Brown Bag Lab Lunch Series


return to schedule

add a new review

Reviews of FlexM:

  • John Christopher Mayfield

    I really appreciated Marcus' concept. I fear it may be too far reaching to see completion in this iteration, but someone has to take the first step.

    I, also liked Marcus' delivery. Unfortunately, some things need to be cut out for the sake of time, and focus. As examples, I don' t think the flashlight game has a lot of relavance, and, while interesting, the toy history could probably go.

    What I wouldn't get rid of is exactly what many of the other reviewers suggested be removed: your explanations of the problems of orientation, connection, and the six degrees of freedom. I, personally, consider this section to be the heart of your presentation. It was the most interesting and the most informative segment. More importantly, though, it was the statement of your problem.

    The respect I have for your project comes, in large part, from my knowledge of all the issues you've attempted to address with it. I had seen some of your prototypes around before your talk, and had heard vaguely that it was an attempt to create a more tangible modeling interface. It seemed like a very nice little plastic thing with wires coming out of it. It wasn't until this section of your presentation that I actually understood all the factors that such a device has to take into account, and gained true respect for your work.

    I would hope that whoever your reviewers are when your final presentation comes would be similarly enlightened.

    edit this review

  • Ferdinand Laurino

    Cool project! The whole presentation was presented in a organize manner with great content that supports the main idea. If there is something I would like to change with the presentation it would be taking some content out. The beginning of the presentation could have been shortened and you should just jump into the main topic at hand. Also, the problem statement needed to be reiterating over the course of the presentation because there were too much information stated and I was overloaded with data and forgot what the main purpose of the product being developed. I greatly caution in passing around models because sometimes it detracts people from the presentation. It only takes one second for a person to be in the wrong page if he or she did not hear critical information at the right moment.

    edit this review

  • Julie Dawn Pravitz

    As a designer, I can appreciate the advantages that FlexM brings to the table. The idea of using a physical model to generate digital images is a good one. Sometimes just by distorting our existing concepts helps us to realize a potentially better design that we might have realized before. I agree with the other person who posted and said "it has good bones".

    One potential downfall is the difficulty and lenghtly process it takes to construct one of these physical models. The connections must be easy to modify and durable to stand up to the average person not respecting the delicacy of the joint.

    Your presentation style was excellent. You appear to be comfortable when you are speaking, that makes the critiquer comfortable with you also. That's a good thing. My advice is to go over your presentation outline, cut out parts that are not vital to FlexM, and be sure to make a clear introduction to your project. Good Luck!

    edit this review

  • Rosanne Weiling Chien

    Flex M is an interesting project. I like how I am given the opportunity to control and manipulate a 3D model. It is always good to given the user as much freedom as possible to to alter and tweak their projects to their liking so that it can truly be their own. This added freedom is much better than using using our everyday devices that are available to us, like the keyboard, and the mouse, and perhaps the tablet. I think that this is a fun tool that has a lot of advantages. This would be a great tool for someone trying to explore new ideas and elaborate on their creativity. Even so, it just seems like fun tool to play with, and simple enough for anyone to use. Amateurs, or individuals just exploring the concept of artistic creativity (perhaps also in the form of architecture) are given the opportunity to further their work using tools and methods such as this one provided.

    edit this review

  • Eithon Michael Cadag

    I wasn't entirely sure of the applicability of this idea, mainly because it relies on arbitrary human action to form and contort. More specifically, I question the repeatability of using a FlexM based system - how will one architect be able to replicate the design or style of another architect accurately if the system used is based on human movement?

    I suppose its possible to record values associated with each form factor, but it still seems possible to duplicate the results of FlexM similarly on CAD without have to resort to the use of delicate and possibly pricey/difficult to use blocks. It seems more of a mechanical modelling tool than an architectural design system, especially given the somewhat awkward shape of the FlexM building units.

    edit this review

  • Gregory Nathaniel Heasley

    I thought the presentation was well put together. It could use some shortening of non-critical areas, but over all I thought Marcus did a great job of presenting his idea. As far as the actual concept is concerned, however, I was much less convinced of it's potential practical use. The problem I see is that, for all it's intended intuitiveness, the system is really not easy to just pick up and build with. Future architects will always need to make a time commitement to learn some complex piece of software. Further, I don't know of many firms that would pay the thousands of dollars necesary to purchase, set up, and maintain a design tool like this when there are so many workable, and probably cheaper, options available. Finally, if this is intended to be more than just a fun modeling toy or design tool what is it to be used for? It certainly could not be used to make working drawings as inaccuracies are inherent in building 1/8" or even 1/2" scale models. Just my 2 cents.

    edit this review

  • Scott Brandon McDonald

    This idea is great, but there are a few problems with the design. First, the pieces are too big and bulky. The pieces are also too fragile and expensive. In order to see something like this make it on the market and have people use it, these things need to be overcome. I have no doubt that a market for this idea is there. I know I would like to see it out there because I think its a great idea to have CAD drawings automatically generated from a model. I know I would use it.

    edit this review

  • Ann Marie Sager

    Markus's delivery was fantastic! I don't know why everyone was beating him up! I thought he presented the problem/question very cleary and then proceeded to answer it. Yes, further development and clarity will help but the bones of a good presentation are there.

    I was particularly fascinated with the smart legos. I imagine future architecture students using smart platforms, columns, beams, joists, rafters, walls, and furniture in 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 scale. It's like Stick Studio on speed! Good luck, Markus!

    edit this review

  • John Hilgeman

    I felt that the extra material in Markus' presentation (Hi Markus) was the case studies. I personally feel that case studies help develop an idea as it is designed but serve little purpose in the presentation of the final project other than as support for certain design decisions. I would spend more time on the concept of the project, how it works, and where it stands relative to similar projects.
    I also feel that it is very important to state that the project is not a final product in iteslf. It would help to emphasize to the jurors that the project is a prototype for future applications. It would also help to suggest a number of these possible applications. Tha main idea is definately there - the next thing people will wonder is what to do with it?

    edit this review

  • Diana P Ayala

    This presentation was very complex with the explanation of creating FlexM for making CAD program easier to understand. Throughout the presentation of how architects or designer who use CAD may struggle with the software because of the interface. this part was hard for me to follow of how FlexM can help people understand the software better. I thought some part of the presentation he could explain or answer some questions. I thought if you can explain it then don't include it. It was a good organized presentation just needs a little clearer explanation of how FlexM can help the CAD software a better program.

    edit this review