There are limits to such ideas.
“In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.”– JORGE LUIS BORGES: ON_EXACTITUDE_IN_SCIENCE (1946)
For those who get that:
I proposed drawing-model automated fusion and led the team that designed and implemented it first in 2012. Variants of this are developed since then in at least 9 different softwares:
TGN OPEN CODE
TGN OPEN CODE is proposed open source development that conceptually is v2.0 of the earlier work but structured on an entirely different architecture/mechanism that solves significant problems in v1.0 with both intelligibility and portability.
TGN OPEN CODE is designed as borderless / de-siloed:
UPGRADE TO TGN
Upgrade from existing BIM drawing views to the v1.0 fusion is easy (they’re already there, within the model, just hidden) which is why 10 companies did it so far.
Upgrading those to TGN form is also straightforward.
Upgrading standalone non-BIM-generated drawings to either fusion 1.0 or fusion+ 2.0 (TGN) is doable; I mention it in my TGN spec; the upgrade is straightforward but requires a little more technical sophistication from developers.
“Why BIM Does Not Work” is the second Alexander Yampolsky article on Ralph Grabowski’s blog that makes the essential point.
I’ve been arguing, like Yampolsky, everywhere I go for 15 years that this “idea” that caught on decades ago, that —
— ranks among the the most self-defeating, counterproductive (idiotic) ideas.
Does motion picture (silent film) make voice/sound obsolete?
Is the Universe everything we need? Does it make telescopes obsolete?
“Drawing” is a “lens” for LOOKING AT models. This is true whether models are mental or digital.
Drawing is the equipment we must have for productive engagement with models for interpretive and generative purposes. Cutting it away stifles model utility and utilization. (both)
Stifling BOTH of those is, yes, highly counterproductive.
It ALSO undermines software development targeting the evolution of this interpretive engagement lens.
That’s why I propose and specify TGN OPEN CODE, an evolution in the lens for looking, a standardizable form of engagement with models, specifically for helping experts and others coordinate with each other effectively,
This could extend BCF or stand next to it.
All developers are invited.
Some are about to begin.
It’s like that AC/DC album. I salute them.
TGN is proposed open source development. More at Tangerinefocus.com.
Scope and Limits
All things, oceans, lakes, trees, animals, cups, buildings, wheels, whatever, and including “BIM”, models, drawings, and everything else, are defined by their scope on the one hand, and their limits on the other. Scope and limits.
If you are engaged with a thing in a serious way, it’s worth it to contemplate the scope and limits of that thing. I discuss the scope, and some of the limits, of both modeling and drawing here:
Leave a Reply