TREE FAMILY DOWNLOAD

This is the long promised follow up and download post.

I have taken a standard ootb Revit planting family (RPC deciduous) and modified it to achieve several ends.

• plan symbol to match the width of the 3d object
• an instance parameter to enable random variation of rotation angle
• an instance parameter to enable (small) random variations of height

The symbol family, aka "deciduous base", contains a vertical model line, (invisible) controlled by a "height" parameter; plus a bunch of symbolic lines to represent the tree in plan views.

Normally this is contained within the nested planting family.  (i.e. the nested family has 2 things inside it, the deciduous base, and a strange object called "render appearance" which is not a family.)

I have separated these 2 components into separate planting families, each nested into the host planting family.  There is only one "render appearance" family, which has the capacity to represent many trees.  I have opted for 5 "base symbols" which can be selected by means of a type parameter.

Rotation is achieved very simply by a labelled angular dimension.  This only affects the "render appearance"  It would be possible to also rotate the plan symbol by random amounts, but it didn't seem to me that this was necessary.  Plans are by the nature rather abstract and formalised.  It is in the 3d views that we really want to inject some random variation to better simulate natural plants.

The size of the "base symbol" is controlled by a width factor.  This varies the height of the invisible line (the "stick") by way of a formula.  What matters is the relationship between symbol size and stick size. So a fat tree needs a shorter stick. Hence the formula divides Height by Width Factor to derive Stick Height.  By a process of trial and error, you can find an appropriate Width Factor for each species of tree contained within the render appearance.  Once set this is good for all time.

The way the height scaling works is a bit tricky to explain.  All planting families have a type parameter called "Height" baked into them.  In the nested family this controls the height of the stick.  For each species of tree, the stick height is adjusted to match the height of the Render Appearance.  Planting families have a special behaviour.  Double nested families will automatically scale so that the tallest piece of geometry in the nested family scales to match the Height parameter in the Host family.  You don't have to link any parameters, it just works that way.

BUT the Render Appearance is not a normal family, it doesn't count as geometry.  So if the Render Appearance is 10% taller than the stick, it will eventually be 10% taller than the stated height in the Host family when this is placed in a project.

Even if the stick is removed the Render Appearance will act "as if" there was a stick of the stated height.  Don't worry it also confuses me.  In the end I solved this by trial and error with only a hazy idea of what was going on behind the scenes.

Download the family from here

TREE FAMILY (many types)

Or a project file with a fuller explanation from here

TREES COLLECTION 

OUT ON A LIMB

Congrats to Alfredo, Kelvin & Philip for their success in the Pumpkin Challenge.  And a big thank you to Zach for making rom for myself ... and for some very kind words.

For a couple of milliseconds I thought ... maybe I should have submitted a more conventional entry, certainly I drifted way out on a limb ... but what a ride !  I'm sure that the significance & relevance of what I learned along the way will be filtering through over the coming months.  And I'm very proud of the final images, which begin to ask some interesting questions about how BIM & ART can intersect. 

In retrospect I think that the nature of BIM would need to show through much more clearly for a work to really cross that boundary.  If you examine Escher's work, the fascination lies as much in his mastery of the techniques of printmaking, (Wood Engraving, Lithograph, Mezzotint) as it does in the abstract conception of imaginary or impossible worlds. 

A couple of people have commented that I could just as well have created my images with 3d Studio.  Of course that ignores the learning experience, but still it suggests to me that the specific nature of a BIM tool like Revit needs to shine through into the finished work more clearly.  One obvious avenue to explore would be the combination of orthographic and perspective views.  In a way my uploads to Autodesk 360 are closer to BIM-ART than the final jpegs.  But I would need to clean up the files more carefully, restrict the number of views ... I don't know.

People gradually figured out how to use still photography and then cinematography for artistic ends.  Along the way the nature of art has been brought into question.  Cubism, Abstract Art, Surrealism, arose partly in response to the emergence of photography.  Of course CG has become an integral part of the film industry, but I'm not sure we have really come to grips with the artistic implications.  It's all too easy to slide into overkill, "the society of the spectacle".  Art implies more subtlety, more gentle probing of the human condition.

In any case, BIM is something different from CG.  Very different really.  Digital Prototyping.  Information content.  The coexistence of the orthographic and perspective domains.  How do you weave that into the substance of an art work in the same way that Escher wove his craft skills into his creations.  You need to look at the way he conjures up reflections and textures with a series of parallel strokes of the burin.  Drives me crazy.

This could have been just text, but I've woven in some images from the night after my submission. I got the idea of walking into my pictures and looking back at the viewer.  What would happen ? Would the illusion break down.  I slipped my grandson Jack into the picture ... peering into the doll's house.

Anyway, enough of that.  Later in the week I'll get around to posting my instance-based trees.  Apologies for the delay in transmission :)

BEATEN INTO SUBMISSION

Battered and worn I stagger to the finish line :)

It's been great, but gruelling towards the end and the inevitable feelings of anti-climax.  "I could have done so much more ..."   So what have I done ?  Like Columbus' third voyage, my third pumpkin journey builds upon the experience of the first two.

• 2011  Carve a Pumpkin  (Halloween Head)
• 2012  Assemble a Witch  (Halloween Head)
• 2013  Populate a Parallel World  (Halloween inside your Head ?)

• 2011   invert the product (Pumpkin=Doric Column)
• 2012  invert the process  (Carve on Vegetable=Assemble Many)
• 2013  invert the viewpoint (up = down)

The purposes are many.  

• Push the boundaries of what I can model in Revit (both Vanilla and Point World)
• Blur the distinction between BIM and ART
• Interact with a community of all-round good guys
• Ponder the meaning of the universe

I chose to explore more directly the analogy between Parametrics and DNA, Dialogue boxes as clusters of Hox Genes telling an embryo to "grow a leg here", or "make an eye now"

Last year I was inspired by Arcimboldo, sixteenth century court painter to the Habsburgs of Vienna & Prague.  This year I chose MC Escher, a long time hero of mine :  player of mind games, consummate craftsman, explorer of the porous boundary between "paper space" and "model space".

Come into my world.  Zoom in, float around, lose yourself.

I am uploading Revit files to Autodesk 360.  You can log in and view them.  Use Firefox or Chrome (Maybe IE11?) to use the interactive view and orbit around my imaginary worlds.

Links:

Another World on Autodesk 360

Infinite Fish on Autodesk 360

Still Life Street on Autodesk 360