OSArch Community

[Topologic] Redefining BIM through Spatial Topology, Information, and Grammars

  1. T

    @JQL Glad you are insisting! Of course they are not push buttons. Topologic is a foundation on which one can build very sophisticated tools and workflows similar to what @brunopostle has shown here. You will have to follow one or more of these paths:

    1. Find existing workflows that you can use as is (open source is best). This is limited of course if you cannot modify them.

    2. Learn parametric design, algorithmic thinking, and then the specific API methods provided in the tool and make your own workflow.

    3. Work with a computational designer either in-house or outsourced. This is why I direct an MSc in Computational Methods in Architecture at Cardiff University.

    4. Join an academic research project where your office can benefit from the outcome.

  2. T

    @JQL Regarding the other questions: As it exists now, Topologic can read and write to Revit (through Dynamo), Rhino (through Grasshopper) FreeCAD (through BREP) and through them to a large variety of other formats and software.

    As it exists at this moment, the most convenient way to use Topologic is through Dynamo or Grasshopper on a Windows PC. I came to this group because I needed help to make it truly platform agnostic and compatible with FreeCAD and Blender. We are in conversation with Hypar to make it run in a web browser on Linux.

    As in other firms, they have programmers who create workflows and architects who use them. This line is getting blurred with the passing of each day. We are graduating architects who can code or at least who can do visual programming.

  3. J

    We can learn visual programming quite fast as we did it with substance tools, which we use to iterate through facades (and archviz materials).

    I'm in the process of choosing either sverchock or sorcar for doing visual modelling. We do not use rhino, nor revit, but SketchUp.

    Is it possible to use a blend of manual modelling and visual programming and then integrate topologic in the workflow with real benefit?

    And if you're using grasshopper or dynamo, why do you need topologic?

  4. T

    @JQL said:

    And if you're using grasshopper or dynamo, why do you need topologic?

    @JQL Topologic adds functionality that is very unique and not found in either Dynamo or Grasshopper. Mainly, it is in its name: linked entities in Topologic (eg CellComplex) know about each other. As an example, not only can you ask a Cell (solid) for its Faces (Surfaces), you can ask a Face for the Cells (plural) that have it as a boundary. Plus Topologic implements dictionaries, contents, apertures, and graph theory in robust and unique ways.

    As to your question about hybrid workflows. Yes. You can model in Sketchup or AutoCAD for example, output to OBJ or STEP or something else. Use a converter software or FreeCAD to convert to BREP or anything that can be loaded into Dynamo or Grasshopper. Then apply a Topologic workflow. Take the result and continue working on it in other software.

    I also encourage you to look at the work of Michal Dengusiak with SAM/Topologic integration at Hoare Lea. He is on LinkedIn and YouTube. Also Sean Fruin and Aussie BIM Guru ?

  5. T

    @JQL I created a quick short video on a trivial example of moving geometry from FreeCAD to Topologic, doing some modification or analysis and moving the result back to FreeCAD. And before anyone says anything, yes I am aware I could've accomplished this example in FreeCAD alone. This is JUST an example! I am happy to do something more ambitious in the near future.

    https://youtu.be/ZcHNW-LoCTg

  6. J

    I understood by reading past posts and these latest that Topologic assumes the cell as central unit.

    That is one of my barriers with BIM. BIM seems to work with elements like columns, windows, doors and walls for modelling and rooms are a result. I like modelling rooms, not walls. The frame of mind is very different and Topologic could fit that frame of mind nicely.

    Is it easy to convert a room/cell model into a BIM model using Topologic?

    And would it be easy to have Topologic find the best fit for rooms in a project and have the ideal "gap" between rooms (where walls will be placed) varying depending on factors?

    Would topologic help place rooms right within constrains and variables? Is it possible to create a workflow around those concepts easily? Or would I have to dwelve deeply into intrincate experiments?

  7. J

    Oh and sorry for my increased bluntness. Thanks for your consideration, answers and even putting up this video.

    And sorry for even more questions:

    Is dynamo a standalone app that could be used without the need for revit? Is it free or paid software?

  8. T

    @JQL I don’t like to describe workflows as easy or difficult because it depends on the level of skills and available resources. Instead, I like to think whether something is feasible or not or a good fit for the software or not. @brunopostle has shown the best proof of concept to date that I have seen that a conceptual non-manifold model can be converted into a very detailed and believable BIM model. Cesar Escalante of Autodesk recently showed a video of how he uses Topologic as part of an optimisation workflow for packing programme elements/spaces through Cell subdivision. I helped with that part of the workflow. We have also demonstrated how a conceptual TestFit model can be converted to a Revit model through Topologic.

    To answer your second question: Yes Dynamo can run independent of Revit but has no geometry. It is open source in that incarnation. An intrepid soul could conceivably bolt on OCCT as a geometry engine instead of ASM. It won’t be me ? What I will try is to run FreeCAD from Dynamo in python and pass it breps from Topologic To display! That could be quite amazing as it would be fully free and open source but only available on Windows.

  9. J

    @topologic said:

    @JQL I don’t like to describe workflows as easy or difficult because it depends on the level of skills and available resources. Instead, I like to think whether something is feasible or not or a good fit for the software or not. @brunopostle has shown the best proof of concept to date that I have seen that a conceptual non-manifold model can be converted into a very detailed and believable BIM model. Cesar Escalante of Autodesk recently showed a video of how he uses Topologic as part of an optimisation workflow for packing programme elements/spaces through Cell subdivision. I helped with that part of the workflow. We have also demonstrated how a conceptual TestFit model can be converted to a Revit model through Topologic.

    Understood. I'd have to dive into the thing to see what I could use it for. The potential is there though. Thanks!

    @topologic said:

    To answer your second question: Yes Dynamo can run independent of Revit but has no geometry. It is open source in that incarnation. An intrepid soul could conceivably bolt on OCCT as a geometry engine instead of ASM. It won’t be me ? What I will try is to run FreeCAD from Dynamo in python and pass it breps from Topologic To display! That could be quite amazing as it would be fully free and open source but only available on Windows.

    Like this?

    https://community.osarch.org/discussion/205/dynamo-and-freecad#latest

  10. R

    Comments here all are about this topic:

    3: Top-Down Causation via Adoptive Selection

    Which is a basic and preliminary topic and solution today

  11. T

    @JQL I would be happy to meet and show you what Topologic can do first hand and go through some workflows.

  12. J

    @topologic that is very generous of you, however, at the basic state of knowledge I'm at the moment I would be wasting your time.

    I'm a Sketchup user without access to dynamo. I've started by testing freecad and blender... that's the most I can achieve for now.

    I'd have to first understand how to use dynamo with freecad, which I can't even figure out how to install and then topologic on top of dynamo to be able to start trying stuff and make the meeting with you worthwhile.

    Please don't get me wrong, I'd love to see what could be done, but you definetely deserve and should have a better audience than myself. Maybe at OSArch a meeting with more people could be organized and that would make your time better spent. I would definetely participate.

    I can't thank you enough for your offer though. I really appreciate it.

  13. R

    In Ray Tracing, there are two different methods for subdividing/partitioning:

    1. Spatial/Space subdivision method

    2. Object subdivision method

    @brunopostle And I'm still can't realize why Dual Graphs? Which based on my understanding I categorize it in the Space subdivision league

    Which mainly work with planes, and don't support geometry well, and are static, I mean don't deal with dynamic geometries and topologies

  14. A

    @JQL said:

    I understood by reading past posts and these latest that Topologic assumes the cell as central unit.

    That is one of my barriers with BIM. BIM seems to work with elements like columns, windows, doors and walls for modelling and rooms are a result. I like modelling rooms, not walls.

    This is the main point of my PhD research right now. BIM is originated and built for construction-management but not for space design. Space (IMHO) can/should be something prior to built-architecture and designing spatial entities with software is almost impossible, specially if we take into consideration that as soon as we model a "cell" as a BRep, we are modelling a "solid" object (all normals facing outwards) which in its natural state is "invisible" from its inside space (though it can be "tricked").

    Here my shoutout to @brunopostle and any others if interested in how to conceive and design the cognitional structures that can lead to the conversion of the meshes and topologies into construction-bim elements.

  15. B

    @ReD_CoDE with a building plan, the graph of walls and the adjacency graph of rooms are 'dual' of each other. There is an equivalent relationship for 3D cells in these non-manifold meshes.

    But in my code these graphs are assembled separately, as this is easy and the 'dual' nature isn't that important to the things we want to do with the graphs.

  16. J

    @arquitextonica said:

    This is the main point of my PhD research right now. BIM is originated and built for construction-management but not for space design. Space (IMHO) can/should be something prior to built-architecture and designing spatial entities with software is almost impossible, specially if we take into consideration that as soon as we model a "cell" as a BRep, we are modelling a "solid" object (all normals facing outwards) which in its natural state is "invisible" from its inside space (though it can be "tricked").

    Here my shoutout to @brunopostle and any others if interested in how to conceive and design the cognitional structures that can lead to the conversion of the meshes and topologies into construction-bim elements.

    That's cool. My workflow with SketchUp revolves around a base schematic plan for program organization, this plan is a face that is being split and sits at each floor level, then there is an envelope which is the building volume and consists only on façades, roof and base or footprint. At a later stage when the plans are settled and match the volume, or vice versa, we then extruding the spaces of the plan into cells/rooms/spaces, whatever you want to call them. We do reverse these faces so the normals are facing the interior. The resulting model is a facade box, facing the exterior with empty cells inside facing the interior. We can keep a model like this 80% of a conceptual stage time. Only when we start needing to create interior visuals we start adding other elements. All the exterior can be done by modelling and texturing the façade volume.

    I was hoping I could use this volume as an IFC entity and the interior cells or rooms as IfcSpaces.

    I've been looking for a facade IFC classification, but there is none, only walls.

    I'm thinking topologic could then be used to fill the spaces between cells with structure and walls, slabs, floors and ceilings.

    We would use the cell model as input and would set constrains for rooms and façade box and then state the walls and slab thickness and it would fit together?

    Would this be a viable process, for topologic?

  17. B

    @arquitextonica generating the BIM elements (the things between spaces) is relatively straightforward, especially if you adhere to the convention that floors are horizontal and walls are vertical - I happened to have that code to generate BIM elements lying around, so the difficult bit for me was processing the non-manifold.

    I have thought a lot about these space partition issues; the binary tree subdivision as used by Homemaker is very well suited to automated evolution, but is not conceptually easy for humans to work with; the non-manifold mesh is much easier for a human to understand, but would be hard to use in an evolutionary system.

    I think just drawing cells as a mesh in Blender is fine, though the software could help a bit more to maintain horizonal and vertical and planar faces. I want the BIM objects to be generated in real time, so you can see the building as you edit the cells.

    The face normals in the non-manifold are not important, it isn't possible to have all of them facing the same way, so you can ignore this when drawing your mesh.

  18. A

    @brunopostle said:

    But in my code these graphs are assembled separately, as this is easy and the 'dual' nature isn't that important to the things we want to do with the graphs.

    I thin dissociating both graphs also allows a deeper structuring of the elements embedded knowledge. One topology can have many associated (dual-like type) graphs.

  19. J

    Bruno> @brunopostle said:

    I think just drawing cells as a mesh in Blender is fine, though the software could help a bit more to maintain horizonal and vertical and planar faces. I want the BIM objects to be generated in real time, so you can see the building as you edit the cells.

    This is very interesting. I notice that you also generate doors and windows automatically. What if it was the user that would draw a face in the cells wall and that would define a door, if you erase the face you'd have an opening without door and a face in a facade would also create a door, if you'd erase the face you'd have a window.

    That way user could have an easy way to finetune or shape the cells to place openings, doors and windows and they could be different on exterior walls or interior walls.

    I'm also thinking on finishes and structure and how do they relate in BIM.

    Imagine a wall that splits two rooms. That wall has a structural layer, like brickwork, and might have different finishes on either side, because each room has it's own finish. The different finishes might represent different layers or thicknessess.

    I might be wrong, but the idea I have is that in BIM, when you draw your wall type, you should consider if the type is allowing for the finishes to match what you want on those rooms finishes. The wall type has to change for each room of the building as it is affected by each room finishes and their combinations. However, usually the wall structure type is the same in all the building. So, finishes and their layers, shouldn't be a property that is exclusive from the wall, but that should be also related to a definition from the rooms.

    So, for me the ideal process of wall composition is not that the wall type is predefined with all layers or that we have to change it depending on the two adjoining rooms, but that the adjoining rooms have a finishes definition that adds layers to the wall type. If you change finishes in the rooms, the wall type keeps being the same, but the geometry and layers attached to it change.

    Wall type brickwork would have a "conscience" of the adjoing rooms and add their finishes to itself. We would only have to state each room finish and what kind of wall structure we would have in the building.

    This would also be valid for applying finishes to the building structure models.

    If this would be possible, (maybe it's already working like this in some packages, I don't know), it would make total sense to me at a conceptual level, and makes sense from a cell centric model workflow perspective, imho. It also makes sense at a construction level, because at that level you'll have structure in place, and people will then adhere finishes to it.

    I don't know if this is making sense, I hope so.

  20. T

    @arquitextonica said:

    I thin dissociating both graphs also allows a deeper structuring of the elements embedded knowledge. One topology can have many associated (dual-like type) graphs.

    That’s correct. In Topologic, the user can derive a dual graph from a topology, but can also customise that dual graph ( pass through apertures, connect to exterior apertures or faces). Then you can add other random edges if you wish. What is important is that the graph is information-loaded in its nodes and edges and you have a robust set of graph methods to query it and analyse it.

    The issue of face normals is a non-issue in non-manifold CellComplexes. We assume all our faces are double-faced and thus can be rendered from both sides. For Cells, we need face normals to point outward to calculate volume etc but it does not mean our Cell is a solid. This is evident when you do Boolean operations on Cells. Merging two intersecting Cells gives you a CellComplex with three Cells rather than the traditional union that would give you a single Cell.

    Theoretically, a building with all its fabric and spaces can be represented as a CellComplex with Cells that have loaded information (CellA is concrete, CellB is brick, CellC is Air). It does not mean that there is one cell for all the air inside a building. You can divide that air into zones with zero thickness faces.

  21. A

    Attached some screenshots I prepared for the seminar I taught in the Universität Stuttgart. They were done with @topologic framework on grasshopper on Rhino. But I think the workflow would be portable.

    I made a grid of cells and assigned different programs to each one, the wall types are sorted using boolean gates depending on the programs they are in between (if progs are 1 AND 2 then type A). Decks are sorted likewise, program "Patio" i.e. removes the face over it, and so on.

    You can also see the translation of the topologic elements into BIM objects through the archicad-grasshopper plugin.

    If @JQL or @brunopostle or any other of you are interested in discussing further, here I am.

  22. A

    @topologic said:

    It does not mean that there is one cell for all the air inside a building. You can divide that air into zones with zero thickness faces.

    That is what I call high level architectural design (vs. low level construction language in BIM).

    Space is much more than mere construction elements bundled together. What is an atrium? And a loggia? Why is a living room different than a bedroom? All these questions are cognitional and could/should be computable.

  23. B

    @JQL said:

    This is very interesting. I notice that you also generate doors and windows automatically. What if it was the user that would draw a face in the cells wall and that would define a door, if you erase the face you'd have an opening without door and a face in a facade would also create a door, if you'd erase the face you'd have a window.

    I would prefer to have a door that I can drag sideways to alter the position, taking the opening with it. The door could be deleted or swapped with any other door from a 'library' of doors, similarly swing could be changed from left to right etc.. just by picking options.

    Imagine a wall that splits two rooms. That wall has a structural layer, like brickwork, and might have different finishes on either side, because each room has it's own finish. The different finishes might represent different layers or thicknessess.

    Definitely you should be able to specify different finishes to adjacent rooms and the software should highlight that this wall is a special case that needs a detailed section.

  24. T

    @JQL In Topologic you can draw (or add) any number of apertures (faces) to other faces (eg walls). These apertures can be windows or doors and their detailed 3D models can be saved inside them as ‘contents’. Not only that, they can have multiple styles of doors and deploy the correct one as needed. For example, if they fall between a living room and a kitchen maybe they use just a simple cased opening While if they fall between a living room and a bathroom they maybe a solid door etc. The size of the aperture can or doesn’t have to relate to the size of the door. It is a positional placeholder.

  25. J

    @topologic said:

    @JQL In Topologic you can draw (or add) any number of apertures (faces) to other faces (eg walls). These apertures can be windows or doors and their detailed 3D models can be saved inside them as ‘contents’. Not only that, they can have multiple styles of doors and deploy the correct one as needed. For example, if they fall between a living room and a kitchen maybe they use just a simple cased opening While if they fall between a living room and a bathroom they maybe a solid door etc. The size of the aperture can or doesn’t have to relate to the size of the door. It is a positional placeholder.

    That's exactly the spirit! I'm just sorry that I'm sitting here and you're already running 100m ahead. I'll have to get off this chair.

  1. Page 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 29
  8. 30
  9. 31

Login or Register to reply.