Following up the previous 3D post about individual model, group B revised and revised and finally came up with our submission for 3D Final Model and PDF.

Here is some photo taken of the final model:

Then we decided to make the model neater:

Here is some photos of us preparing for the Application Model:

So we were asked to bring an A2 size artcard for the previous 3D class. Then, keeping in mind the D-SD-SO relationship, we were told construct a model without separating any piece out of it. Basically we could cut, fold, etc etc as long as we keep the paper connected. There was a time limit of 30 minutes!

My Model: The Sweet Mountain

Personally, I really enjoy this exercise as I could explore many interesting and new ways in creating a model. It was fun and free as I could just keep on cutting and folding without having any end-model in mind.

So for project 3 we learnt about planar construction. Basically we are using art card to create a model made of 3 strips of different sizes. Keeping the concept of Dominant (D), Sub-Dominant (SD) and Subordinate (SO) (posted here), we aim to obtain a dynamic flow of planar relationships in space. A plane is an element that has surface direction and slant without mass, tupes of plane:

2D Planes (characterized by their axes):
–Straight axis plane: The axis moves in a straight line across the plane.
–Bent axis plane: The axis moves across the surface of the plane in one direction and then shifts direction.
–Curved axis plane: The edges are curved, causing the axis to curve.
–Complex axis planes: The axis changes direction (infinitely) but the outer edges of the plane visually “add up” to the course of the movements of the plane.

3D Planes (characterized by their transitions in space):
–Curved plane: A simple curved surface where the surface curves into more than one plane but does not twist through its transition .
–Broken plane: A plane that bends in space at a hard edge through its transition.
–Twisted plane: A plane that twists though its transition, shifting the axis on its surface.
–Grouped planes: 3 or more planes create a group movement of gesture

So here is my three 3D Models for this planar construction (side view, top view, other view) :

MODEL 1: The Curvy Bridge

Relationship: D is a curved axis plane, SD is a bent axis plane, and SO is a broken plane

Method: SO is wedged to D

Comment: The model has a complementary contrast in types of planes. Even though it looks not-so-interesting and heavy (high positive space) if seen from top, the model has a quite remarkable negative space and void shape from front view.

Things to improve: From front view, the SD is too thick and vertically too long, making it too dominant from some angle. From top view, the direction of axis of SD and D are not distinct enough, creating some kind of high tension at the top one-third area.
Also, the area of SO is a bit too much and too dominant.

Improvement: From front view, need to make SD thinner to reduce the activity on left side and increase the void to around two-third. Shorten the length of SD to two-third in order to change the axis direction of SD which make SD less dominant and the activity to be at the top one third only (from top view). Shorten the SO until it touches the SD only (front view) and shift it to make a smaller void (top view) with purpose of reducing the presence of SO.

MODEL 2: The Smoky Pipe

Relationship: D is curved plane, SD is a twisted plane, and SO is a 3D broken plane.

Method: SD is pierced through D while SO is pierced and wedged through D.

Comment: The D, SD, SO relationship can be clearly seen. The model has good contrast in term of plane shape and proportion.

Things to improve: The direction axis between D and SO are very similar. In term of height, the SO occupy two-third, which is too much.
The same thing happen to SD as well, making it too vertically dominant if seen from front.

Improvement: Adjust the shape of SO to change its axis direction which also create an interesting negative space. Shorten bottom part of SO to make it occupy the top one-third only, creating less tension at the bottom part of the model. Cut off the top part of the SD, creating a just nice vertical height for it.

MODEL 3: The Insect

Relationship: D is a broken plane, SD is a twisted plane, and SO is a twisted plane.

Method: SD is pierced through D while SO is pierced and wedged through D.

Comment: With contrasting plane shape and proportion, the D, SD, SO relationship is obvious and constant throughout. It also has distinct axis direction, making it looks balanced. The front view really remind me of an insect, which make it the most interesting model for me. From top, I like the negative space the D

Things to improve: From front view, the bottom one-third looks quite low, maybe a more vertical negative space can make it more interesting and more alike to an insect feet. Also, the D is not so dominant as it vertically occupy one third only. From top view, the model looks a bit too much positive space and full as it occupy all the area, it lacks of negative space.

Improvement: Position the both end of SD closer to make the model higher and vertically has more negative space, this will make the model more interesting. Make the D piece thicker to create a more dominant D. Shift the direction of SO to occupy to leave the left corner area empty, creating a negative space for the model to breathe.

So for 3D class I chose the improved version of my Model 1 in my previous 3D post to be my Final Model!

Photo of my Final Model:

Relationship: Cylinder is Dominant (D), cone is Sub-Dominant (SD), and sphere is Subordinate (SO)

Method: Wedging between SD and SO

Proportion and Rhythm Inherent: Sphere has the smallest diameter, around one-third of cone diameter. While the cone has diameter about one-third (~0.333) of cylinder (disk). So, the cylinder has the largest diameter. Comparative: Cone is the greatest in mass, followed by cylinder then sphere. Overall: Cone has a precarious balance on cylinder while the sphere is dependent on the cone.

Comment: There was no much changes made to my Final Model. The main change is the addition of the Dominant diameter hence area of cylinder. However this small change really alter the impression of the model. At first, there was relatively high tension between axes of D and SD, and the change has significantly reduced this tension, creating an even better flow. Also, despite its precarious balance, the model looks natural and firm.

Also, this is the 2D Sketch Analysis of the Final Model:

From both sides it is shown that the Dominant, Sub-Dominant and Subordinate in my Final Model is constant throughout.

From side A, as the length of SD is around half D, I think I should pierced through the SD to move it up and occupy more of the top part of the D.

From side B, the proportion between D and SD look balance and good.

Then, I will also move the SO outward to make it visible from the other side of the D.

And bellow are the applications of my Final Model!

And last but not least, a short video of 360-Cube Joystick on Mario Kart:

For our second project in 3D we learning more about dynamic form composition along diagonal axes. In addition to volumes relationship and method to connect them in my project 1 post, we are learning about tension and balance.

The tensions we consider are between the axes of the volumes, between the surfaces of the planes and between the accents of the curves.

And three type of balance in group movements are: Dependent balance describes a situation in which a group movement of three or four volumes are dependent on one another for balance. Independent balance refers to the condition in which a line or volume in a static composition is independently balanced in the best position regardless of the physically support by other curves or straight lines. Precarious balance describes the situation in which for a split second in time, one gets the feeling of balance, as if the very gesture is holding its breath and supporting itself for the moment.

So ya, here is my 3D models and analysis 🙂

MODEL 1: The Tilted Gramophone

Relationship: Cylinder is Dominant (D), cone is Sub-Dominant (SD), sphere is Subordinate (SO)

Method: Wedging between SD and SO

Proportion and Rhythm Inherent: Sphere has the smallest diameter, around one-third of cone diameter. While the cone has diameter about half (~0.455) of cylinder (disk). So, the cylinder has the longest diameter. Comparative: Cone is greatest in mass, followed by cylinder then sphere. Overall: Cone has a precarious balance on cylinder while the sphere is dependent on cone.

Comment: Even though there is relatively high tension at the meeting point between D and SD, I think this model has a really well flow.

Comment and Improvement:
From side A, at a glance the model seems to have two SDs. The length of D doesn’t seem dominant enough compared to SD due to the larger area of SD.
From side B, the D is obvious but somehow not strong enough, hence will be better if its area is to be increased.
As such, the D need to be more dominant by increasing the diameter of the cylinder by half.

MODEL 2: The Diagonal Vacuum Cleaner

Relationship: Cylinder is Dominant (D), cone is Sub-Dominant (SD), sphere is Subordinate (SO)

Method: Wedging between SD and SO, I decided to not wedge SD to D as I found it interesting that SD can be pivoted and rotate in circular motion.

Proportion and Rhythm
Inherent: Sphere has the smallest diameter, around a quarter of cone diameter. While the cone has diameter about half (~0.574) of cylinder. In term of length, the cone is about one-third (~0.385) of cylinder. So, the cylinder has the longest in both diameter and length. Comparative: Cylinder is greatest in mass, followed by cone then sphere. Overall: Cone is dependent on cylinder while the sphere is dependent on cone.

Comment: I just realized that my Model 2 is really similar to Model 1 in term of shape and arrangement. The shape different is the thickness of the cylinder and height of cone, while the main arrangement different is in Model 1 the SD is directed inwards while in Model 2 it is directed outwards.
Even though it’s similar, Model 2 is relatively more balance and has less tension than Model 1. But it doesn’t flow as well as Model 1 due to the bulky D.

Comment and Improvement:
From side A, it is seen that the SO is hidden when seen from some angle, hence need to re-position the SO.
From side B, the SD looks a bit too big compared to the D, therefore need to make the diameter smaller to about two-third. This will reduce the portion of SD and enhance the dominance of D.

MODEL 3: When the Duck Goes to War

Relationship: Sphere is Dominant (D), cone is Sub-Dominant (SD), cylinder is Subordinate (SO)

Method: Wedging between SD and SO.

Proportion and Rhythm Inherent: Cylinder has the smallest diameter, around half of cone diameter. While the cone has diameter about a quarter (~0.284) of sphere. In term of length, the cone is about one and one-eight (~1.125) of sphere. So, the sphere has the longest in both diameter and length. Comparative: Sphere is obviously greatest in mass, followed by cone then cylinder. Overall: Sphere is independent, cone is independent as well while cylinder is dependent on cone.

Comment: I found that Model 3 is ‘heavy’ and tense on the area between the meeting point of D-SD and the SO. However I feel that the model flow quite well, better than Model 2.

Comment and Improvement: From both sides it is clear that the SD is rather long. For a very short moment, there can be confusion of which one is the Dominant from side B. Hence, need to make it shorter to around 0.6 of the current one. This will make the D to be more dominant and clear, especially when seen from side B.

In conclusion, I decided to use Model 1: The Tilted Gramophone as my final model. I like it the most due to its interesting disc-like shape cylinder, also it has the best flow among my three models.

Hi! So I have chosen my Model 3 in the previous post to be my Final Model. Yeay!

So here is the photo of my Final Model:

Then I also made the 2D sketch analysis for this model.

At first it looks okay as from all sides it is shown that the Dominant (D), Sub-Dominant (SD) and Subordinate (SO) in are consistent throughout. However there are some things that can be improved on:

Referring to first side shown, the vertical length of SD looks similar to the horizontal length of D. Hence the D vertical length need to be longer, which will positively make the D more dominant as well.

Referring to second side shown, the position of SD should be move more to the left so that it will be even closer to the area between half and one-third.

Referring to the third side shown , the vertical length of SO looks similar to the horizontal length of D. The vertical length of SO need to be shorten differentiate it, but be careful to not be as short as the horizontal length of SD.

Hi! So for our very first project of 3D class, we learnt about rectilinear volume which consist of Dominant, Sub-dominant and Subordinate.

To put it simply, the Dominant volume (D) is the largest element of the object, the Sub-Dominant volume (SD) is the one that complements the dominant while the Subordinate (SO) is an interesting part that complete the whole design.

Then we all have to make 3 models from foam which each consist of one D, one SD and one SO. Follow are my 3 models:

MODEL 1

For my Model 1, the SD is wedged to the D while the SO is pierced through the SD. It looks long and thick with a very very tiny SO, which is quite hard to see from far. However it is solid and able to be stand firmly.

Sketch analysis of Model 1:

To conclude, my Model 1 looks like a typical model for D, SD, SO which make it not so interesting and quite boring!

MODEL 2

My Model 2 has the SD wedged to D and SO pierced through SD. It has a long, wide and thin shape. It consist of thin parts which makes it looks skinny in a way. This model cannot easily stand vertically like side A and side B. And when it does, the wide area of side A makes it topple easily when there is wind.

Sketch analysis of Model 2:

My Model 2 looks much more weighty and solid in the corrected sketch, I guess it is much more stable and sturdy (won’t topple as easily yeay)! Hence I think it can be more useful compared to before.

MODEL 3

In my Model 3, SO is wedged to D and pierced through SD (cradling). Both D and SD have short and thick blocks, making it looks small, chunky and closely-packed. However it is really stable and firm.

Sketch analysis of Model 3:

My Model 3 looks really transformed after the improvement! It looks fresher and more mature somehow. The longer D and SD make it looks bigger and more sturdy. While the shifting of SD and SO making the model less compact and have more negative space. I decided to choose this as my final model!