Virtual Environments. Module 2.

Nina Novikova

643695

digitalisation

It was quite hard to follow the process of digitalisation of my model as a whole. The entire concept of it is linked to repetitive processes, multiple systems maintaining themselves to create something larger as well as more complex. The only way the three-dimensional shape is formed is by the gradual layering of two-dimentional shapes, and then repetition of such in order to create the visual effect of depth, space and volume. Thus my choice of going back to one of my emerging forms I've chosen as an immediate element of my future lantern, and digitalise that rather than mapping out the three-dimentional outline I wish to form with said elements connected.

Digitalisation: cell wall

Top view, separated into different layers – the base, the top, identical but mirrored and rotated, and the reinforcements which hold one above the other and support the most fragile areas, where the space between the openings of the cells is at the largest.

A rendered view to have a digital example of what sort of shadows we're dealing with within the

fragment.

Elevation, looking at how the weight load is transferred – at least in the paper model. It is not guaranteed that this method would prove sufficient to support the physical prototype.

Digitalisation. 'Cell wall' prototype.

Perspective view. Weight carried from the more fragile upper parts to the thicker lower ones.

Work in process – first, an overall shape of the wall was created using the intitial recipe for forming the cells.

Then, it was filled with smaller elements following the same recipe

Every corner was then filleted, for the softer curves and edges give the work a more fragile, delicate aesthetic. This may, however, make the walls harder to connect in the future.

Referencing the clay and paper models, the average distance between the centre of a wall shape and the edge is equivalent to 5-6 cm.

The average diameter of a 'cell' is 2 cm, but I ended up trialling them on a smaller scale to begin with.

Digitalisation. 'Cell wall' prototype.

The first alternative to the fragment later on to be used to create the three-dimentional shape

'Cell wall' prototype, the making of

I decided that this scale of the openings was too small – without the layering, it looked like very unever honeycomb. Because there was a lot of openings , there was also more positive paper space inbetween, which would stop more light getting through and reaching the other parts of the lantern.

An example of shadow play inside the piece itself. The exterior level stands out quite a lot, while light passes freely through the layer closest to the source – here it looks almost transparent.

The thick offset also made the shape look less delicate and light, visually framing it, which is not a design feature I'd like to achieve. Thinking back to the precedent image of the bone from the last module, the frame should only be thick enough for the 'walls' to be able to connect in a manner which is stable.

'Cell wall' prototype 2

Larger openings for the light to travel through – will create a more significant effect.

More fragile – requires thoughtful position of supports between layers

Larger form easier to cut and connect

The scale is also increased – almost twice the size of the original. This would make it more suitable for serving the purpose of an 'outer wall' of a future shape, for my chosen design holds one shape within another.

Shadows

Shadow cast by prototype 1 – clear and focused closer to light source, fading out at a direct angle or farther away from the light

Shadow cast by prototype 2 – really unclear and blurred directly in front of a light source; works better from afar, where it is soft and translucid.

Interior and Exterior shapes – digitalisation and production, an attempt of

And this is where everything goes wrong for the reasons reflected upon further on

The final alternatives to the proposed design should have been different ways to connect the inner and outer space, the aesthetic it would create and how the light would travel through multiple layers of a completed shape while it is being held.

Reflection. Issues which at this point hinder further production of a prototype I would be satisfied with

- The shape of the aforementioned cell walls of my prototype varies from one piece to the other. This was acceptable for Module 1 trials, but now when the shape is supposed to be finalised everything just falls apart if the 'joints' between the 'walls' are loose and do not transfer weight properly. Literally. What was planned to be the exterior structure collapses on itself and does not stay up, let alone have a change of supporting the inner part in any way.

-I feel as I should step away from the idea of building up a shape from fragments as the final form of my lantern. What I should have done instead was to digitalise the overall form I wish to achieve, how each side of it will connect and how it would interact with the hand and the body; and only then divide each wall into a networl of cell-like openings. Instead, I have neglected the overall structure while focuing on the detail only. A thorough reworking of the base form is required in order to create a successful prototype which could then be used to test both the functionality and the effects created by the design property.

- There are nowhere near enough trials regarding light – the density and position of light, the spacing between each layer and the light source as well as the space between layers and the amount of light it allowes to travel through. More of those trials will be required in order to figure out how to achieve a more clear and defined shadow – the trials performed with a general up-close light source as opposed to led lights are quite blurry and do not give a good example of what effect a more concentrated light source up close would give – or, if it does, I am not currently happy with it.

- Throughout all the trials thus far, simple thin printing paper has been utilised. This may have affected the strength of the sturcture, as this material bends and tears easily, and does not hold form very well, Heavier paper and/or card may prove to be more durable and more suitable for surfaces with many openings.

Triange anglebox Tribasic

By lofting a set of curves, I have created a shape which is similar to what my expectations are of the model. Instead of digitalising a physical model, I worked off 100 mm as the diametre of the widest curve, and gradually offset the isocurves coming off that to narrow the shape at the edges. Not exactly following the process, but it's a better start compared to the previous actions.

digitalisation, take 2. 2D panelling

simplifying

I decided it would be better to simplify my shape a little bit and go back to the concept of 'spheres' to describe the components of my future lantern. This (very badly digitalised) analytical drawing was created, showing the outer 'sphere' with a bigger diametre and weight load, the inner sphere, the supporting connectors which are the thinnest yet transfer the weight, and the part which would connect to the arm.

The smaller sphere would have to sit in the palm of my hand; seeing as it is a little over 10 cm in length, I decided that 100mm would be the optimal diametre for said smaller sphere.

Panelling excersise with the sphere – 2D & 3D

Diamond Brick 3D pyramid 2 3D wedge

3 points

custom panel – 2D – hexagonal ''cell'

Referencing the earlier attempted panel for the smaller grid; making it the same diametre. Then proceeding to use the custom 2D panel with a various amount of points to build the grid from.

4 points 10 points

Which evidently did not work out too well. As seen above, the shapes do not connect – this is because the hexagonal shaping of the panels does not create consistent coverage. While I do believe it would be interesting to play around with the openings, I believe that for this particular design it would ruin the consistency of shadow I'm hoping to create, and would all look really uneven.

custom panel – 3D double layer

To opt for the best coverage, I decided to create rectangular panels while arranging the cells in triangular formation. Referencing the two most neutral geometric forms, the following 2D panel was created:

Trial featuring the smaller sphere and the 2D custom panel – looking better, aside for the gap in the centre. I chose to go for 6 points on each of the axis – reffering back to the freeform hexagonal shapes of my pattern. Because overall I want my final product to look very translucent and light, I believe that the use of basic geometry with a harsher, more defined aesthetic is acceptable and would still look relatively organic.

Finally, the 3D custom panel is beginning to emerge. This is created by creating a planar surface on the 2D panel with all the openings in mind, the copying and mirroring it to create a differentiating overlap. The distance between the two is probably optimal at 5mm, but this will be changed in the future if issues arise.

Smaller sphere – offset between points at 1 mm.

Bigger sphere – offset between points at 1 mm. custom panel – 3D double layer – first prototype

This prototype was not too successful – the geometry looks way too dense, and at least on the digital version barely any light passes through the openings – and this is with only 1 sphere. I fear that with two overlapping bodies, not only will the same issue occur, but the shadows would also look very messy and distorted.

ScreenGrab looking from within the sphere

Nonetheless, I intended to construct the prototype, however this, too, proved impossible, because due to the way the shape distorted, and also to the initial layout of the 2D panel, the actual physical paper space between some of the openings was less than a millimetre. This made the unrolled panel extremely difficult to cut out by hand, would most likely not work with the thicker blade of a laser cutter, and most importantly would undermine the way the figure is supposed to support itself and support its weight as well as the weight of the LED lights.

Some changes had been made to the panel – still at 5mm distance from one another, the layers now have a larger spacing between the openings. Hopefully the smaller spaces in the central part of the panel will brace the curves of the future shape to assist with the weight load (although in hindsight it would have made more sense to create more dense areas around the edges)

second prototype

This seems to work better – visually, the result is less clustered – the light can pass freely at least through the edges. The paper space still does seem a bit too thin, but at least it no longer hinders construction.

Some changes had been made to the panel – still at 5mm distance from one another, the layers now have a larger spacing between the openings. Hopefully the smaller spaces in the central part of the panel will brace the curves of the future shape to assist with the weight load (although in hindsight it would have made more sense to create more dense areas around the edges)

second prototype

This seems to work better – visually, the result is less clustered – the light can pass freely at least through the edges. The paper space still does seem a bit too thin, but at least it no longer hinders construction.

the second prototype

The unrolled panel – inner and outer layers

The full connected 3 panels – approximately 16o mm in length. The connection of the tabs certainly needs to be refined – some of the edges are uneven.

Once again, some issues were encountered regarding the spacing and stability. This prototype was also handcut, and in the end I actually could not make clear clean-cut lines or even stick to the outlines, because of how dangerously close they were. Some of those that did appear to hold stable also got torn in the assembly process, so I guess it would be safer to once again increase the distance.

This just does not seem to look good. Due to the uneven edges and tears, the structure looks messy and not at all light and elegant. It also does not seem to hold shape too well – it wobbles and almost collapses on itself. Of course, this will be slightly better with the whole sphere holding in place because that would brace it at the sides, but I feel this is not the best option of a design imaginable.

The shadows being cast also appear to be really ambiguous and unclear.

Another huge concern is the disturbance in scale. Somehow aiming for a shape 10o mm in diametre, I ended up with a non-full-length prototype of 160 mm, way exceeding the planned size. Trying to unroll the bigger sphere, I discovered that my current scale had a diametre of 400 mm, which is way too big concidering the size of my hand/arm, and the fact that there is another piece to be attached to the two spheres which will interct further with the arm. The scale needs to be remodelled and re-calculated carefully.

third prototype

Further adjustmets are made – the idea of having trianges in the shape is no longer applied; instead, the shapes are all confined within a rectangle. To assist the cutting out and construction process, an offset of 3 mm is maintained from the edge of the panel to the nearest opening. To define the edges of the panel, not all shapes are filleted – some have the straight lines and sharp angles where the shape is split. Said split shapes also make the arrangement of cells look more natural, in my opinion.

I was glad to notice there was also a lot less distortion to the side going on – the openings were more like their original form and less stretched out horisontally.

Scale – proportions of the two spheres

260 mm

143 mm

120 mm

Established as the result of a long, tedious and unfortunately unrecorded process of scaling, partially caused by the findings that showed the outer sphere needed to be much, much smaller in order to frame the arm nicely, partially triggered by the concern that once again the spacings of the inner sphere would be too small for the laser cutter and/or overall stability of the structure. Having empirically established that the largest object I can hold in my hand is 15o mm in diametre, I have made this slightly smaller. I was worried it would be too large, but the construction of the smaller prototype proved otherwise; besides a narrower, more angular base would be easier to grip onto.

The 260 mm seems like a really good diametre of the bigger sphere – it is not too overbearing like the original 400, and still leaves a decent space between the two objects for the light to pass through. Most importantly, it provides a gap for the arm to pass through which is not too large (to avoid looking chunky and unelegant) but also not too small, with 100 mm being the diametre of the thickest portions of my forearm (with 80 being the average)

third prototype

I am actually very happy how this prototype turned out in regards to qualities relating to light. One of my concerns has been the lights being way too bright because of how much open spaces I have, but the design for the smaller sphere (bottom middle) does not let a harsh light through while also not being too overbearing like the previous ones. The bigger prototype casts really beautiful shadows on nearby surfaces and also on sections frther away – for example, there were some really lovely shadows on my ceiling, which my camera unfortunately did not capture. Together, they create a lovely and complex look.

Structurally, those two are so much more stable, not even wobbling. The cuts also look so much neater, and I experiencd no issues cutting clear openings by hand, so I'm sure a cardcutter would give an even better effect. Overall, they just look better and more organised than the previous prototype.

third prototype

This is what the model looks like when the two main secions are panelled with the design for the prototype. I daresay I'm quite happy with how it turned out – this design proves to be both steady and holds the aethetic I'm aiming to achieve.