This of course could be another way to envision software development with AFR/TGN features built into any softwares that handle visual spatial modeled environments.
Typical forms of human engagement with models are targeted at humans in the loop formulating and answering these kinds of questions:
- How do you know when, or if, when creating your model, that the model’s “done”? That it’s good enough?
- How well does your team understand its own models, or models it receives from others? Do they understand superficially or in depth?
- If they understand thoroughly, how did they develop that level of understanding? What kind of process do they go through in order to reach that level of understanding? (the answer always involves some form of systematic long term engagement with the models)
- Are your models reliable, well built, complete, and correct more so in SOME areas than in others? WHERE are those areas? How can you, or anyone else, know where those areas are in the model?
- How, using what means, can you AFFIRM to others that HERE (and here, and here, and there, and there…) that those statements are correct, that the model meets standard of care (reliable, well built, complete enough, correct) HERE.
- Not to mention the broader question of whether or not the model makes sense at a schematic level, at the level of the building program.
Here’s a detailed discussion and proposal for AFR/TGN features development in modeling softwares (including any/every model-handling software):
Leave a Reply