Keynote presentation at workshop 'Shape grammar implementation: from theory to usable software', Design Computing and Cognition 2010 conference, 11 Jul 2010, Stuttgart
FULL ENJOY Call Girls In Mahipalpur Delhi Contact Us 8377877756
Shape grammar implementations: the last 35 years
1. Shape grammar implementations
The last 35 36 years
Scott C. Chase
Architecture, Design & Media Technology
Aalborg University
Shape grammar implementation: from theory to useable software
Design Computing and Cognition workshop, Stuttgart, 11 July 2010
2. 2
Outline
Overview & issues
Early history
Examples
Categorised by issue
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
3. 3
Today‟s presentations
Li, Chau, Chen, Wang
A prototype system for developing two- and three-dimensional shape grammars
Trescak, Esteva, Rodriguez
Shape grammar interpreter for rectilinear forms
Hoisl, Shea
A 3D spatial grammar interpreter applet
Jowers, Earl
QI – a shape grammar interpreter for curved shapes
Ertelt, Shea
Shape grammar implementation for machining planning
Jowers, McKay
Shape grammar implementation with vision
Correia, Duarte, Leitão
MALAG: a discursive grammar interpreter for the online generation of mass customized housing
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
4. 4
Challenge
We want conceptual design tools that
support designers‟ ways of thinking and
working and enhance creativity, e.g.
offering design alternatives difficult or not
possible without the use of such tools.
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
5. 5
Shape grammars
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
7. 7
Emergence
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
8. Conceptual design tool requirements
DCC 2010 workshop notes
Ease of use Entity identity vs.
Modeling capabilities emergence
Visualization capabilities Entity linkages
Multiplicity Abstract objects
Flexibility Diagram support
Simultaneity History and Design
Environment Space exploration
Semantics (Re)generativity
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years 8
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
9. 9
SG implementation research
Representations & algorithms
geometry, other design attributes, control
User interaction/interface
Specific design problems
Integration into design process
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
10. 10
Issues
Gips 1999
1. Interface
2. Parametric grammars
3. Subshape problem
4. Curved elements
5. Representations
6. Extensions to SG
7. „Proof of concept‟ vs. production software
8. The „big enchilada‟ or „one piece at a time‟
http://www.shapegrammar.org/implement.pdf
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
11. 11
Idealised general SG implementation
Chau et. al (2004)
1. Subshape recognition and emergence
2. Shape recognition under Euclidean transformations
3. Parametric shape rules
4. Shape recognition for parametric grammars
5. 3D shapes
6. Curvilinear basic elements
7. Intuitive user interface
8. Aesthetic measures for ranking & selecting designs
9. Surfaces and solids
10. Unambiguous interpretation of designs to physical
realisation
Chau H H, Chen X, McKay A, de Pennington A, 2004, “Evaluation of a 3D shape grammar implementation”
in Design Computing and Cognition '04: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design
Computing and Cognition Ed J S Gero (Kluwer, Dordrecht) 357-376
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
12. 12
SG system tasks
Gips 1999
1. Generation (design)
2. Parsing (analysis)
3. Inference (grammar construction)
4. CAD program for SG development
(designer‟s aid)
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
13. 13
History of implementations
Early work (1970s & 80s)
Primarily general interpreters
Middle period (1990s & early 2000s)
Broader work includes systems for specific design
problems
Work includes systems that don‟t support emergence
Past decade: broad mix
General interpreters
Specific implementationissues
Specific design problems
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
14. 14
Shape
emerge
Implementations 1
Name
Simple interpreter
Reference
Gips 1975
Tool(s) used
SAIL1
nce
No
2D/3D
2D
Chau et. al 2004 2
3
Shepard-Metzler analysis
Shape grammar interpreter
Gips 1974
Krishnamurti 1982
SAIL1
Conventional
language
No
Yes
2D/3D
2D
Krishnamurti and
4 Shape generation system Giraud 1986 PROLOG2 Yes 2D
5 Queen Anne houses Flemming 1987 PROLOG No 2D
6 Shape grammar system Chase 1989 PROLOG Yes 2D
7 Genesis (CMU) Heisserman 1991 C/CLP(R)3 No 3D
8 GRAIL Krishnamurti 1992 Yes 2D
9 Grammatica Carlson 1993 No
10 Stouffs 1994 Yes 2D/3D
11 Genesis (Boeing) Heisserman 1994 C++/CLP(R)3 No 2D/3D
12 GEdit5 Tapia 1996 LISP4 Yes 2D
13 Shape grammar editor Shelden 1996 AutoLISP Yes 2D
Implementation of basic
14 grammar Simondetti 1997 AutoLISP No 3D
Piazzalunga and
15 Shape grammar interpreter Fitzhorn 1998 ACIS Scheme No 3D
16 SG-Clips Chien et al 1998 CLIPS No 2D/3D
Java/Open
17 3D Shaper Wang 1998 Inventor No 3D
18 Coffee maker grammar6 Michalek 1998 Java No 2D/3D
19 MEMS grammar Agarwal et al 2000 LISP 2D
20 Shaper 2D7 McGill 2001 Java No 2D
U13 shape grammar
21 implementation Chau 2002 Perl Yes 3D
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
15. 15
Shephard-Metzler analysis
Gips 1974
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
16. 16
Simple interpreter
Gips 1975
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
17. 17
SGI
Krishnamurti 1982
1. Who has referenced
Krishnamurti‟s 1982 report in
their papers?
2. Who has actually seen the
report?
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
18. 18
SGI
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
19. SG interpreter Chase S C, 1989, "Shapes and Shape Grammars:
From Mathematical Model to Computer
Implementation" Environment and Planning B:
Chase 1987 Planning and Design 16 215-242
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
20. 20
Interface/Interaction
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
21. Grammar use & interaction
Chase 2002
Design evaluation
Grammar evaluation
Grammar
transformation
Chase S C, 2002, "A model for user interaction in grammar-based design systems"
Automation in Construction 11 161-172
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
22. 22
Grammar interaction
Chase 1987 & 2002
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
23. 23
GEdit
Tapia 1996
Tapia M, 1999, "A visual
implementation of a shape
grammar system"
Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design
26 59-73
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
24. 24
3D Shaper
Wang 1998
Wang Y, Duarte J P, 2002, "Automatic generation and fabrication of designs" Automation in Construction 11 291-302
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
25. 25
Shaper 2D
McGill 2001
McGill M C, 2002, "Shaper2D: Visual Software for Learning Shape Grammars", in Design e-ducation: Connecting
the Real and the Virtual, Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural
Design in Europe Eds K Koszewski, S Wrona (eCAADe, Warsaw) pp 148-151
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
26. 26
Designing With Vision
http://design.open.ac.uk/DV
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
27. 27
SG & Tangible Augmented Reality
Chen et al. 2009
Chen I R, Wang X, Wang W 2009, "Bridging Shape Grammar and Tangible Augmented Reality into
Collaborative Design Learning" in Proceedings of the 2009 13th International Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work in Design (IEEE) 468-473
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
28. 28
Extensions
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
29. 29
Yingzao fashi grammar
Li 2002
Non-geometric
attributes
Li A I-K, 2002, "A prototype interactive simulated shape grammar", in Design e-ducation: Connecting the Real and
the Virtual, Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe
Eds K Koszewski, S Wrona (eCAADe, Warsaw) pp 314-317
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
30. QI (curves) Jowers I, 2006, Computation with curved shapes:
Jowers 2006 Towards freeform shape generation in design, PhD
thesis, The Open University
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
31. 31
Parametric SG interpreter
Krishnamurti 2010
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
32. 32
Graph grammars
Schmidt (from PhD 1995)
Campbell
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
33. 33
GraphSynth
Campbell 2010
http://www.graphsynth.com
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
34. 34
Integration with design &
production processes
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
35. 35
Design Synthesis & Shape Generation
McKay et al. 2007-08 http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/dssg
… we anticipate three intertwined cycles
Communication
between
the
two The Shape
The
Synthesis
designer
System
designing
generating
shapes
shapes
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
36. 36
Design Synthesis & Shape Generation
McKay et al. 2007-08
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
37. 37
Design Synthesis & Shape Generation
McKay et al. 2007-08
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
38. 38
Industrial strength interpreters
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
39. 39
Genesis-PhD
Heisserman 1991
Heisserman J, 1994, "Generative Geometric Design" IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 14 37-45
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
40. 40
Genesis-Boeing
Heisserman since 1991
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
41. 41
EifForm
Shea from 1997
Dome
Canopy/landscape
Planar truss grammar
Shea K, 2002, "Creating Synthesis Partners" Architectural Design 72 42-45
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
42. 42
SG interpreter
patents
McCormick & Cagan 2006/9
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7050051.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7502511.html
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
43. 43
Specific design applications
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
44. 44
Specific design applications
Product development
Coffeemaker (Agarwal & Cagan, 1998)
Dove (Chau, 2002)
Harley Davidson (Pugliese & Cagan, 2002)
Buick (McCormack et al., 2004)
Coca-Cola (Chen, 2005)
General shampoo bottle grammar (Chen 2005)
Architecture
MALAG (Duarte 2005)
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
45. 45
Coffee maker grammar
Agarwal et al 1999
Agarwal M, Cagan J, 1998, "A Blend of Different Tastes: The Language of Coffee Makers" Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 25 205-226
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
46. 46
MALAG
Duarte 2005
Duarte J P, 2005, "A discursive grammar for customizing mass housing: the case of Siza's houses at Malagueira"
Automation in Construction 14 265-275
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
47. SGMP
Ertelt & Shea 2009
Ertelt C, Shea K, 2009 "Application of shape grammars to planning for CNC machining", in Proceedings of the
ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
48. 48
Recent general interpreters
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
49. 49
3D interpreter
Chau 2002
Chau H H, Chen X, McKay A, de Pennington A, 2004, “Evaluation of a 3D shape grammar implementation”
in Design Computing and Cognition '04: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design
Computing and Cognition Ed J S Gero (Kluwer, Dordrecht) 357-376
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
50. 50
SG development system
Li et al. 2010
Li, Andrew I-K, Chau H H, Chen L, Wang Y, 2009, "A Prototype System for developing two- and Three-
Dimensional Shape Grammars", in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided
Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA, Yunlin, Taiwan) 717-726
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
51. SGI (2)
Trescak et al. 2009
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sginterpreter
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
52. 52
Interactive 3D Spatial Grammar System
Hoisl & Shea 2010
http://sourceforge.net/projects/spapper
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
53. 53
Shape Designer (v2)
Wong et al. 2004-5
Wong W-K, Wan-Ying Wang W-Y, Bo-Yu Chen B-Y, Sheng-Kai Yin S-K, 2005, "Designing 2D and 3D Shape
Grammars with Logic Programming" in the 10th Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Taiwan
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
54. 54
In conclusion…
We still have a long way to go to make an impact on
industry methods using grammar based approaches
Areas with a lot of activity; maturity?
Representations
Including extensions, e.g. curves, parametrics, non-geometric
attributes
Interfaces
Promising areas
New methods of interaction
Integration w/design & production processes
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
55. 55
Demo time!
Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years
Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
Editor's Notes
20 minutes available for talkStuttgart was the place I landed when I first visited Europe almost exactly 35 years ago!
All possible subshapes of S that can be produced by transformations of A.A: 4 lines; S: 8 lines22 subshapes shown here, none of which can be found if using non-decomposable representation30 segments needed in that case
Conceptual Design Tool RequirementsNotes for the DCC-2010 Workshop:CONCEPTUAL COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN TOOLS -bridging the gap between abstract requirements and concrete implementation strategiesBy Volker Mueller and IvankaIordanova, Workshop Co-ChairsEase of use. Considering the concept of affordance the relationship to ease of use may be obvious. A high level of affordance in a tool means that those “afforded” aspects of the tool are obvious to the tool’s users, and with increasing levels of digital tool literacy more aspects of the tool may offer themselves to users. When examining popular conceptual design tools and interviewing designers, one very important factor for conceptual tool selection is how transparent (i.e. invisible) the tool’s use is to the design process.Modeling capabilities. Given sufficient ease of use, designers will gravitate towards tools they know will support generation of the design artifacts that will express their design intent. Designers that are “blob-oriented” will trade-off a more limited tool’s ease of use for the modeling capabilities they must have to express their designs and will use more complex modeling tools. From an abstract perspective, specific modeling capabilities are prerequisites to representational multiplicity and representational flexibility.Visualization capabilities. Given sufficient ease of use and modeling capabilities, the general assertion is that designers will gravitate towards tools they know will let them show their designs in the light and visual expression (atmosphere/ambiente) that align best with the state of their design (idea sketch versus elaborately developed detail design) or highlight the experiential notion they want associated with their designsMultiplicity. Multiplicity means support of many designers and many workflows with various workflows for each designer. It affords method and tool selection based on the design problem. Necessarily it supports multiplicity of opinions in a community for knowledge exchange (DCC 2008 workshop).Flexibility. Flexibility is seen as expansion of representational flexibility and including diagram support, as well as support of changing interface modes, for example 2D, 3D, sketching, haptic devices, and true 3D devices. It also means flexibility in the choice of representational modes, including mathematical representation of geometry. It strongly corresponds to multiplicity by supporting changes in workflows. Extensibility can be considered a requirement, as well (DCC 2008 workshop; also “representational flexibility” in Berente et al. 2008.)Simultaneity Simultaneity includes synchronization and aspects of temporal and spatial traceability. It allows for concurrent models, of course with semantic coherence; pursuit of simultaneous, parallel paths of design; and side-by-side investigations, for example ofparameter set history, relationships, and solutions or solution spaces (DCC 2008workshop).Environment.Environment is meant as providing full context for the design object and itsfunctioning and use. For example climate,topography, and urban context (DCC 2008workshop).SemanticsThe capability to express semantic information while providing semantic coherenceacross the design domain (Berente et al. 2008).Entity identity as consistent and non-redundant data objects with multiple,unambiguously linked representations.Entity identity vs. emergence.Unique objects with multiple presentations vs. emergence -possibility to change thesemantics, etc. of a representation in order to let it play a different role in the object ofdesign.Entity linkagesLinkages between entities including aspects of both temporal and spatial traceabilitywhich require linkages to trace. (DCC 2008 workshop).Abstract objects.Representation of abstract objects and phenomena, like ideas, culture, experience,notions, associations, and other nonbuilding information (DCC 2008 workshop).Diagram support.Support of diagramming and diagrams (DCC 2008 workshop).History and Design Space exploration. History is an additional criterion, perpendicular to simultaneity and large part oftemporal traceability. Cp. “synchronization” and “temporal traceability” in Berente etal. 2008. Design Space exploration includes possibility to browse and learn fromprevious designs or other objects. (DCC 2008 workshop.)(Re)generativity.Regenerativity is seen as capability to reconstruct model data. It highlights the need fordesigners to recreate complicated design geometries in order to effectively understandaspects of the design – mere inspection of geometry across multiple representations andthe related documentation is sometimes not enough to find inconsistencies and errors.In such situations, designers need to recreate the geometry to fully learn about it(Berente et al. 2008).References:BERENTE, N., SRINIVASAN, N., LYYTINEN, L., YOO, Y., 2008. Design Principles For IT In DoublyDistributed Design Network (innovation.temple.edu/ICIS%2008%20design%20principles.pdf)PENG, W. AND GERO, J. S., 2006. Concept formation in a design optimization tool. In: VANLEEUWEN, J. P. AND TIMMERMANS, H. J. P., eds. Innovations in design & decision support systems inarchitecture and urban planning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. pp. 293-308.IORDANOVA, I., 2008, Design Thinking and the Medium, presentation at the DCC-2008 DesignThinking Workshop.
Note that the definition of shape grammar has traditionally implied a maximal element representation that supports emergence.Over the decades, the term has been applied to unrelated work in computer graphics/computational geometry, as well as design grammars that use non maximal element representations (including many mentioned here).Which is why I prefer the term ‘design grammars’.
“Computer Implementation of Shape Grammars”James Gips, 1999, invited paper, Workshop on Shape Computation (MIT)http://www.shapegrammar.org/implement.pdfInterfaceParametric grammarsSurprises & the subshape problemCurves, curved surfaces, curved objectsUnderlying representationsExtensions to shape grammars (colours, weights, sortal grammars)Difference between proof-of-concept and production software
EVALUATION OF A 3D SHAPE GRAMMAR IMPLEMENTATIONHAU HING CHAU, XIAOJUAN CHEN, ALISON McKAY, ALAN de PENNINGTONDCC 2004The following list is an attempt to characterise an idealised general shape grammar implementation in the context of supporting the geometric design of consumer products: Using maximal representation, thus enabling subshape recognition and shape emergence. Enabling automatic shape recognition under Euclidean transformations. Allowing parametric shape rules. Enabling automatic shape recognition for parametric shape grammars. Allowing three dimensional shapes. Allowing curvilinear basic elements. Incorporating an intuitive user interface. Providing aesthetic measures for ranking designs for automated selection. Supporting surfaces and solids. Providing unambiguous interpretation of resulting designs to their physical realisation.
“Computer Implementation of Shape Grammars”James Gips, 1999, invited paper, Workshop on Shape Computation (MIT)http://www.shapegrammar.org/implement.pdfGeneration: most SG implementations focus on thisParsing: very difficult problem: I’m not aware of any implementations that do thisInference: even more difficult, although I suspect that some of the research is/could be aimed at identifying features that could be used to build grammars (Stephan Rudolph?)Implementations are now starting to provide environments for SG development, e.g. with built in drawing editors or links w/CAD software, e.g. AutoCAD
Broad generalisations: there are lots of exceptions, and I’ve likely omitted work (by intent or ignorance). Please save your rotten tomatoes: I will be available for tarring and feathering after the workshop.1987/9: Chase1996: Tapia GediteifForm: SheaMove from focus onAlgorithmsUser interaction/interfaceTypes of geometric elementsSpecific design problemsInterfaces (again)Integration into design process
Shown in Gips 1999 report from MIT workshop, updated here in DCC ‘04 paperEVALUATION OF A 3D SHAPE GRAMMAR IMPLEMENTATIONHAU HING CHAU, XIAOJUAN CHEN, ALISON McKAY, ALAN de PENNINGTONDCC 20041 Stanford Artificial Intelligence Language2 SeeLog developed at EdCAAD3 IBM CLP(R) compiler4 Macintosh Common LISP5 http://www.shapegrammar.org6 http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/CDL/7 http://www.architecture.mit.edu/~miri/shape2d/
SGI was implemented in Fortran (yes!) on a VAX 750(?780) using a terminal of the VT100 family with light pen input and Tectronix 4027 graphics output. I had to write the device drivers for the graphical display on the VT100, the light pen input and the Tectronix output. It required less than 1/4 mb for code and about 0.2 mb for storage. When it was done George (Stiny of course) asked me to test out some pathological examples, Naturally. And George said words to the effect "It works" That's the reward I got for 16 months work or thereabouts! Anyways, the hut I worked, the computer I worked on all got destroyed by fire and my shape grammar interpreter with it! I particular like my last sentence on page 75 - I think it is still relevant today. Just to learn Prolog, I reimplemented SGI in C-Prolog with a graphical prolog toolkit on a VAX 780 on VT family terminal. We didn't have a windowing system then (Rob Pike hadn't written his paper then I don't think). The difference between the second and first SGI was that I used homogeneous coordinates here. Made arithmetic easier. No George, but I played his role and tested it against pathological examples. Again it worked! I think a shape grammar interpreter is always a good project by which to learn a new programming language.I am atttaching so that you have the only other record of the original SGI interpreter manuscript. This is the technical report that was referenced on the back pages of E&P B for ever so many years. Excuse the smudgy figures but that is the glue on the backside of the original plot output and it dates back to 1982!
Glue marks and all!
Implementation in PrologIndependent of other work (Giraud & Earl)Looked at Krishnamurti’s representations/algorithmsReinvented interval algebra for my project (Allen 1983, which I discovered a few years after my Master’s thesis!)Still works in an old Mac interpreter! (ask for demos later!)
Not just about interface (presentation/selection) but also about classifying restrictionsRange of scales for patternsRestricted field/areaTypes of transformationsCompositions of integer translations multiples of 90° rotations, reflections along grid lines, integer proportional scalingsAfter presenting choiceTerminate the process and either accept or reject the resulting designLet the system generate a design n levels down the treeResize or remove the boundaries of the area of interestRestrict the area of rule application
Nice example of 3D basic grammars, with extension to fabrication, but lacking in decent interfaceRequired numerical input, running three programs (generator + viewers for rule & result)I got so frustrated trying to visualise rules using this I went ahead and got the workshop to make a set of blocks for me
MSc project @MIT; often overlooked as simple basic grammars, but a very nice interface; good pedagogical tool
Bridging Shape Grammar and Tangible Augmented Reality into CollaborativeDesign LearningIrene Rui Chen1, Xiangyu Wang2, Wei Wang31,2,3 Faculty ofArchitecture, Design and Planning, The University ofSydney, Australiarche0750@usyd.edu.auThis paper combines Tangible Augmented Realityand shape grammar into collaborative design learningto bridge the gaps such as the difficulties of imagingthe spatial form in a complex content and the obstacleof communication during the collaborative design.This work has been successful in mapping out a spaceof technical possibilities and providing a possiblesystem setup to pursue the innovative idea. It not onlydescribes the latent trends and assumptions that mightbe used to motivate and guide the design incooperative work, but also makes links with existingresearch in cognitive science and education.
Descriptions, possibly the first application since Stiny’s original paper on the description of designs
I have been working on parametric shape grammars. I enclose a swf file of an interpreter for Queen Anne houses which was also used in another application that attempted to guesstimate the interior of a building from its external features and an assumption about its style in this case the Queen Anne House. The rules are soft-coded - this is a true parametric shape grammar interpreter which generates the entire design space in which each node is mouseable. You will have to wait for the papers on parametric shape grammars - I am still editing those - hopefully they will appear in E&P B soon.
FLW Prairie houses
DSSG w/U. Strathclyde (Arch), U. Leeds (Mech E) and Open University (Faculty of Technology)Next generation of CAD systemDSSG video 3:21
http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/enginuity/issue11/article6.htmlFor some time now architects and engineers have used computer programs to model complex geometry and test the structural stability of their designs. Now, a computer program has been developed to actually generate novel forms with a structural integrity. The program, known as eifForm, developed by Kristina Shea, Lecturer in Engineering Design and a co-director of the Engineering Design Centre, uses inputs related to engineering and spatial performance, cost, and fabrication, to generate a number of innovative alternatives for structural forms.The first full-scale prototype, a canopy/landscape installation which was designed using this programme, has recently been built in the courtyard of the Academie van Bouwkunst in Amsterdam. "I believe this is the first architectural structure built where both the form and related structure were generated by a computer via design parameters and conditions rather than explicitly describing geometry," comments Dr Shea. "The programme generates new structural forms that intelligently respond to given design conditions, e.g. courtyard dimensions and buildable area (avoid the tree!), required heights for flow of people through the structure, and maximum strut length, using a combination of structural analysis and optimisation. It is very exciting to build one of the generated designs and be able to walk through it, as the resultant structures are often very different to those that have conventionally been thought possible. However, they offer new possibilities in difficult structural design situations or just creating interesting spaces." The built design has generated much interest and discussion in the architectural and structural engineering community about the place in design practice for these emerging tools.The team, which supervised the design and construction, also included Neil Leach, (University of Bath); SpelaVidecnik, 2001 Corus/BD Architect of the Year, and Jeroen van Mechelen of the Academie. The design was constructed by students of the Academie, Dessau University and the University of Bath.The project was sponsored by Rodeca Systems.
They applied for it in 2006?
Consumer product, also looked at costsOthers such as Buick, Harley-Davidson, cross-over vehicles
Krishnamurti’s quote about SG being a good way to learn programming (language) Designing 2D and 3D Shape Grammars with Logic Programming Wing-Kwong Wong1, Wan-Ying Wang1, Bo-Yu Chen2, Sheng-Kai Yin2National Yunlin University of Science & Technology Computer Science & information Engineering1, Graduate School of Engineering Science & Technology2, Yunlin, Taiwan E-mail: {wongwk, g9217701, g9217704, g9310811}@yuntech.edu.tw