Fabricating Nature and a Physical Turing Test

Nwe submitter arrow3D writes "A new startup in Norway is focused on design and fabrication at the level and quality of nature. Using pure mathematical volumes, rather than surfaces or voxels, they are developing a new generation of 3D modelling tools specifically aimed at high resolution 3D printing, to 'support the future of design and manufacturing.' Their software was recently used to create the multi-material Minotaur Helmet by Neri Oxman from MIT, as featured in Wired UK last month. An interesting thought (as recently illustrated in Dilbert) is the idea of a Physical Turing Test for synthetic objects and that both Turing Tests may require each other — i.e. only by designing and building at the resolution of nature can we achieve the intelligence of natural objects. Their software platform is still very much under development but they've started trying to 'save the world from polygons' with a KickStarter campaign that's live now."

Comments

Meets the Slashdot Test

[CajunArson]

The Slashdot Test: Any submission that includes references to Kickstarter and 3D printing is always posted to the front page.

Re:Meets the Slashdot Test

[ericloewe]

Anything that implies a new implementation of a Turing Machine also has better chances.

Obligatory

[johanwanderer]

http://xkcd.com/505/

Re:Obligatory

[camperdave]

I was thinking this one would be the obligatory.

NURBS

[mill3d]

What about just using NURBS and procedural surface displacement as is common in the film industry..?

Re:NURBS

[Wizarth]

G-Code is closer to the role PostScript fills in 2d printing, but it's only loosely standardized, and every printer seems to need their own sub dialect of it. That's why there's still a common interchange format being used, with printer specific software/settings being used to produce the G-Code that actually goes to the printer.

We do support outputting to slice oriented formats (Bitmap and another that I've just gone completely blank on), but we don't use these internally. Instead, our software is using 3D functions. There is existing software that does this (CSG modellers) however we use both a different set of functions to those traditionally used, that have better properties for smooth objects (in our opinion).

Being mathematical, they are accurate to whatever numerical precision is used, so we can produce slices (our preferred format) or meshes at whatever resolution is wanted, as appropriate for the printer.

(The Fine Summary doesn't include that we already have an existing product based on the technology, but we want to make a more targeted version that doesn't require the customer to also have the Rhino 3D modelling software.)

Right conclusion, wrong reasoning

[vmxeo]

CG artists and designers know very well the limitations and tediousness of modeling with polygons. Mesh models tend to have all kinds of problems such as cracks, holes and self-intersections. This is due to a disconnect between the real world being represented and the modeling software's attempts to represent real, volumetric, complex and “messy” objects by only surfaces.

The attack on polygons is rather unwarranted. True, surfaces are only able to visually represent an actual solid object, but then again for most visual media that's all you need them to do. Ever been on a movie set? The walls are thin wood supported by flimsy frames. Floors are painted on. Props and set pieces are often foam. Materials are cheap, lightweight, and easy to handle. There's no way any of that would work for an actual building, but again, it doesn't need to. It just needs to look like it could work.

Printing real world objects will need to account for much more than simply surfaces, much as a real structure requires more design and construction than a movie set. Developing procedurally generated materials and processes is an important step in making that happen. This goal of this project is to do just that.

In short: It's new media. New media requires new ways of working.

Re:Right conclusion, wrong reasoning

[Wizarth]

Without getting into too much detail:

No, it's boundary is just a side effect of the definition. We use zero value to be the boundary, but that's just a convenient convention.

NURBS and other parametric surfaces still have limitations. It's very difficult to define complex shapes with them, and the boolean operations often break, leaving you with gaps between patches or surfaces that have no matching other side. The staff and beta testers include people experienced with polygon and NURBS, and there are things people are used to not being able to do (or have to do certain ways) with NURBS that "just work" with this system.

Functional objects aren't new, by any means (they predate polygons in fact). We're using some new functions (rather then the boolean ones used in existing CSG modelers).

3D printing resolution IS limited by the polygons. If you try to put a mesh into any existing printing software that has individual polygons sized at the precision of the motors, the software does break (and the mesh file will be measured in gigabytes).

And yes, "resolution of nature" is a marketing phrase. Don't ask me, I just work here.

Disclaimer: I work for Uformia, the company running the Kickstarter. We have an existing product (which isn't mention in the summary, but is in the Kickstarter) but we want to make a more specific user friendly version.

Advertising

[Animats]

Another ad for a Kickstarter campaign. Yawn.

There many good "organic" modelers. Autodesk Mudbox is widely used by pros. Curved surface volumetric modellers go back a long way. I used one of the very first back in the 1980s, one based on deformable superellipsoids and running on a Symbolics LISP machine.

As for the "physical Turing test", if your demo reel doesn't show that you can pass that, it won't get you in the door at Pixar.