit just the application file?”
    It is best to submit an application file when you have such an immense amount of material that you cannot fully appreciate it until you dive in yourself. A great example of this would be Revit. I have extensive knowledge on creating complex Revit families. These families have to contain part numbers, websites, flexible parameters, and a material library. This is a simple example of one family within a project and I don’t think that anything else than a application file will fully inform the user of the project.

    On another notes I would like to suggest that we pair a huge scale with AutoCAD. I believe AutoCAD to be the best tool to use for the scale.

  18. peteredwardatwood says:

    The project equation has been decided.

    The creations of an image representation at small scale with multiple representations using AutoCAD.

    I think almost all of us were interested in an image representation, even thought there was some support for a hybrid. There was various support and discussion on the scale and everyone seemed to think a bit differently about it. The discussion concerning a small scale being more familiar and the best place to start this session was most discussed by the group and although the connection between AutoCAD and a huge scale was well articulated it didn’t seem to be a topic of interest to the entire group. Using multiple iterations was most discussed and talked about and I would agree that the more iterations at the beginning is better. Finally the application to use was the most controversial topic. Both AutoCAD and Rhino has support as well as using none of the values suggested. I think in the end the group was most interested in starting with AutoCAD because of its familiarity and the general comfort with using the program. However with this said I would not agree that in every situation a project should start with the most familiar thing. However here we will do this and hopefully in the future start with something unfamiliar to see how the two sessions compare.

    I will leave the discussion open for anyone else who wants to share an opinion of response to what has already been said.

  19. mikechristenson says:

    I’m late to the discussion but don’t take that as suggesting a lack of interest. My interest is motivated by my (self-assigned) need to teach some basic parametrics this Fall in ARCH 771 — so I’m interested in the discussions and dialogues on the site.

    You said “In the spirit of parametric methodology, or a method which is constrained, only digital communication will be used.” I think I understand your point, but does this rule about communications exclude the possibility that a participant might perform some investigations with physical models or drawings, and then communicate their results digitally?

  20. peteredwardatwood says:

    Mike and all,

    No, it does not exclude any type of investigation. Participants are welcome and encouraged to produce physical models, drawings or anything else they find interesting or relevant. Of course as you have noted these physical investigations much then be filtered into digital communication in some form.

    On a similar note, investigators are not required to only use the values in a project equation for their projects. Although it is encouraged that the values have a major role in the project, it does not exclude other possibilities. For example someone could start a project an sketchup and then move into autoCAD for a project or the other way around. Just one example of course.

    The two points are, communication must be digital and projects will be considered based on a project equation.

  21. Nick Nick says:

    I have been attempting to learn the basics on how Parameters work in AutoCAD. My main software is Revit and I am very familiar how the para metrics work there. The video was very helpful in giving me a base understanding but I am trying to figure out how/if we can apply parameters to 3D objects.

    My attempts have led me to create a box with parameters (similar to the video). From there I attempted to extrude the box but I only seemed to extrude the lines only and creating four surfaces with no bottom or top. I am pretty sure I could just look this up online, but I wanted to see where this may lead in the discussion.

    As a question to Peter, would this post be considered in the range of what you would like to see for the class? I am still trying to get my footing so I can better move along.

  22. peteredwardatwood says:


    From what I am reading in your comment it sounds like your post would be what we are looking for. My recommendation would be to consider what you have done a project, create an image representation of it and post it as a project in reaction to 01.01. You could even simply include the discussion you presented in this comment as the description for your project.

    This will then, as you said, allow you to “see where this may lead in the discussion” since it will give other investigators a chance to engage your representation and respond with other representations and responses.

    The sooner you do this the better for all of us.