The creation of a    hybrid     at    large scale    with    a pair iteration     using     Rhino     .



    010302 – Parametrics in Rhino using Grasshopper

    This is the second video-session reacting to project three of session one for Re-Engaging Para-Metrics. This video will give a broader introduction to parameters using grasshopper and rhino
    Click title for video discussion.

    010301 – Introduction to Parameters in Rhino

    This is the first video-session reacting to project three of session one for Re-Engaging Para-Metrics. This video will quickly introduce parametrics in Rhino with Grasshopper
    Click title for video discussion.

Project-Equation Discussion

7 Responses to 01.03

  1. Peter Edward Atwood says:

    Project-equation 01.03 will consist of the remaining project values. However we should continue to discuss these values even though the discussion will not result in their selection.

    One topic of discussion could be, why were these project values not selected until the last project-equation for this session. Were these values unfamiliar and therefore not of interest to us as investigators or was there a distinct familiar order of investigation which investigators subscribed to.

  2. Nick Buck Nick Buck says:

    Being new to Rhino, I find it very difficult to learn how each battery works. More specifically I have been trying to include custom curves that will meet up. Similar to a tripod. I am pretty sure this is due to my lack of experience with the program but it seems rather difficult to produce a curve without referencing to a self made curve in Rhino. I am trying to build the entire model in the Grasshopper mode so that even the curves can be manipulated. The help window seems to suggest that this is possible but I guess I am not sure.

    I also wanted to comment on the purpose of scale for the course. Being that we are approaching the end of this section, I find that scale does not really matter when creating a project. Since we are not going into extreme detail on the projects. I would like to suggest that in the future we should try something with ‘no-scale’ and challenge us to create a object of our imagination or of one sitting int he room. I think it would be fun to create this object and later try to apply a scale to it. Again, this is my opinion and I always like to add a random factor to my projects.

  3. Zhe Liu says:

    I agree with Nick that Rhino is difficult to learn and find what is what through the user interface. I think not only because we are not familiar with the program, but also not familiar with the model creating process or in other word, the logic of how rhino and grasshopper think. one example is the four small windows in the rhino seems like not relate each other when we create the c-plane.
    I think rhino is a very good program and worth to learn. First, it does not require a high performance computer to deal with the drawing, I am so happy about the speed rhino running on my laptop. second, i really like the capability rhino can do with the complex form. Right now I am new to the rhino and I will keep learning the program in the future.

  4. Zhe Liu says:

    I have some comments about the defamiliarity and familiarity. Overall, the parametric topic for me is not familiar. But we can still relate to some familiar things in each of the project. In the first talk, we have comments about the order to use autocad first and then transfer to revit and then transfer to rhino. I like this process since it gives time to help absorb and digest the new idea. Rhino and grasshopper is totally new program consider defamiliarity but after we practice parametric design in cad and revit already, the parametric environment and concept is consider as familiarity.

  5. Peter Edward Atwood says:


    I really think you goal of building the entire curve in rhino is incredibly interesting. You could think of this as a constraint to your working method, the constraint being only using the rhino grasshopper interface. I wonder how this would change the way you design. If it become too difficult to create a curve using just the grasshopper interface would you abandon the idea of creating a curve and rather stick with a line or would you abandon grasshopper and use a program which you “can” make a curve in. Either way you are still, I think, making a design decision based on a design program like grasshopper. Your observation starts to open the topic, how much do the programs we use for design effect the designs we make.

    For example could you say if I only knew how to make a curve in grasshopper my design would be better. This of course assumes you already know what your design is and you just want to represent it using the software. My question is why would you use a software which is fighting you and makes it harder to represent your ideas.

    Another example could be, grasshopper has a hard time making a curve, but that makes sense to me because a curve is a hard thing to make. I wouldn’t want to be the contractor in charge of building a curve. How can this program help me make my curve more understandable. Or how can the constraints I build into my model or built into this program help improve the entire design and construction process.

    Finally I think your random factor “no scale” is actually in the same topic as grasshopper trying to make a curve. We should be aware of how all these things related to a design effect the design itself, including scale. Would a project be better or worse if you started with a no scale and then tried to assign one. I agree we should include a “no scale” value in the future, perhaps session 02.

  6. Peter Edward Atwood says:


    The idea of familiarity and defamiliarity as they relate to this investigation is I believe exactly how you have described it. You seemed to suggest that you were able to be more familiar with an unfamiliar program like rhino because we eased into it with autoCAD and Revit, which were familiar to you. You also mentioned that Parametric design seemed unfamiliar but as soon as we compared it to some familiar things it became more familiar. In all this you seem to suggest that familiarity and unfamiliarity have something to do with the ease at which you can do something. Something like operate a program. By familiarizing the program it became easier to use. Obviously this is a positive thing.

    Yet what about defamiliarity. Your comment could suggest that defamiliarity is a bad thing. As I have set up in this investigation we all have the ability to defamiliarize as well as familiarize something by comparison. In my understanding of your impression this might be a bad thing. Yet you mentioned that rhino is able to make complex forms, which could be seen as forms that are not familiar due to their complexity. Why is it a benefit that rhino can defamiliarize form.

    Also if you use autoCAD to familiarize an unfamiliar program like rhino wouldn’t you say that this defamiliarizes autoCAD because now its operations can be seen in the light of rhino making them less familiar. Is this a good or bad thing?

    I think I am most interested in the act of defamiliarizing something but I am not exactly sure why.

  7. Zhe Liu says:

    “defamiliarizes autoCAD because now its operations can be seen in the light of rhino making them less familiar. Is this a good or bad thing?“
    This is a interesting question. I think it is a positive thing. Although the parametric function seems makes autocad unfamiliar. In fact it makes me understand the program better than before.
    why is it a benefit that rhino can defamiliarize form?
    My favorite part of rhino is this the function of exploring. Before when I see some building with the crazy form. I always ask questions that how is it be designed, especially what is the design method. after learning rhino, I think the form is the result of exploring. It needs a lot of transformation and tweaking. The process of exploring is the process how the final design comes out. Since the exploring process is defamiliarity. The methods of using rhino is somehow defamiliarity.