Simon Dilhas posts about information Level of ‘D’ prompting comments on his article extending his thoughts on the same, here: https://dilhas.substack.com/p/bim-busters-lod-steadily-increases
That woke up memories of such conversations rambling on for decades already and prompted my 2 cents again.
V
V
Yeah and it’s premised on an attempt to solve a fundamental problem with the medium of modeling itself while not actually solving, nor even addressing (really) that problem. The problem? Total lack of clarity in digital models about ‘WHERE’ the model is ‘good enough’ and ‘WHERE’ it might not be.
‘LOD’ was supposed to do something about this but doesn’t. I illuminate the problem and the actual known solution to the problem by traditional means the primary purpose of which is solving that problem. But this is overlooked and forgotten in decades worth of ‘discourse’ about digital modeling.
To say nothing about the evolution of the solution which is certainly possible, but is also ignored BECAUSE the conventional ‘BIM’ ‘discourse’ of the last 25 years pretends various fantasies. The result auto-undermines the modeling endeavor itself.
It’s too bad.
Here’s the problem described practically, the existing centuries-old known solution, and a proposed evolution of that solution that will push much further down the path the current limits to digital model usage and utility: https://tangerinefocus.com/2024/01/25/i-have-a-30-year-outlook/
Simon elicited more from me, saying:
Yes, the precision of the modeled geometry can lead to a false belief in its correctness.
We would need something like a wobbly line indicating parts with low precision and a straight line for the parts we are sure.
Yeah, sure there are uses for that, but if you think more about the way reality works, and our perception of it, that alone won’t practically disambiguate. What’s needed is something much more straightforward, general, and clear. Because, first of all, how is that stylization of elements going to clarify for anyone things related to elements that should be present in the model but aren’t? Or affirmations from someone authorized and qualified to make the relevant affirmations that what should be shown in a given location(s), IS shown, and so on…
See the detailed model a little down the page here and the automated set of drawings derived from it:
That was a project I did, the start and end dates holding in the memory for good reason. Started on Halloween (October 31) 2007, and completed 2 months later (drawings issued for construction) on Christmas Day, December 25.
That was pretty efficient work, with a good supply of stress in getting a model well built enough to automate all the graphics of every drawing in the construction drawings set to very close to 100% driven from the model (99 to 100 percent of every drawing).
If I needed to set a squiggle style on uncertain elements and de-squiggle them as certainty arose, I’d be tracking a squiggle on-off setting for 10,000 model elements continuously and the project would have extended past Christmas, past New Year, until the next Halloween probably while along the way losing my mind and never getting there at all.
Someone will probably think, oh, squiggle appropriateness, that’s a great job for AI ! To them I say, think again and come back later, and look at the pictures here of ouroboros: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
Where work is turned into meta-self-definition, where instead of actually doing work, work consumes itself with meta-self-definition that while pretending to define, actually defines nothing while belief is maintained that it does, all the while actual work is deferred, not done, meta-self-defintion taking its place.
From mega volumes of meta definition accumulated these last 20 years
the concept of LOD itself is usually used in relation to the whole model (which is why it is common to order the output “LOD 300” – i.e. all information contained in the model must have LOD 300, regardless of whether it makes sense for the purpose). A huge advantage of the “LOIN”/ISO19650 concept is that the level relates to specific information. Btw, the LOD/LOG/LOI concept (as a codification of a certain level of detail based on a certain standard) can also be used very effectively within the “LOIN” framework for determining the level of geometric, alphanumeric information or documentation.
Is the project done yet? Check the calendar. What day is it? Who knows? I’m busy defining the work that’ll get done some day after getting started, after the meta work…
Never. Which is never. We’ll never get there.
OPEN VCS, a lens for looking at models 