Journal of Graphics ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (6): 1277-1288.DOI: 10.11996/JG.j.2095-302X.2024061277
• Special Topic on “Large Models and Graphics Technology and Applications” • Previous Articles Next Articles
LU Peng1(), WU Fan2, TANG Jian1(
)
Received:
2024-07-08
Accepted:
2024-09-08
Online:
2024-12-31
Published:
2024-12-24
Contact:
TANG Jian
About author:
First author contact:LU Peng (1990-), associate researcher, Ph.D. His main research interests cover industrial design and its theory. E-mail:lupengID@dlut.edu.cn
Supported by:
CLC Number:
LU Peng, WU Fan, TANG Jian. Product design and evaluation methods based on AI-generated content[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2024, 45(6): 1277-1288.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.txxb.com.cn/EN/10.11996/JG.j.2095-302X.2024061277
内容 | Midjourney | Stable Diffusion |
---|---|---|
生成模式 | 支持3种生成模式,包括“文本到图像”“图像到图像”“图像到文本” | 支持3种生成模式,同Midjourney |
核心技术 | 多种深度学习模型和算法,主要包括生成式对抗网络(GAN)、卷积神经网络(CNN)和变分自编码器(VAE) | 扩散模型(diffusion model) |
训练数据 | 大量高质量的图像数据,注重图像数据的艺术风格和设计元素 | 大量公开的图像数据集及其文本对,如LAION-5B,注重图像数据的广泛性和全面性 |
提示词 | 强调抽象的艺术风格,一般使用较短的提示词便可生成优于Stable Diffusion的高品质且符合预期的图像内容 | 强调详细的场景描述,通常需要复杂的正向提示词和反向提示词 |
图像控制 | 局部重绘和扩展图等功能可实现对图像的控制,但可控性逊色于Stable Diffusion | 除了局部重绘和扩展图等功能,内置的ControlNet插件和自主训练的LoRA模型可实现对输出内容的精准控制,如能够实现二维线稿到三维渲染效果的快速转换,以及风格化迁移等 |
插件支持 | 支持少量插件 | 由于代码开源,支持各种插件 |
部署方式 | 部署在Discord云端平台 | 支持本地部署(离线) |
Table 1 Similarities and differences between midjourney and Stable Diffusion
内容 | Midjourney | Stable Diffusion |
---|---|---|
生成模式 | 支持3种生成模式,包括“文本到图像”“图像到图像”“图像到文本” | 支持3种生成模式,同Midjourney |
核心技术 | 多种深度学习模型和算法,主要包括生成式对抗网络(GAN)、卷积神经网络(CNN)和变分自编码器(VAE) | 扩散模型(diffusion model) |
训练数据 | 大量高质量的图像数据,注重图像数据的艺术风格和设计元素 | 大量公开的图像数据集及其文本对,如LAION-5B,注重图像数据的广泛性和全面性 |
提示词 | 强调抽象的艺术风格,一般使用较短的提示词便可生成优于Stable Diffusion的高品质且符合预期的图像内容 | 强调详细的场景描述,通常需要复杂的正向提示词和反向提示词 |
图像控制 | 局部重绘和扩展图等功能可实现对图像的控制,但可控性逊色于Stable Diffusion | 除了局部重绘和扩展图等功能,内置的ControlNet插件和自主训练的LoRA模型可实现对输出内容的精准控制,如能够实现二维线稿到三维渲染效果的快速转换,以及风格化迁移等 |
插件支持 | 支持少量插件 | 由于代码开源,支持各种插件 |
部署方式 | 部署在Discord云端平台 | 支持本地部署(离线) |
评价尺度 | 含义 |
---|---|
1 | 同等重要 |
3 | 略微重要 |
5 | 重要 |
7 | 非常重要 |
9 | 绝对重要 |
2,4,6,8 | 中间值 |
Table 2 Evaluation scales and their meanings in AHP
评价尺度 | 含义 |
---|---|
1 | 同等重要 |
3 | 略微重要 |
5 | 重要 |
7 | 非常重要 |
9 | 绝对重要 |
2,4,6,8 | 中间值 |
阶数 | R.I. |
---|---|
3 | 0.58 |
4 | 0.90 |
5 | 1.12 |
6 | 1.24 |
7 | 1.32 |
8 | 1.41 |
9 | 1.46 |
10 | 1.49 |
Table 3 Random consistency index (R.I.)
阶数 | R.I. |
---|---|
3 | 0.58 |
4 | 0.90 |
5 | 1.12 |
6 | 1.24 |
7 | 1.32 |
8 | 1.41 |
9 | 1.46 |
10 | 1.49 |
提示词 | 回复内容 |
---|---|
请将用户感性需求归纳为意象形容词 | 简约的、现代的、优雅的、时尚的、复古的、未来的、低调的、动感的、独特的、活泼的、平衡的、和谐的、生动的、轻盈的、自然的、创意的、引人注目的、浪漫的、美学的、精致的、运动感的、个性化的、艺术感的、充满活力的、酷炫的、可爱的、科技感的 |
Table 4 Imagery adjectives for describing electric motorcycles
提示词 | 回复内容 |
---|---|
请将用户感性需求归纳为意象形容词 | 简约的、现代的、优雅的、时尚的、复古的、未来的、低调的、动感的、独特的、活泼的、平衡的、和谐的、生动的、轻盈的、自然的、创意的、引人注目的、浪漫的、美学的、精致的、运动感的、个性化的、艺术感的、充满活力的、酷炫的、可爱的、科技感的 |
Fig. 2 Reference database for technological and sporty electric motorcycle forms ((a) “Technological” electric motorcycle forms; (b) “Sporty” electric motorcycle forms)
科技感造型 | 运动感造型 | ||
---|---|---|---|
造型编号 | 问卷平均分 | 造型编号 | 问卷平均分 |
Tshape_9 | 0.823 | Sshape_15 | 0.824 |
Tshape_17 | 0.799 | Sshape_19 | 0.803 |
Tshape_16 | 0.786 | Sshape_17 | 0.793 |
Tshape_13 | 0.752 | Sshape_3 | 0.788 |
Tshape_10 | 0.743 | Sshape_5 | 0.772 |
Tshape_11 | 0.718 | Sshape_12 | 0.754 |
Tshape_2 | 0.703 | Sshape_8 | 0.738 |
Tshape_8 | 0.694 | Sshape_13 | 0.725 |
Tshape_3 | 0.688 | Sshape_11 | 0.707 |
Tshape_7 | 0.675 | Sshape_18 | 0.695 |
Table 5 Sensory questionnaire evaluation results of technological and sporty form designs
科技感造型 | 运动感造型 | ||
---|---|---|---|
造型编号 | 问卷平均分 | 造型编号 | 问卷平均分 |
Tshape_9 | 0.823 | Sshape_15 | 0.824 |
Tshape_17 | 0.799 | Sshape_19 | 0.803 |
Tshape_16 | 0.786 | Sshape_17 | 0.793 |
Tshape_13 | 0.752 | Sshape_3 | 0.788 |
Tshape_10 | 0.743 | Sshape_5 | 0.772 |
Tshape_11 | 0.718 | Sshape_12 | 0.754 |
Tshape_2 | 0.703 | Sshape_8 | 0.738 |
Tshape_8 | 0.694 | Sshape_13 | 0.725 |
Tshape_3 | 0.688 | Sshape_11 | 0.707 |
Tshape_7 | 0.675 | Sshape_18 | 0.695 |
评价指标 | 比较序列 | 参照序列 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x2 | x3 | x7 | x8 | x9 | x10 | x11 | x13 | x16 | x17 | x0 | |
造型科技感如何? | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.92 |
造型整体美感如何? | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
造型的人体工学如何? | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
造型元素尺寸是否合理? | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.88 |
造型是否便于加工制造? | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.87 |
造型部件是否便于更换? | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.86 |
灰关联度(ri) | 4.11 | 3.27 | 3.15 | 3.09 | 2.74 | 3.27 | 3.62 | 4.37 | 5.53 | 3.73 | - |
排名 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | - |
Table 6 Evaluation results of technological forms based on GRA
评价指标 | 比较序列 | 参照序列 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x2 | x3 | x7 | x8 | x9 | x10 | x11 | x13 | x16 | x17 | x0 | |
造型科技感如何? | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.92 |
造型整体美感如何? | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
造型的人体工学如何? | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
造型元素尺寸是否合理? | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.88 |
造型是否便于加工制造? | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.87 |
造型部件是否便于更换? | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.86 |
灰关联度(ri) | 4.11 | 3.27 | 3.15 | 3.09 | 2.74 | 3.27 | 3.62 | 4.37 | 5.53 | 3.73 | - |
排名 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | - |
评价指标 | 比较序列 | 参照序列 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x3 | x5 | x8 | x11 | x12 | x13 | x15 | x17 | x18 | x19 | x0 | |
造型运动感如何? | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.92 |
造型整体美感如何? | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.91 |
造型的人体工学如何? | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
造型元素尺寸是否合理? | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.89 |
造型是否便于加工制造? | 0.77 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.88 |
造型部件是否便于更换? | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.85 |
灰关联度(ri) | 3.78 | 3.80 | 3.90 | 3.70 | 2.62 | 3.03 | 3.06 | 5.83 | 4.10 | 3.95 | - |
排名 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | - |
Table 7 Evaluation results of sporty forms based on GRA
评价指标 | 比较序列 | 参照序列 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x3 | x5 | x8 | x11 | x12 | x13 | x15 | x17 | x18 | x19 | x0 | |
造型运动感如何? | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.92 |
造型整体美感如何? | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.91 |
造型的人体工学如何? | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
造型元素尺寸是否合理? | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.89 |
造型是否便于加工制造? | 0.77 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.88 |
造型部件是否便于更换? | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.85 |
灰关联度(ri) | 3.78 | 3.80 | 3.90 | 3.70 | 2.62 | 3.03 | 3.06 | 5.83 | 4.10 | 3.95 | - |
排名 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | - |
评价 | Tshape_2 | Tshape_3 | Tshape_7 | Tshape_8 | Tshape_9 | Tshape_10 | Tshape_11 | Tshape_13 | Tshape_16 | Tshape_17 | 几何 均值 | 权重 | 排名 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tshape_2 | 1 | 1.261 | 1.303 | 1.289 | 2.312 | 1.763 | 1.247 | 0.906 | 0.859 | 1.094 | 1.248 | 0.120 | 3 |
Tshape_3 | 0.793 | 1 | 1.034 | 1.122 | 1.438 | 1.057 | 0.884 | 0.719 | 0.682 | 0.837 | 0.934 | 0.090 | 6 |
Tshape_7 | 0.768 | 0.967 | 1 | 0.826 | 1.406 | 1.011 | 0.957 | 0.693 | 0.659 | 0.818 | 0.890 | 0.085 | 8 |
Tshape_8 | 0.776 | 0.891 | 1.211 | 1 | 1.422 | 1.022 | 0.967 | 0.700 | 0.665 | 0.827 | 0.924 | 0.089 | 7 |
Tshape_9 | 0.433 | 0.696 | 0.711 | 0.703 | 1 | 0.719 | 0.680 | 0.291 | 0.259 | 0.580 | 0.563 | 0.054 | 10 |
Tshape_10 | 0.567 | 0.946 | 0.989 | 0.978 | 1.392 | 1 | 0.947 | 0.338 | 0.297 | 0.810 | 0.749 | 0.072 | 9 |
Tshape_11 | 0.802 | 1.131 | 1.045 | 1.034 | 1.471 | 1.056 | 1 | 0.724 | 0.688 | 0.854 | 0.957 | 0.092 | 5 |
Tshape_13 | 1.104 | 1.391 | 1.443 | 1.43 | 3.433 | 2.958 | 1.381 | 1 | 0.951 | 1.18 | 1.478 | 0.142 | 2 |
Tshape_16 | 1.164 | 1.466 | 1.517 | 1.503 | 3.867 | 3.363 | 1.453 | 1.052 | 1 | 1.241 | 1.578 | 0.151 | 1 |
Tshape_17 | 0.914 | 1.195 | 1.222 | 1.211 | 1.563 | 1.235 | 1.171 | 0.847 | 0.806 | 1 | 1.096 | 0.105 | 4 |
C.R.≈0.007<0.1 |
Table 8 Evaluation results of technological forms based on AHP
评价 | Tshape_2 | Tshape_3 | Tshape_7 | Tshape_8 | Tshape_9 | Tshape_10 | Tshape_11 | Tshape_13 | Tshape_16 | Tshape_17 | 几何 均值 | 权重 | 排名 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tshape_2 | 1 | 1.261 | 1.303 | 1.289 | 2.312 | 1.763 | 1.247 | 0.906 | 0.859 | 1.094 | 1.248 | 0.120 | 3 |
Tshape_3 | 0.793 | 1 | 1.034 | 1.122 | 1.438 | 1.057 | 0.884 | 0.719 | 0.682 | 0.837 | 0.934 | 0.090 | 6 |
Tshape_7 | 0.768 | 0.967 | 1 | 0.826 | 1.406 | 1.011 | 0.957 | 0.693 | 0.659 | 0.818 | 0.890 | 0.085 | 8 |
Tshape_8 | 0.776 | 0.891 | 1.211 | 1 | 1.422 | 1.022 | 0.967 | 0.700 | 0.665 | 0.827 | 0.924 | 0.089 | 7 |
Tshape_9 | 0.433 | 0.696 | 0.711 | 0.703 | 1 | 0.719 | 0.680 | 0.291 | 0.259 | 0.580 | 0.563 | 0.054 | 10 |
Tshape_10 | 0.567 | 0.946 | 0.989 | 0.978 | 1.392 | 1 | 0.947 | 0.338 | 0.297 | 0.810 | 0.749 | 0.072 | 9 |
Tshape_11 | 0.802 | 1.131 | 1.045 | 1.034 | 1.471 | 1.056 | 1 | 0.724 | 0.688 | 0.854 | 0.957 | 0.092 | 5 |
Tshape_13 | 1.104 | 1.391 | 1.443 | 1.43 | 3.433 | 2.958 | 1.381 | 1 | 0.951 | 1.18 | 1.478 | 0.142 | 2 |
Tshape_16 | 1.164 | 1.466 | 1.517 | 1.503 | 3.867 | 3.363 | 1.453 | 1.052 | 1 | 1.241 | 1.578 | 0.151 | 1 |
Tshape_17 | 0.914 | 1.195 | 1.222 | 1.211 | 1.563 | 1.235 | 1.171 | 0.847 | 0.806 | 1 | 1.096 | 0.105 | 4 |
C.R.≈0.007<0.1 |
评价 | Sshape_3 | Sshape_5 | Sshape_8 | Sshape_11 | Sshape_12 | Sshape_13 | Sshape_15 | Sshape_17 | Sshape_18 | Sshape_19 | 几何 均值 | 权重 | 排名 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sshape_3 | 1 | 0.934 | 0.952 | 1.076 | 1.269 | 1.456 | 1.042 | 0.798 | 0.868 | 0.825 | 1.005 | 0.099 | 6 |
Sshape_5 | 1.071 | 1 | 1.019 | 1.152 | 1.359 | 1.559 | 1.116 | 0.855 | 0.930 | 0.883 | 1.076 | 0.106 | 4 |
Sshape_8 | 1.051 | 0.982 | 1 | 1.13 | 1.333 | 1.529 | 1.100 | 0.839 | 0.912 | 0.867 | 1.057 | 0.104 | 5 |
Sshape_11 | 0.929 | 0.868 | 0.885 | 1 | 1.179 | 1.353 | 0.968 | 0.742 | 0.776 | 0.767 | 0.931 | 0.092 | 8 |
Sshape_12 | 0.788 | 0.735 | 0.750 | 0.849 | 1 | 1.147 | 0.821 | 0.503 | 0.595 | 0.544 | 0.750 | 0.078 | 9 |
Sshape_13 | 0.687 | 0.642 | 0.654 | 0.739 | 0.872 | 1 | 0.716 | 0.354 | 0.446 | 0.406 | 0.621 | 0.068 | 10 |
Sshape_15 | 0.960 | 0.896 | 0.909 | 1.033 | 1.218 | 1.397 | 1 | 0.767 | 0.835 | 0.792 | 0.965 | 0.095 | 7 |
Sshape_17 | 1.253 | 1.170 | 1.192 | 1.348 | 1.987 | 2.822 | 1.303 | 1 | 1.089 | 1.033 | 1.345 | 0.124 | 1 |
Sshape_18 | 1.152 | 1.075 | 1.096 | 1.289 | 1.680 | 2.243 | 1.197 | 0.918 | 1 | 0.950 | 1.213 | 0.114 | 3 |
Sshape_19 | 1.212 | 1.132 | 1.153 | 1.305 | 1.838 | 2.464 | 1.262 | 0.968 | 1.053 | 1 | 1.282 | 0.120 | 2 |
C.R.≈0.002<0.1 |
Table 9 Evaluation results of sporty forms based on AHP
评价 | Sshape_3 | Sshape_5 | Sshape_8 | Sshape_11 | Sshape_12 | Sshape_13 | Sshape_15 | Sshape_17 | Sshape_18 | Sshape_19 | 几何 均值 | 权重 | 排名 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sshape_3 | 1 | 0.934 | 0.952 | 1.076 | 1.269 | 1.456 | 1.042 | 0.798 | 0.868 | 0.825 | 1.005 | 0.099 | 6 |
Sshape_5 | 1.071 | 1 | 1.019 | 1.152 | 1.359 | 1.559 | 1.116 | 0.855 | 0.930 | 0.883 | 1.076 | 0.106 | 4 |
Sshape_8 | 1.051 | 0.982 | 1 | 1.13 | 1.333 | 1.529 | 1.100 | 0.839 | 0.912 | 0.867 | 1.057 | 0.104 | 5 |
Sshape_11 | 0.929 | 0.868 | 0.885 | 1 | 1.179 | 1.353 | 0.968 | 0.742 | 0.776 | 0.767 | 0.931 | 0.092 | 8 |
Sshape_12 | 0.788 | 0.735 | 0.750 | 0.849 | 1 | 1.147 | 0.821 | 0.503 | 0.595 | 0.544 | 0.750 | 0.078 | 9 |
Sshape_13 | 0.687 | 0.642 | 0.654 | 0.739 | 0.872 | 1 | 0.716 | 0.354 | 0.446 | 0.406 | 0.621 | 0.068 | 10 |
Sshape_15 | 0.960 | 0.896 | 0.909 | 1.033 | 1.218 | 1.397 | 1 | 0.767 | 0.835 | 0.792 | 0.965 | 0.095 | 7 |
Sshape_17 | 1.253 | 1.170 | 1.192 | 1.348 | 1.987 | 2.822 | 1.303 | 1 | 1.089 | 1.033 | 1.345 | 0.124 | 1 |
Sshape_18 | 1.152 | 1.075 | 1.096 | 1.289 | 1.680 | 2.243 | 1.197 | 0.918 | 1 | 0.950 | 1.213 | 0.114 | 3 |
Sshape_19 | 1.212 | 1.132 | 1.153 | 1.305 | 1.838 | 2.464 | 1.262 | 0.968 | 1.053 | 1 | 1.282 | 0.120 | 2 |
C.R.≈0.002<0.1 |
造型 | 相关系数 |
---|---|
科技感 | 0.933** |
运动感 | 0.816** |
Table 10 Results of Pearson correlation analysis
造型 | 相关系数 |
---|---|
科技感 | 0.933** |
运动感 | 0.816** |
造型编号 | 问卷平均分 |
---|---|
Fshape_20 | 0.797 |
Fshape_7 | 0.791 |
Fshape_12 | 0.787 |
Fshape_11 | 0.764 |
Fshape_18 | 0.748 |
Fshape_19 | 0.723 |
Fshape_10 | 0.704 |
Fshape_5 | 0.687 |
Fshape_15 | 0.683 |
Fshape_4 | 0.671 |
Table 11 Sensory questionnaire evaluation results of futuristic form designs
造型编号 | 问卷平均分 |
---|---|
Fshape_20 | 0.797 |
Fshape_7 | 0.791 |
Fshape_12 | 0.787 |
Fshape_11 | 0.764 |
Fshape_18 | 0.748 |
Fshape_19 | 0.723 |
Fshape_10 | 0.704 |
Fshape_5 | 0.687 |
Fshape_15 | 0.683 |
Fshape_4 | 0.671 |
评价指标 | 比较序列 | 参照序列 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x20 | x7 | x12 | x11 | x18 | x19 | x10 | x5 | x15 | x4 | x0 | |
造型未来感如何? | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
造型整体美感如何? | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.70 | 0.92 |
造型的人体工学如何? | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.91 |
造型元素尺寸是否合理? | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.88 | 0.74 | 0.88 |
造型是否便于加工制造? | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.86 |
造型部件是否便于更换? | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.87 |
灰关联度(ri) | 4.07 | 3.27 | 5.33 | 4.85 | 4.23 | 3.98 | 3.03 | 2.70 | 4.46 | 2.91 | / |
排名 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 3 | 9 | / |
Table 12 Evaluation results of futuristic forms based on GRA
评价指标 | 比较序列 | 参照序列 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x20 | x7 | x12 | x11 | x18 | x19 | x10 | x5 | x15 | x4 | x0 | |
造型未来感如何? | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.89 |
造型整体美感如何? | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.70 | 0.92 |
造型的人体工学如何? | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.91 |
造型元素尺寸是否合理? | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.88 | 0.74 | 0.88 |
造型是否便于加工制造? | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.86 |
造型部件是否便于更换? | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.87 |
灰关联度(ri) | 4.07 | 3.27 | 5.33 | 4.85 | 4.23 | 3.98 | 3.03 | 2.70 | 4.46 | 2.91 | / |
排名 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 3 | 9 | / |
造型评价 | Fshape_4 | Fshape_5 | Fshape_7 | Fshape_10 | Fshape_11 | Fshape_12 | Fshape_15 | Fshape_18 | Fshape_19 | Fshape_20 | 几何 均值 | 权重 | 排名 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fshape_4 | 1 | 0.843 | 0.922 | 0.756 | 0.280 | 0.240 | 0.319 | 0.584 | 0.615 | 0.663 | 0.559 | 0.052 | 10 |
Fshape_5 | 1.186 | 1 | 1.094 | 0.896 | 0.460 | 0.446 | 0.522 | 0.693 | 0.729 | 0.786 | 0.740 | 0.069 | 8 |
Fshape_7 | 1.084 | 0.914 | 1 | 0.819 | 0.420 | 0.338 | 0.476 | 0.631 | 0.664 | 0.716 | 0.663 | 0.062 | 9 |
Fshape_10 | 1.323 | 1.116 | 1.221 | 1 | 0.513 | 0.497 | 0.581 | 0.770 | 0.810 | 0.874 | 0.825 | 0.077 | 7 |
Fshape_11 | 3.576 | 2.174 | 2.382 | 1.949 | 1 | 0.970 | 1.133 | 1.502 | 1.581 | 1.705 | 1.662 | 0.155 | 2 |
Fshape_12 | 4.163 | 2.243 | 2.956 | 2.013 | 1.031 | 1 | 1.166 | 1.545 | 1.627 | 1.755 | 1.766 | 0.165 | 1 |
Fshape_15 | 3.131 | 1.916 | 2.101 | 1.719 | 0.880 | 0.858 | 1 | 1.324 | 1.395 | 1.506 | 1.465 | 0.137 | 3 |
Fshape_18 | 1.713 | 1.443 | 1.584 | 1.296 | 0.664 | 0.647 | 0.755 | 1 | 1.054 | 1.137 | 1.070 | 0.100 | 4 |
Fshape_19 | 1.626 | 1.371 | 1.506 | 1.232 | 0.631 | 0.615 | 0.717 | 0.949 | 1 | 1.078 | 1.016 | 0.095 | 5 |
Fshape_20 | 1.509 | 1.272 | 1.397 | 1.142 | 0.585 | 0.569 | 0.664 | 0.880 | 0.928 | 1 | 0.942 | 0.088 | 6 |
C.R.≈0.002<0.1 |
Table 13 Evaluation results of futuristic forms based on AHP
造型评价 | Fshape_4 | Fshape_5 | Fshape_7 | Fshape_10 | Fshape_11 | Fshape_12 | Fshape_15 | Fshape_18 | Fshape_19 | Fshape_20 | 几何 均值 | 权重 | 排名 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fshape_4 | 1 | 0.843 | 0.922 | 0.756 | 0.280 | 0.240 | 0.319 | 0.584 | 0.615 | 0.663 | 0.559 | 0.052 | 10 |
Fshape_5 | 1.186 | 1 | 1.094 | 0.896 | 0.460 | 0.446 | 0.522 | 0.693 | 0.729 | 0.786 | 0.740 | 0.069 | 8 |
Fshape_7 | 1.084 | 0.914 | 1 | 0.819 | 0.420 | 0.338 | 0.476 | 0.631 | 0.664 | 0.716 | 0.663 | 0.062 | 9 |
Fshape_10 | 1.323 | 1.116 | 1.221 | 1 | 0.513 | 0.497 | 0.581 | 0.770 | 0.810 | 0.874 | 0.825 | 0.077 | 7 |
Fshape_11 | 3.576 | 2.174 | 2.382 | 1.949 | 1 | 0.970 | 1.133 | 1.502 | 1.581 | 1.705 | 1.662 | 0.155 | 2 |
Fshape_12 | 4.163 | 2.243 | 2.956 | 2.013 | 1.031 | 1 | 1.166 | 1.545 | 1.627 | 1.755 | 1.766 | 0.165 | 1 |
Fshape_15 | 3.131 | 1.916 | 2.101 | 1.719 | 0.880 | 0.858 | 1 | 1.324 | 1.395 | 1.506 | 1.465 | 0.137 | 3 |
Fshape_18 | 1.713 | 1.443 | 1.584 | 1.296 | 0.664 | 0.647 | 0.755 | 1 | 1.054 | 1.137 | 1.070 | 0.100 | 4 |
Fshape_19 | 1.626 | 1.371 | 1.506 | 1.232 | 0.631 | 0.615 | 0.717 | 0.949 | 1 | 1.078 | 1.016 | 0.095 | 5 |
Fshape_20 | 1.509 | 1.272 | 1.397 | 1.142 | 0.585 | 0.569 | 0.664 | 0.880 | 0.928 | 1 | 0.942 | 0.088 | 6 |
C.R.≈0.002<0.1 |
Fig. 10 Line chart of differences between two evaluation methods of electric motorcycles ((a) Difference in technological forms; (b) Difference in sporty forms)
[1] | 程永胜, 徐骁琪. 用户感性需求驱动下的产品造型意象设计研究[J]. 机械设计与制造, 2023(8): 247-252. |
CHENG Y S, XU X Q. Research on product modeling image design driven by users perceptual demands[J]. Machinery Design & Manufacture, 2023(8): 247-252. (in Chinese) | |
[2] | 张书涛, 张凡, 王永照, 等. 基于形状文法与灰关联的施工升降机造型设计[J]. 机械设计, 2023, 40(7): 157-163. |
ZHANG S T, ZHANG F, WANG Y Z, et al. Modeling design of construction hoist based on shape grammar and grey correlation[J]. Journal of Machine Design, 2023, 40(7): 157-163. (in Chinese) | |
[3] | MCCORMACK J P, CAGAN J, VOGEL C M. Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars[J]. Design Studies, 2004, 25(1): 1-29. |
[4] | 李永锋, 朱丽萍. 基于结合分析的产品意象造型设计研究[J]. 图学学报, 2012, 33(4): 121-128. |
LI Y F, ZHU L P. Research on form design of product image based on conjoint analysis[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2012, 33(4): 121-128. (in Chinese) | |
[5] | LU P, HSIAO S W, WU F. A product shape design and evaluation model based on morphology preference and macroscopic shape information[J]. Entropy, 2021, 23(6): 639. |
[6] | 王剑, 陈丰, 乔印虎. 目标意象约束的人机辅助产品造型进化设计研究[J]. 机械设计, 2022, 39(2): 120-128. |
WANG J, CHEN F, QIAO Y H. Research on evolutionary design of human-machine aided product modeling constrained by target image[J]. Journal of Machine Design, 2022, 39(2): 120-128. (in Chinese) | |
[7] | HSIAO S W, CHIU F Y, LU S H. Product-form design model based on genetic algorithms[J]. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2010, 40(3): 237-246. |
[8] | 林哲辉, 吴正仲, 罗峰, 等. 基于感性工学与人工神经网络的电动剃须刀多感官意象设计方法[J]. 机械设计, 2023, 40(2): 149-156. |
LIN Z H, WU Z Z, LUO F, et al. Multi-sensory design method of electric shavers based on Kansei engineering and artificial neural networks[J]. Journal of Machine Design, 2023, 40(2): 149-156. (in Chinese) | |
[9] | WU Y, MA L S, YUAN X F, et al. Human-machine hybrid intelligence for the generation of car frontal forms[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2023, 55: 101906. |
[10] |
周爱民, 苏建宁, 阎树田, 等. 基于形态美度的产品多意象预测模型[J]. 图学学报, 2018, 39(4): 654-660.
DOI |
ZHOU A M, SU J N, YAN S T, et al. Product multi-image prediction model based on aesthetic measure of form[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2018, 39(4): 654-660. (in Chinese)
DOI |
|
[11] | LU P, HSIAO S W. A product design method for form and color matching based on aesthetic theory[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2022, 53: 101702. |
[12] | 罗仕鉴, 潘云鹤. 产品设计中的感性意象理论、技术与应用研究进展[J]. 机械工程学报, 2007, 43(3): 8-13. |
LUO S J, PAN Y H. Review of theory, key technologies and its application of perceptual image in product design[J]. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2007, 43(3): 8-13. (in Chinese) | |
[13] | 李白杨, 白云, 詹希旎, 等. 人工智能生成内容(AIGC)的技术特征与形态演进[J]. 图书情报知识, 2023, 40(1): 66-74. |
LI B Y, BAI Y, ZHAN X N, et al. The technical features and aromorphosis of artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC)[J]. Documentation, Information & Knowledge, 2023, 40(1): 66-74. (in Chinese) | |
[14] | WU F, HSIAO S W, LU P. An AIGC-empowered methodology to product color matching design[J]. Displays, 2024, 81: 102623. |
[15] | 李彦宏. 10年后全世界50%的工作会是提示词工程[J]. 中国商人, 2023(11): 68-69. |
LI Y H. Half of the world's jobs will be prompt engineering in ten years[J]. Chinese Businessman, 2023(11): 68-69. (in Chinese) | |
[16] | 赵文强, 臧欣慈. 皮尔斯符号学视域下AIGC对文创产品的设计探索[J]. 包装工程, 2024, 45(10): 116-126. |
ZHAO W Q, ZANG X C. Design of cultural and creative products based on the combination of pierce semiotics and AIGC[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2024, 45(10): 116-126. (in Chinese) | |
[17] | 李源枫, 王丽, 唐彩云, 等. 基于AIGC辅助技术的智慧交通公共设施设计研究[J]. 包装工程, 2024, 45(6): 479-488. |
LI Y F, WANG L, TANG C Y, et al. Design of smart public transportation facilities aided by AIGC technology[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2024, 45(6): 479-488. (in Chinese) | |
[18] |
厉向东, 夏涵飞, 单逸飞, 等. 图形用户界面自动生成技术的现状与挑战[J]. 图学学报, 2024, 45(3): 409-421.
DOI |
LI X D, XIA H F, SHAN Y F, et al. Opportunities and challenges: automatic generation technologies for graphical user interfaces[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2024, 45(3): 409-421. (in Chinese)
DOI |
|
[19] | 冯玉泉. AIGC在工业设计上的应用与思考[J]. 包装工程, 2024, 45(8): 337-345. |
FENG Y Q. Application and thinking of AIGC in industrial design[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2024, 45(8): 337-345. (in Chinese) | |
[20] | 黄喆, 王选政, 李杰. 人工智能与生成: 计算机介入产品设计[J]. 设计, 2024, 37(9): 77-80. |
HUANG Z, WANG X Z, LI J. Artificial intelligence and generation: computer intervention in product design[J]. Design, 2024, 37(9): 77-80. (in Chinese) | |
[21] | 王茜. 基于AIGC背景下的产品设计流程与方法初探[J]. 鞋类工艺与设计, 2024, 4(4): 66-69. |
WANG Q. Study on product design process and method based on AIGC[J]. Shoes Technology and Design, 2024, 4(4): 66-69. (in Chinese) | |
[22] | 于水, 范德志. 新一代人工智能(ChatGPT)的主要特征、社会风险及其治理路径[J]. 大连理工大学学报: 社会科学版, 2023, 44(5): 28-34. |
YU S, FAN D Z. The main characteristics, social risks and governance paths of the new generation of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT)[J]. Journal of Dalian University of Technology: Social Sciences, 2023, 44(5): 28-34. (in Chinese) | |
[23] | 卢兆麟, 宋新衡, 金昱成. AIGC技术趋势下智能设计的现状与发展[J]. 包装工程, 2023, 44(24): 18-33. |
LU Z L, SONG X H, JIN Y C. State of arts and development of intelligent design methods under the AIGC trend[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2023, 44(24): 18-33. (in Chinese) | |
[24] | EDITORIALS N. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7945): 612. |
[25] | ALIŞIK E. “All compressed and rendered with a pathetic delicacy that astounds the eye”: Midjourney renders ambergris as constantinople[J]. CyberOrient, 2022, 16(2): 76-88. |
[26] | 杨莉莉. AI图像生成: 终结艺术契约[J]. 艺术当代, 2023, 22(3): 54-57. |
YANG L L. AI image generation: ending the art contract[J]. Art China, 2023, 22(3): 54-57. (in Chinese) | |
[27] | 李雪瑞, 侯幸刚, 杨梅, 等. 基于多层次灰色综合评价法的工业设计方案优选决策模型及其应用[J]. 图学学报, 2021, 42(4): 670-679. |
LI X R, HOU X G, YANG M, et al. The optimal decision-making model of industrial design scheme based on multi-level grey comprehensive evaluation method and its application[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2021, 42(4): 670-679. (in Chinese) | |
[28] | SAATY R W. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used[J]. Mathematical Modelling, 1987, 9(3/5): 161-176. |
[29] | 路鹏, 陈丽伶, 刘莹, 等. 产品设计实践教学的新路径——高校产品设计专业与护养院参与式设计的启示[J]. 高教学刊, 2019, 5(6): 95-98. |
LU P, CHEN L L, LIU Y, et al. New approaches in product design education: insights from participatory design between university product design programs and nursing homes[J]. Journal of Higher Education, 2019, 5(6): 95-98. (in Chinese) | |
[30] | HSIAO S W. Integrated FSM STM and DFA method to faucet design[J]. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 1996, 13(3): 225-235. |
[31] | 陈士俊, 阎祥安, 谢庆森. 产品造型设计原理与方法[M]. 天津: 天津大学出版社, 1994: 3-8. |
CHEN S J, YAN X A, XIE Q S. Principles and method of product modeling design[M]. Tianjin: Tianjin University Press, 1994: 3-8. (in Chinese) | |
[32] | CHOU J R. A Kansei evaluation approach based on the technique of computing with words[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2016, 30(1): 1-15. |
[33] | WU F, LU P, LIN Y C. Research on the influence of wheelsets on the visual imagery of city bicycles[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(5): 2762. |
[34] | LU P, LI Z, LI J, et al. A consumer-oriented design thinking model for product design education[J]. Interactive Learning Environments, 2023, 31(8): 4753-4771. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||