Thursday, June 4, 2009

How to activate a mover by shooting a trigger?

Hi, a few people have asked me to do a quick write up of one of the things demonstrated in our tutorial last tuesday.

How to activate a mover by shooting a trigger.


Note: this assumes you already know how to import a static mesh, place it as a mover and keyframe it. Russell's mover tutorial goes through all of that, so there's no need to repeat it here.

I tried to make it as simple as possible:

1. Placing a Trigger:
- Click the little Chess Piece up top to open the actor classes browser.
- Click on Trigger (NOT Triggers) pic
- Right click somewhere in your level and place it in. pic

2. Mover Properties:
- Events > Tag [name this something you want."Mover1"] pic
- Mover > bUseTriggered [set this to True] pic
- Object > InitialState [set this to TriggerOpenTimed] pic

3. Trigger Properties:
- Advanced > bHidden [set this to False] (there is some problem with this) pic
- Events > Event [name this the same as your Mover Tag."Mover1"] pic
- Trigger > TriggerType [set this to TT_Shoot] pic

I've uploaded a test level in case you wish to view all the properties more closely.

Hope that helps,

Vinh


Monday, May 18, 2009

Experiment 2 Feedback

Experiment 2 Feedback
The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weakness’ of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

Ian Arenas
Key strength of the scheme: Presentation of sketches and screenshots although simple were very effective in showing all facets of the architecture.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The depth to which the custom textures were taken in terms of experimentation was lacking, especially when compared to the quality of previous work.

Nicholas Bolianitis
Key strength of the scheme: Sketches demonstrate an inherent concern with exploring spatial relationships and materiality.

Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although there is a large amount of intricacy to the architecture, little of it can actually be experienced when walking around in UT.

Erica Chan
Key strength of the scheme: Great use of sketches as a way to question 2D/3D relationship of spaces and proportion.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More care could have been taken with the sketches to best represent the ideas presented within them. The essence of the sketches was lost when transferring them from 3D idea into architecture.

Natalie Fu
Key strength of the scheme: Some brilliant screenshots demonstrating the best of the architecture.

Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although the meeting place and client spaces were articulated well, the development of the in-between spaces was lacking. eg how they are connected or related to each other.

Lili Hinh
Key strength of the scheme: Extreme care with sketches, especially the textures.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although the architecture in the environment draws directly from keys ideas in the sketches, the development upon them is relatively minor.

Jae Hwang
Key strength of the scheme: The point of views chosen for the screenshots.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The size of the screen shots do not do the scheme justice.

Nooshin Jozan
Key strength of the scheme: Simply beautiful axos. The blurring of boundary lines in-between architectural spaces. The way in which client space and meeting space mix in not only plan but also section.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of transparency in environment is not collaborating with use of light. Eg. Capitalising on different scales for privacy/publicity.


Sharon Lam
Key strength of the scheme: Axos and textures, both done with care and consideration as well as presented appropriately to communicate their significance.

Most significant weakness of the scheme: External space seems to have been developed less than interior. Auxiliary elements do not add much to the main elements of architecture within this scheme.

Ping Liu
Key strength of the scheme: Brilliant drawings demonstrate enquiry into 3D relationships, especially intersection.

Most significant weakness of the scheme: Did not show much development when transferred to UT environment.

James Maroun
Key strength of the scheme: Variety of thought put into the ramps, experimenting with scale and proportion, privacy and exposure.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of textures moved from riskiness to recklessness in terms of experimentation. They detract from the spatial arrangement rather than enforce it.

John Nemedez
Key strength of the scheme: Use of light to demonstrate spatial qualities. Arrangement of client spaces relative to meeting place.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Development of ramps was lacking the consideration seen in the development of client spaces.

Jay Patel
Key strength of the scheme: Use of images to make the most of a simple environment. Their position, orientation and resolution.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Consideration of materiality within the scheme is very two dimensional. Perhaps more thinking should be done about wall/floor thicknesses in order to push this scheme into the next level of detail.


Patrick Sells
Key strength of the scheme: Simple, elegant and concisely expressed scheme. Even the gesture of flooding artificial light with natural light from opposing sides of a room is quite carefully details and executed.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of textures to reinforce architectural ideas. Perhaps extensive manipulation of them before their use in UT is required. Could have included a smaller scale to emphasise rhythm. Potential of using balustrade to enforce ideas, rather than its omittion.

Savas Stavridis
Key strength of the scheme: Development of sketches demonstrate greater intention to develop them as a mode of inquiry.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Progression of spaces in the environment seem segregated, when in the drawings they are tied together. Keeping such an important element when developing a design is important.

Hang Wu
Key strength of the scheme: Mixture of overt and covert elements of architecture that capture attention and create subtlety.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Screenshots chosen to represent the architecture could have been more considerate; picking out the key elements of the scheme and showing them.

Bonnie Zhou
Key strength of the scheme: Natural flow between spaces give the sense of continuous spaces that support one another. Meeting place as almost a tense confrontation that spills into the vertical dimension.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of colour palette in terms of materials and lighting does not enforce the key architectural elements, but rather detracts from them.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Experiment 1 Feedback

Experiment 1 Feedback
The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weakness’ of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

Ian Arenas
Key strength of the scheme: Design demonstrates a unified architecture of clarity and measured constraint.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Animations could have been considered a lot more to show insightful parts of the architecture. Perhaps addition of sunlight (since it was one of the generators for the design), sound and sections selection that are complimentary to the architecture.


Nicholas Bolianitis
Key strength of the scheme: Sketches show great deal experimentation and exploration.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of textures overpowers subtle spaces that have been created. Animations should be better considered, perhaps to highlight the experience, atmosphere, circulation or organisation of spaces.

Erica Chan
Key strength of the scheme: Consideration of light and development of its access/penetration was very appropriate for a building that is both working space and exhibition gallery.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Stairs require more thought in regards to relationship towards spaces and materiality, perhaps even integration with lighting considerations.


Natalie Fu
Key strength of the scheme: Architecture retains so many elements including playfulness, vitality, elegance, liveliness and fluidity. Beautiful as a sculptural object.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Below ground spaces, although intelligently considered do not have the same level of thoroughness compared to above ground.


Lili Hinh
Key strength of the scheme: Clear, precise, delicate sketches that demonstrate care and patience.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Intention of stairs is clearly identified in text, however lacks consideration in design and development.


Jae Hwang
Key strength of the scheme: Development from sketch to model retains, if not expands upon, key initial ideas relating to selected words. Animations capture building and ideas appropriately and concisely.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The care shown in the sketched sections could have carried over to the sketched textures. The architecture could be considered to run recklessly into the category of complicatedness.


Nooshin Jozan
Key strength of the scheme: Strong resolution of architecture, despite starting from the point of simple extrusion. Presentation of images (choice of colours) and animations (chosen points of view, section planes, pace of movement) both create captivating atmosphere.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Sketched sections could move to more experimental modes of organisation, hatching and line weight (as apparent in the sketched textures).

Sharon Lam
Key strength of the scheme: Stair designs show particular consideration in materiality, structure and contrast to each other. Textures on glass give a very effective dimension to the flatness of surfaces.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Rigidity in keeping all elements from initial sketch. Development stage could be seen as a filter to process initial ideas and further only the ones which show most potency.


Ping Liu
Key strength of the scheme: Elegant gallery space in its simplicity, subtle stairs in its integration with architecture and textures in their selection and usage.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Both sketched sections and textures require more consideration and care.


James Maroun
Key strength of the scheme: Animations demonstrate clear consideration of section planes and vantage points appropriate to the architecture.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Sketches could show more confidence (compare the initial sections to the final 2 sections).


John Nemedez
Key strength of the scheme: Final architecture is significantly developed from the sketches and demonstrates elegance, consideration of proportion, transparency and spatial organisation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Initial sketched sections lack care and exploration of form, relationships, materiality and depth.

Jay Patel
Key strength of the scheme: Use of textures in model is subtle and does not detract/dominate architecture (which in this care is important with simple spaces)
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Development in the stairs did not fulfil the intentions identified initially. The promenade of entrance, to choice, to studio was lost.


Vanessa Reid-Terry
Key strength of the scheme: Textures demonstrate a full spectrum of delicate to brutal, of busy to minimal and of suggestive to physical.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The domination of textures over architecture. The transference of initial sketches into three dimensions seemed to miss out on breaking from the bounds of two dimensions.


Patrick Sells
Key strength of the scheme: Clarity in architecture, structure, materiality and a tension between architectural elements of lightness, heaviness, transparency and opacity.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The consideration of the stairs for both above and below ground. The development of the below ground could have been more thorough.


Savas Stavridis
Key strength of the scheme: Development from two dimensional sketch to three dimensional model produced a pleasantly surprising outcome that embraces exploration, experimentation and risk taking.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Despite being an amazing set of sections and textures, the presentation quality did not do them justice.


Hang Wu
Key strength of the scheme: Integration of architecture and stairs, both are appropriate for each other. The way in which the complexity of the architecture was dealt with three dimensionally and with such control.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Textures and their usage in the model could have been executed with much more consideration.


Bonnie Zhou
Key strength of the scheme: Sketched sections demonstrated an exploration of depth, light/shadow, intricacy/complexity, materiality and geometry.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Final model shows an architecture of eccentric stairs, form and colour (possibly also its greatest strength).

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Clips to watch while mindfully sketching...

Some of you have asked for a link to the clip shown in class. It can be found here:

http://www.charlierose.com/topic/art_design?keyword=architecture

Good ones to check out are any with Rem, Renzo or Philip Johnson.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Also worth checking out, are sections/plans by Donovan Hill.
They are based in Qld and these were taken off the UQ website:

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/



In today's lecture there were a few examples of Carlo Scarpa's work. So I thought some of you may be interested in this internet archive of his drawings: