Thanks for your reply Lasse.

See images of radial cables in the skp model below.

The design you linked to shows the cables attached not to the columns, but to bowed vertical beams which are attached to the columns. Following your engineers' logic that cables are an inherently efficient means of bracing a structure (although I'm not aware of any suspended structure on this scale which is suited to a moving foundation, i.e. ship or oil platform), it would seem that the material savings allowed by the use of cables are then spent on the extra bowed vertical beams. If I had the choice I would take the material costs from the extra vertical beams and the cables and spend it on rigid connections between the trusses and columns, thereby freeing up almost all the space above the trusses for development.
Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to even begin designing (even a sketch design) when the underlying structure is according to your engineers both a) very well thought through and therefore a coherent structure in which every element is dependant on another, but also b) large elements of the structure can apparently be moved around to suit planning. I understand (in spite of the comprehensive engineer's report) that the whole idea is fairly conceptual, but a moving target is very hard to hit.

@unknownuser said:

"Putting the legs at the corners results in a larger span, that is, more cantilevering, and thus requires a bigger truss which wastes materials. Right now, the largest span is 200', which means the furthest cantilevering is 100'. If spars were at the corners there would be a 400' span and thus 200' cantilevering.

I follow the logic of reducing the span of the trusses, but surely this is at the expense of stability? As I said, I'm no marine engineer, but the same principle applies at sea as on land: the farther apart the legs/supports are the lower the centre of gravity and the more stable the structure. Besides, in the current structure the trusses aren't cantilevered- they're suspended from the columns via the cables. In section the platform is effectively a suspension bridge, but AFAIK suspended structures rely on an extremely stable foundation whereas cantilevered structures are better suited to less stable conditions.

Sorry for banging on about this, I'm just intrigued about the many ways in which this structure strays from standard engineering practice.

@kdsdesign said:

and its amazing to learn that i was drunk when i posted that

A case of wishful thinking, unless you've been raiding your parents' drinks cabinet or New York's licensing authorities have just dramatically dropped the minimum age by 7 years.

Thanks Hebrides.

Unfortunately the more I look at this skp model the more questions I have.

Why aren't the supporting legs/columns at the corners? Not only would that create a much more stable structure, but the trusses would then form a square frame around the perimeter making it far easier to design an efficient layout for any added structures. After all, oil production platforms follow this format and they know more than anybody about living off-shore.

I've never seen guywires used at this scale in above-surface marine structures (other than ships' masts of course). Guywires tend to be used to brace very slender structures which have high compressive strength, but little lateral rigidity. The pillars and trusses in the skp model however are extremely deep/broad in comparison to their length/height so it would seem more logical to provide the bracing in the form of rigid connections at their intersections. I'm no marine engineer, but it doesn't seem at all logical that the trusses aren't structurally connected to the columns other than (presumably) within the flat "raft" base. Why not design it as a single connected structure? If marine engineers did design it they appear to have gone against generally accepted practice in a number of rather inexplicable ways.

Getting back to the conceptual/apolitical side of the contest, this reminds me a little of a project I did with some friends at uni when I was going though a very "conceptual" phase. We proposed an art gallery, communal studios, performance spaces which would be built 4 storeys up, spanning between several buildings effectively roofing a large loading bay, but which could only be accessed via multiple private apartments on the 4th floor to which it was connected. High Bullsh*t, and purely theoretical I know, but the idea was to blur private space, public space and communal space and also to explore the legal boundaries of the relative liberty we are afforded in our own homes (smoking, nudity, building regulations, etc) compared to that allowed in public spaces and buildings.... and no, we did not get naked for the presentation.

Sounds interesting, Lasse (Norsk or Dansk?). I think I might have a go at it. I'm not clear on one thing though- your website explains that any added structures must be built on top of the trusses, but it appears the guywires would penetrate the added structure causing major planning problems. The layout of the guywires (horizontally radial) in the downloaded skp model appear to differ from those of the image on your website (lateral). The guywires in the skp model make it pretty much impossible to build anything on top of the trusses and lateral guywires (as in the image) make it extremely difficult to design anything other than a series of unconnected towers with fairly small footprints. Can you clarify please?

LOL... of course 2 minutes after posting this topic I found a solution. This neat little Windows app lets you resize or move any window by holding down Alt and right-click or left-click respectively. I got my edge back!

(corz.org)

@al hart said:

With products like these we won't need designers.

@unknownuser said:

If you are serious than that is lame to say...at least.

I'm certain Al wasn't being serious, that's what his wink was for.

@thomthom said:

I didn't mean move the window upwards, but grab hold of the top edge when you get the resize cursor and move it downwards.

That doesn't work, for me at least.

haha, give me some credit Thomas! If you try to move the top of the Materials Window up it sticks to the upper edge of your screen and won't go beyond it (although that may be my graphics card settings), so the bottom edge is still off the bottom of the screen. I'm not sure how it happened, whether it was that way when I installed SU7 or I accidentally resized it off my screen. Anyhoo, it's fixed now, thanks.

I couldn't agree more. The SU7 components browser is awful and the lack of a back button is ridiculous.

I've tried everything I can think of (right-click, size, move, minimise, maximise, task manager), I've searched these forums, I've Googled like crazy and I'm stumped by what ought to be the simplest thing to fix. The new "select" portion of the Materials Window is permanently maximised to the bottom of my screen, obscuring the VCB/Measurements Box. I know the VCB is now moveable, but I don't want to move it, I like it exactly where it is. If the XP taskbar is not hidden the bottom edge of the Materials window goes behind it so I can't grab it to resize it. If the XP taskbar is auto-hidden and I try to grab it the taskbar pops up obscuring the window. This is driving me crazy, please somebody put me out of my misery!

Thanks in advance,
Jackson

It was definitely fixed in SU7.

ASGvis's server has been decidedly ropey for as long as I can remember. It always loads slowly for me and at least 2 or 3 times a week it's inaccessable.

The Royal Institute of British Architects has undertaken a lot of excellent research and reading on the subject; search results for "fees" came up with 819 hits. They can be found here. Hit #1 is (as you would expect) of particular relevance regarding the relationship between fees and design quality. It can be found here.

@rbochner said:

hi,

I would like to know what to optimum hardware is to have short render times, in order to create movies such as described above.

thanks

The fastest, most-multi-cored CPU (V-Ray uses all of them) with the most RAM you can afford or rent a render farm.

@gaieus said:

Wearing socks with those panties (in the lack of a better word) or in fact wearing those socks and/or those panties is insult to mankind in itself!

I believe "manties" is the word you're looking for.

For my reply here, see my reply here.

Seems to me the target of this "debate" was, as is so often the case, way off target.

The common not-so-misconception that architects will do work for free is driven not by ignorance on the part of clients, but on anti-competitive unprofessional behaviour within the architecture profession. All too often the (not always, but often) less talented architect practices choose to undercut their competitors, just to get the job and the client (and of course to deny their competitors the same). Here in Sweden there has been a very public case of a huge development/construction firm (with a small in-house architect department) who won an important national competition largely on the basis that their fees were so low that they openly admitted they would actually make a loss on the project. No independant architecture firm could even consider reducing their fees to such levels. The only people who benefit from this sort of behaviour are the property developers, who just sit back and watch the money roll in while the architects work themselves into an early grave hoping that one day all these freebies will pay off and someone will offer them amazing fees for a fantastic project as a big karmic thank you for all their years of voluntary work... as if.

In other words, I'm not as offended by potential clients asking for freebies/discounts as I am by the architects-next-door who will ingratiatingly oblige them, demeaning the entire profession and blighting the urban and rural landscapes with their formulaic "Designed" knock-offs.

Kent,
If you're still reading, sorry this thread went so off-topic, but I don't think I've derailed it any further. Although it obviously wasn't your intent, but you inadvertantly planted the seed of an issue which, especially in these financially challenging times needs to be discussed openly IMO. Although it may not seem that way, I read this whole thread, am familiar with almost all of the contributers and can assure you that there's not one mean-spirited character amongst them, I guess everyone's nerves are just a little raw under the current circumstances.

Yet again Google Adsense proves it can get a laugh out of any subject. George Carlin was right!

Mike, read your own quote and you'll see that the Liberty spokesman didn't say it wasn't offensive to use the term while chatting to friends in the pub, just that it wasn't illegal per se. Very odd that the Times of India quote a spokesman of a human rights organisation defending a convicted racist without reporting the spokeman's name.

I never said anything about banning websites (what is it with forums that everyone likes to put words in others' mouth when the evidence to the contrary is in plain view for all to see?). I'm not sure about the recipes one, but the first one you posted to appears to be a "catch-all" website, i.e. it automatically links to websites with the word "paki" in the title or content rather than actually being run by any organisation. I doubt it can legitimately be held up as representing the Pakistani community.

Seeing as you're so keen to pull up as many random articles and blogs to "support" your argument (anyone could justify just about any behaviour using that strategy... NAMBLA anyone?) here's a dictionary entry for "paki" for you:

NounSingular
Paki
Plural
Pakis

(UK, Canada, offensive, racial slur) A Pakistani, or, more generally and incorrectly used, a person who is perceived to be from South Asian or the Indian Subcontinent origin which is still considered offensive. See usage notes.

AdjectivePaki (not comparable)

Positive
Paki
Comparative
not comparable
Superlative
none (absolute)

Short for Pakistani.
(UK, Canada, pejorative, offensive and racist when spoken by non-Pakistanis) Pakistani, or perceived to be Pakistani.

"The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.

In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word. The word has been turned into a keepsake for the young British Pakistani community that is not acceptable for someone outside the community to say it, including Indians and Bangladeshis.
"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paki

Mind you, everyone knows that dictionaries are only written by dictatorial liberals hell-bent on corrupting society with their craaaazeee political correctness.