I'm now retired & whole heartedly agree. In the 90's I first used rough 3D print-outs of computer models of my designs under velum to speed up marker renders. In the early 2000's it was meshing CAD renders in Photoshop, & until a few years ago, renderings with textures all in the CAD render module. These were all based on the designs people like me & colleagues came up with. The CAD images have always left me cold, but clients wanted them. Now? Glossy AI images & the CAD images that support them are today's versions of Oil on Velvet images of Elvis.
How I loathe these sorts of designers. Blue sky designs that don't have to think about costs, the difficulty to construct, the ease of repair, whether it can be cleaned or not, the impact on the neighbourhood and environment, etc.
I worked in an academic library for 31 years and part of my job was moving furniture. I used to absolutely hate it when some bright bean in management bought some piece of beautiful, nice furniture---that was assembled in place and became an absolute horror to move when they inevitably wanted to move it. (I still have sciatica from one abysmal scanner I had to move at zero notice by myself one night that had no proper hand-hold on it or easily-found balance point.)
There is a reason why 'traditions' developed about how to build structures. They were based on experience about how easy it was to build or maintain something. When you totally divorce design from the people who build, maintain, or work inside buildings you end up with monuments to individual designer's boundless ego--and are constant reminders to 'the little people' that no one really cares how needlessly miserable they make other people's lives.
I would love to collaborate with an Evola competitor in their next cycle,
to scheme up my concept of an Earth restored to pre-Colonial Nature,
where Nature has re-exploded, global heating has been re-balanced, and
humans & their structures, #STT solar-powered transport, etc.,
rise upon poles about 20m above that legacy forest canopy, in N-S columns so that their shadows have no more impact on the under Forest, than a passing cloud.
Hi lloyd - having also trained as an architect - but from the idea of "make it work to it's best advantage - instead of looking pretty -- I can and do appreciate your journey.
One thing though that has to be addressed: "energy" as a product, renewable or not - does not exist as an entity.
"...Energii..." is the name given by the Ancient Greeks to a "belief" - that everything in the Universe had a "force" in it - no joke.
This is a philoshy - not fact; and we've been saddled with "energy" being something you can commodify ever since.
Nothing is further from the truth -- and it's vitally inportant to set the record straight -- and round-file this "energy notion" ASAP.
I suggest that anything that is considered by some "designer" to be built - doesn't get published until the design has had a thorough structural review - by engineers wo know what their about, i.e., they've "been there, done that".
This does not mean that everything has to be a cube or a traingle -- it just has to be just "structurally sound" - over time.
Also - the saying "art is in the eyes of the beholder" also comes into play.
Pertaining to elecricity, what it actually is and how it is actually developed, noot "produced" is about to be clarified this year -- and it is not what we've been taught.
As to having electricity on the moon, or any place else for that matter -- "electricity" development does not require any fuel of any kind or type, nor does it require any "solar" involvement, or any generator of any type.
It requires two items -- a conductive element like Gold, Silver, Copper, or Aluminum - and a voltage potential - which, when part of a resonating electric circuit named the "tank circuit" - which is part of circuitry that includes "regenerative feedback" - you can develop elecricity:
--- where needed or required;
--- as much as is required for both individual stationary site(s) and movable objests or vehicle(s);
--- for as long as is needed by either stationary sites or movable objests andvenicle -- including in space - in space ships.
And here's the reason that I make the above statements:
--- we've been using the exact electric circuit that has the ability to accomplishs of of the above --- as the "resonating receiver circuit" found in the billions of radios manufactured since Nikola Tesla invented the radio in 1900 - over 125+ yeas ago.
I'm now retired & whole heartedly agree. In the 90's I first used rough 3D print-outs of computer models of my designs under velum to speed up marker renders. In the early 2000's it was meshing CAD renders in Photoshop, & until a few years ago, renderings with textures all in the CAD render module. These were all based on the designs people like me & colleagues came up with. The CAD images have always left me cold, but clients wanted them. Now? Glossy AI images & the CAD images that support them are today's versions of Oil on Velvet images of Elvis.
and about as usefull as that Elvis thing
How I loathe these sorts of designers. Blue sky designs that don't have to think about costs, the difficulty to construct, the ease of repair, whether it can be cleaned or not, the impact on the neighbourhood and environment, etc.
I worked in an academic library for 31 years and part of my job was moving furniture. I used to absolutely hate it when some bright bean in management bought some piece of beautiful, nice furniture---that was assembled in place and became an absolute horror to move when they inevitably wanted to move it. (I still have sciatica from one abysmal scanner I had to move at zero notice by myself one night that had no proper hand-hold on it or easily-found balance point.)
There is a reason why 'traditions' developed about how to build structures. They were based on experience about how easy it was to build or maintain something. When you totally divorce design from the people who build, maintain, or work inside buildings you end up with monuments to individual designer's boundless ego--and are constant reminders to 'the little people' that no one really cares how needlessly miserable they make other people's lives.
I would love to collaborate with an Evola competitor in their next cycle,
to scheme up my concept of an Earth restored to pre-Colonial Nature,
where Nature has re-exploded, global heating has been re-balanced, and
humans & their structures, #STT solar-powered transport, etc.,
rise upon poles about 20m above that legacy forest canopy, in N-S columns so that their shadows have no more impact on the under Forest, than a passing cloud.
Hi lloyd - having also trained as an architect - but from the idea of "make it work to it's best advantage - instead of looking pretty -- I can and do appreciate your journey.
One thing though that has to be addressed: "energy" as a product, renewable or not - does not exist as an entity.
"...Energii..." is the name given by the Ancient Greeks to a "belief" - that everything in the Universe had a "force" in it - no joke.
This is a philoshy - not fact; and we've been saddled with "energy" being something you can commodify ever since.
Nothing is further from the truth -- and it's vitally inportant to set the record straight -- and round-file this "energy notion" ASAP.
I suggest that anything that is considered by some "designer" to be built - doesn't get published until the design has had a thorough structural review - by engineers wo know what their about, i.e., they've "been there, done that".
This does not mean that everything has to be a cube or a traingle -- it just has to be just "structurally sound" - over time.
Also - the saying "art is in the eyes of the beholder" also comes into play.
Pertaining to elecricity, what it actually is and how it is actually developed, noot "produced" is about to be clarified this year -- and it is not what we've been taught.
As to having electricity on the moon, or any place else for that matter -- "electricity" development does not require any fuel of any kind or type, nor does it require any "solar" involvement, or any generator of any type.
It requires two items -- a conductive element like Gold, Silver, Copper, or Aluminum - and a voltage potential - which, when part of a resonating electric circuit named the "tank circuit" - which is part of circuitry that includes "regenerative feedback" - you can develop elecricity:
--- where needed or required;
--- as much as is required for both individual stationary site(s) and movable objests or vehicle(s);
--- for as long as is needed by either stationary sites or movable objests andvenicle -- including in space - in space ships.
And here's the reason that I make the above statements:
--- we've been using the exact electric circuit that has the ability to accomplishs of of the above --- as the "resonating receiver circuit" found in the billions of radios manufactured since Nikola Tesla invented the radio in 1900 - over 125+ yeas ago.