Mark Darrall wrote:
> At 05:58 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Aaron wrote:
>
> >HR,
> >
> >What are you talking about? What is "three-space"?
>
> Three-dimensional space. That is, a 3D model, as opposed to a drawing
> or
> screen image.
>
> > When you say physical
> >models, do you mean scale models or something else?
>
> It means real models (implicitly 3D) as opposed to virtual models.
>
> I contend that way too much importance is placed in 3D models,
> especially
> scale models.
And I would argue for the opposite. I am arguing for scale models
(i.e.1"=1'-0"). There is generally way to little importance placed on
scale modeling which effectively allows for the experience of space.
The designer and especially the lay person is in scale model
environments able to experience space like in no other medium available
to this day (except full scale which is not feasible, for
experimentation, in most cases). Well of course, this holds all only
true if the scale modeling process is implemented and integrated right.
> They are only one dimension better than 2D representations,
> and are only therefore somewhat better than a drawing. What's
> missing?
> TIME!
Well even further. Tactile issues are not addressed which are, if you
understand something about information processing, vital components --
and certainly are recognized in scale modeling.
> You can't move through a drawing, and you can't move through a scale
> model (unless it's full scale, and then, you're in the building!).
How so? Have you aver heard of scale modeling as a design research
method? Of course can you move through a model if it is built in the
right scale and the process is implemented right.
> How's
> this idea: A virtual model (a 3D, let's say VRML or animation)
> actually
> exists in THREE DIMENSIONS! The screen's only two, but we have the
> dimension
> of TIME---we can move through the "space" in real time. So, at this
> level,
> such a computer model is every bit as good as a "physical" model in
> cardboard. In fact, it may be better, because we can create enough
> illusion
> of reality that with the time dimension added, it takes on the
> experiential
> quality any other mode lacks.
Well, creating illusions is not enough and does not address the real
issue. What you are after in scale modeling is the simulation of
reality. Granted computer models are coming pretty close and I do not
dismiss their quality, but still the viewer misses out on the tactile
aspects mentioned earlier.
>
>
> > Are you saying that the
> >designer will find it "impossible to anticipate the formal aspects of
> a
> >project without physical models in three-space"
>
> This is nonsense. Professors use this line all the time. If we are
> TRAINED
> to understand the relationships between the representations of ideas
> and
> their reality, then why do we need the models? I thought the ability
> to see
> 3D in 2D was an elemental skill for designers.
You will among most other people never be able to fully perceive and
understand the impacts of your 2D drawings, unless you see it in a 3D
model. Why else have we been making models and mock-up's all the way
along to understand, visualize and communicate designs and
relationships? Even the greatest designers have always and will always
build models no matter how trained one might be.
>
>
> > or cannot depend on
> >communicating said aspects to someone else (client, lay audience,
> >collegues, etc.) without physical models?
>
> This is weak, too. Most people who aren't _trained_ to do so can't
> read a
> model any better than they can a floor plan.
Well, there is scientific evidence in human factors engineering and
design which certainly disagrees with your casual assumption. I don't
know where you are coming form with this line of thought.
> Most practitioners don't have
> time to make them, and when they do, they are typically made out of
> stuff
> found in the wastebasket.
That is exactly the problem with most models. Models are never
effective if they don't represent as close as possible the reality.
That is, in quality of craftsmanship, materials and aesthetic. But I
will suggest also this will change some day soon, because today's
clients are demanding more no matter whether the practitioner has time
or not. He/She will be forced to make time if He/She desires the job
and desires to get it right. And anything else will no longer be
accepted!
Christian.
> Many models built for the client are nothing more
> than ego-vibrators.
>
> Mark
> At 05:58 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Aaron wrote:
>
> >HR,
> >
> >What are you talking about? What is "three-space"?
>
> Three-dimensional space. That is, a 3D model, as opposed to a drawing
> or
> screen image.
>
> > When you say physical
> >models, do you mean scale models or something else?
>
> It means real models (implicitly 3D) as opposed to virtual models.
>
> I contend that way too much importance is placed in 3D models,
> especially
> scale models.
And I would argue for the opposite. I am arguing for scale models
(i.e.1"=1'-0"). There is generally way to little importance placed on
scale modeling which effectively allows for the experience of space.
The designer and especially the lay person is in scale model
environments able to experience space like in no other medium available
to this day (except full scale which is not feasible, for
experimentation, in most cases). Well of course, this holds all only
true if the scale modeling process is implemented and integrated right.
> They are only one dimension better than 2D representations,
> and are only therefore somewhat better than a drawing. What's
> missing?
> TIME!
Well even further. Tactile issues are not addressed which are, if you
understand something about information processing, vital components --
and certainly are recognized in scale modeling.
> You can't move through a drawing, and you can't move through a scale
> model (unless it's full scale, and then, you're in the building!).
How so? Have you aver heard of scale modeling as a design research
method? Of course can you move through a model if it is built in the
right scale and the process is implemented right.
> How's
> this idea: A virtual model (a 3D, let's say VRML or animation)
> actually
> exists in THREE DIMENSIONS! The screen's only two, but we have the
> dimension
> of TIME---we can move through the "space" in real time. So, at this
> level,
> such a computer model is every bit as good as a "physical" model in
> cardboard. In fact, it may be better, because we can create enough
> illusion
> of reality that with the time dimension added, it takes on the
> experiential
> quality any other mode lacks.
Well, creating illusions is not enough and does not address the real
issue. What you are after in scale modeling is the simulation of
reality. Granted computer models are coming pretty close and I do not
dismiss their quality, but still the viewer misses out on the tactile
aspects mentioned earlier.
>
>
> > Are you saying that the
> >designer will find it "impossible to anticipate the formal aspects of
> a
> >project without physical models in three-space"
>
> This is nonsense. Professors use this line all the time. If we are
> TRAINED
> to understand the relationships between the representations of ideas
> and
> their reality, then why do we need the models? I thought the ability
> to see
> 3D in 2D was an elemental skill for designers.
You will among most other people never be able to fully perceive and
understand the impacts of your 2D drawings, unless you see it in a 3D
model. Why else have we been making models and mock-up's all the way
along to understand, visualize and communicate designs and
relationships? Even the greatest designers have always and will always
build models no matter how trained one might be.
>
>
> > or cannot depend on
> >communicating said aspects to someone else (client, lay audience,
> >collegues, etc.) without physical models?
>
> This is weak, too. Most people who aren't _trained_ to do so can't
> read a
> model any better than they can a floor plan.
Well, there is scientific evidence in human factors engineering and
design which certainly disagrees with your casual assumption. I don't
know where you are coming form with this line of thought.
> Most practitioners don't have
> time to make them, and when they do, they are typically made out of
> stuff
> found in the wastebasket.
That is exactly the problem with most models. Models are never
effective if they don't represent as close as possible the reality.
That is, in quality of craftsmanship, materials and aesthetic. But I
will suggest also this will change some day soon, because today's
clients are demanding more no matter whether the practitioner has time
or not. He/She will be forced to make time if He/She desires the job
and desires to get it right. And anything else will no longer be
accepted!
Christian.
> Many models built for the client are nothing more
> than ego-vibrators.
>
> Mark