New Evaluator Nodes + Excel Results
My single-objective optimization scheme is a combination (weighted average) of my two designed metric, normalized to range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating a “better form”. My first evaluation metric is Shape Variety Index (which measures the “spread” of different floor sizes/areas within the building, i.e. the further away from the average floor area each floor is, the higher the metric). This is meant to capture geometrically interesting features in the building form: is it more wonky/expressive or is it more conservative. The second evaluation metric is Structural Consideration Index which considers where large and small floors are along the height of the building. This is meant to capture some sense of what might be more convoluted to construct in a structurally sound manner and values range from negative to positive (more convoluted/less desirable) In the combination optimization metric, I put more weight (75%) on the structural index, because that felt like a less subjective consideration.
I felt like the weighted combination strategy worked for this set of metrics because they don’t necessarily counteract each other. In that case, I imagine one would want to strive for the best of all possible options by maximizing both metrics.
As for the individual metrics, they don’t do a particularly good job of highlighting meaningful differences as all the values exist within a fairly narrow range. Additionally, in some cases the change in certain input variables didn’t yield noticeable difference in the measured values. I think other metrics considering location/proximity to adjacent structures and/or different interactions with the natural environment are compelling metrics to consider.
Its not a particularly great metric however as It doesn’t distinguish enough between candidates
Your answers to the Points to Ponder questions for each stage of the assignment that you completed.