Architectural Differences Between Dynamic And Static

Since the beginning of architecture, values such as balance and strength were the basis for all design, but recently a tendency to the adoption of organic and dynamic forms has emerged with great impact. With the static architecture, each user always connects to the same virtual machine (VM) that exists and is maintained between sessions. This means for every user, you need a VM, which obviously requires a large amount of storage for all the VMs.

With a dynamic architecture, the VMs are not persistent and when a user connects, a new VM is created based on a master template, the user personality is placed onto the new VM and applications are made available through application virtualization, giving very fast availability of the session. Once the user disconnects, the VM is destroyed. In reality, the VM is not created when the user connects; the VDI solution maintains a pool of "ready" VMs to expedite the user connection experience.

While dynamic architecture is more complex because of the provisioning requirements of the VM, profile and folder redirection, it is the best practice because it actually reduces management overhead since you're not patching the OS anymore; you just update the master image. In addition, you'll have fewer VMs, because you only need to host VMs for the number of concurrently accessing users.

The Movement Concept

Historically, architects have understood the movement concept as the course of an eye that moves in space, yet the architecture itself, in its design and implementation was seen as static, fixed, ideal, and material. Static and equilibrium always have been tenets of traditional architecture, always associated with the concepts of proportionality and stability.

Issues that suggest movement and dynamics in architecture are often driven with picturesque views, where buildings were not only built as static forms, but conceptualized and designed based on models of rigidity and balance. Even today, the common animation software for the architecture field reinforces that thought, which says that the architectural design belongs to the Cartesian space waiting to be animated by a mobile vision.

Organic and Dynamic

But recently began a new movement that seeks to change the view of the theory that judges and orders the design through treaties, manuals, and even styles and pre-established movements from the various historical periods. Building on a theoretical and philosophical basis, there are the experimenters of architecture through studies prismatic and diagrammatic, among several others, proposing an alternative beyond the common and based on their own studies and observations.

Instead of using animation software, which stimulates the ordinary movement in Cartesian space and linear, there is a growing movement that seeks an attempt to use advanced motion for dynamically designing architectural projects. This revolution is made through the combination of surfaces deformed by external physical forces and biological models, trying to coordinate better than conventional software architecture in order to design a unique and living project.

Breaking concepts

The explosive energy of these dynamic designs often seem to oppose the weight and the static nature of matter, like the floating house above designed by Jedrzej Lewandowski and Skirzynski Lukasz. In their search for systems that simulate the appearance of life, the special effects and animation industry is crucial for this type of research at the intersection of determination and indeterminacy, that control is essential for the development of this dynamic design method, only with the use of typological geometry that can be bent, twisted, deformed, and referenced to when necessary to maintain its linearity.

Related Posts