EQUIPMENT FOR VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (V.C.S.) embedded within digital models
Overview
This document seeks your support for the clarifications set out herein that are intended to:
reclaim a fundamental understanding of the function and purpose of technical drawing,
address the need in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) and similar industries forinnovative evolution in the development of technical drawing, particularly in its form of expression, and its non-externalization from the digital model (drawing’s functions should be expressed within models too), and,
in software development organizations, motivate the necessary development of the equipment required for expressing these functions in digital models.
These developments should not be siloed. Reviving a clear understanding of the function of technical drawing is the first step. Development of equipment in modeling software adequate to this function is the second step. Adequacy requires that this work not be siloed in any single or few software brands and their products. The future of technical drawing, which in general can be referred to as equipment for visual close study (V.C.S.) built into digital models, must be shared in common among everyone.
This does not mean that all software development organizations will develop and extend V.C.S. equipment in exactly the same way in their respective modeling apps and formats. It means rather that a standard set of functions will define a commonly shared minimum V.C.S. expression. This standard will support portability of V.C.S. expression from one modeling app to another with graphics fidelity intact.
To be clear, and recognizing well known limitations of interoperability, that is to say: with graphical fidelity surviving transfer across modelers at least to the extent defined in the V.C.S. standard definitions and open source codebase that actualize a minimum core feature set of V.C.S. equipment designed and intended for implementation by every software development organization serving AEC and similar industries. We propose a common core feature set for V.C.S., a core that of course can be extended in ways limited only by the sum creative imagination of developer organizations.
Let us see where those imaginations will lead. But a rising tide raises all boats and the tide is coming in: open, shared, core feature definitions and codebase for V.C.S. to be built into all modeling and model-handling applications, platforms, formats, and in general, “environments” existing and forthcoming.
The Primary Functions of Technical Drawing
What is drawing?
When we make a drawing and use it, i.e., look at it, and the things that follow from looking at it, we express the act of visual close study (V.C.S.), of models mental, physical, and digital.
Doing this, the act and its expression, requires specialized equipment. For centuries this equipment has been known as technical drawing. Technical drawing functions in 5 critically important ways that directly empower model creation and interpretation.
DRAWINGS:
Facilitate VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (V.C.S.), equip the expression of, sustained and articulate, attentive focus within the environment of a project’s mental, physical, and digital models.
Enable PHYSICAL EVALUATION of the model at V.C.S. locations. This is primarily a check against omission of physical items, and development of good fit among the physical items present.
Designate AFFIRMATION of (2) Physical Evaluation. Drawings MAKE CLEAR WHAT IS AFFIRMED, where, by who, when. It’s affirmation of ACCOUNTABILITY.
Engage THE ENGINE OF THOUGHT, Drawings set up and engage an interplay between two poles: between wide and narrow perception, between an expansive complex environment (model) and our focused visual attention (drawing) within it. In the interplay, thought happens and understanding grows. With either of the two poles diminished, the engine shuts down or evaporates along with thinking itself and understanding, which fails to develop.
DRAW ATTENTION TO THINGS NOT TO BE MISSED in the model (a minimum courtesy).
5 functions all at once. There are more but this is a good start. Items two and four above deserve particular emphasis. While these are fundamental to AEC work, both in project design and construction phases, they are rarely discussed. What’s described here in 2 and 4 is mostly tacit knowledge:
Tacit knowledge or implicit knowledge—as opposed to formalized, codified or explicit knowledge—is knowledge that is difficult to express or extract; therefore it is more difficult to transfer to others by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. This can include motor skills, personal wisdom, experience, insight, and intuition.[1]
For example, knowing that London is in the United Kingdom is a piece of explicit knowledge; it can be written down, transmitted, and understood by a recipient. In contrast, the ability to speak a language, ride a bicycle, knead dough, play a musical instrument, or design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge which is not always known explicitly, even by expert practitioners, and which is difficult or impossible to explicitly transfer to other people.
Those well engaged with AEC project development, in design and construction, are immersed in these 5 functions of technical drawing and with the formation of a progressively more adequate and less fuzzy mental model of the project (without which digital models are meaningless by the way, or at least, understood by no one). Given the intensity and sustainment of concentrated effort required, people engaged in this work are not likely to take the time to try to put to words what any of this is or what they’re doing.
They just do it.
Misconceptions
Studies show that learning is affected by one aspect of teaching in particular. One must be shown what not to do, or for example, shown what’s believed to be true, that isn’t. And then shown what’s correct, in opposition to preconceived notions. Here’s a 6 minute talk on the subject, well worth your time:
You might think these videos digress from the topic here. You’re less likely to think so after you watch them. I recommend watching them.
“Drawingless”
“Drawings are just dumb lines and arcs.”
“The real world is 3D, so drawing is archaic.”
”2D is against my religion.”
”3D modeling replaces technical drawing, or will replace it once all the old laggards retire.”
”In Norway, infrastructure projects are drawingless.”
Misconceptions abound, as if powering the boat engine motivating these statements, and likewise scattered in the boat’s wake the outcome of such words.
Let’s make note of it. Drawings are just dumb lines and arcs, in exactly the same way that airplanes are just accumulations of metal, plastic, glass and rubber. Lots of things are piles of material, but that says next to nothing really.
You have to include the function:
Airplanes convey passengers or cargo, in controlled flight through air.
Planes may be constructed of various materials, but you see the point; material alone defines little. Collections of metal, plastic, glass, and rubber could be any number of things, or nothing. You must talk about function. So it is with technical drawing. Drawing expresses very specific function:
Drawings are specialized equipment enabling articulate and sustained expression of the act of visual close study (V.C.S.) of models.
They empower physical evaluation of models, primarily checks against omission of physical items, and development of good fit among the physical items present.
Clear affirmation of model QA/QC. Who affirms what, where, is made clear (affirmation of accountability)
Technical Drawing sets in place the 2-pole engine of thought itself. Thought, which can be said to be a (wide/narrow) (model/drawings) (environment/focus) INTERPLAY. Where the serious work of model development and model interpretation happens, it’s in this interplay. An interplay that without technical drawing (either in its traditional form, or in future forms of V.C.S. expression within digital models) is like the sound of one hand clapping.
Lastly, drawings supply the minimum courtesy of drawing attention to things not to be missed in the model.
Technical drawing is dumb lines and arcs, sure, literally; but much more, essentially.
“Drawingless” – What does it mean?Are we planning to omit the dumb lines and arcs, or omit the essential functions of technical drawing? Here’s the basic problem, or, the reason the slogan (drawingless) is compelling:
In AEC there were two transformations mistaken for one. We saw technical drawing, and then we saw digital modeling and we thought, and were told, that’s the progression. Our view was cropped too tight though. We lopped off both the leading and the trailing ends of the progression. The actual transformations were:
From MENTAL MODELING to DIGITAL MODELING (or more accurately, to a combination of mental and digital modeling)
From technical drawing in its traditional form, to an as yet unseen new form of expression of the act of Visual Close Study (V.C.S.) within models, an evolution in form compelled by the new ground in which VCS is planted: the digital model.
Many hear the slogan, “the future is drawingless” and find it sounds true naturally, and therefore are prompted to no reflection or examination as it seems none is required. Thus, none is undertaken. This condition can, we have seen, persist for decades and like a weed root itself in all geographies and in every kind of software development organization.
This is an important problem in so far as, mainly, it undermines the digital modeling endeavor itself. Counter-intentionally. We think we’re promoting modeling, while it turns out we’re undermining exactly the thing we’re trying to promote. In hindsight, once you see this, it is no surprise, given that we started from a thought-terminating slogan and reflected on the issue not at all, worldwide, for 30 years.
Others examine the issue more thoroughly though. I was directed to a relevant paper, in a Linkedin comment here:
Yeah, as usual there is a lot of hype to push the idea.
Note ‘Disadvantages’ in section 2.6… which highlighted the importance of linking to documents.
As you point out, there is still a lot of headroom for digital ‘drawings’. The problem is there is not enough effort to enhance them… with all the attention going to the ‘3d only’ messiahs, who tend to bash the oldest and worst aspects of drawing… without looking at how they can and deserve to be improved.
They think they are the avant garde but they are really tired old dinosaurs riding the back slope of a wave that started decades ago. Nothing wrong with that but trying to suppress drawings and other 2d representations is really dumb.
Many, no doubt, see the title of the paper, form their opinion, and neglect reading further. That’s too bad. The paper examines a series of techniques for expressing the essential functions of technical drawing, in new ways, within the environment of the digital model.
This suggests a two-fold long running problem.
Slogans are diverting examination of what’s really going on and what’s really needed.
Language is more powerful than realized. Words like “drawingless” are used carelessly. More on-target accurate language would say “new forms of expression, of the functions of drawing, built into models”
Software development is diverted from essential user needs for decades because of the power of language to even completely hide, large areas of vital interest.
Reviving a clear understanding of what we’re facing, we might ask better quality questions including these:
Ask ‘what would technical drawing look and feel like if it were invented in the midst of today’s digital modeling versus its invention centuries ago when models were mental and physical only?’
What should today’s LENS FOR LOOKING AT MODELS look and feel like?
Why should V.C.S. (Drawing) remain ONLY externalized from digital models and confined to an expression unchanged from the form of expression VCS took in all the centuries preceding digital computing? Don’t we have more imagination than that?
Can we not envision a new form of expression supporting critically important V.C.S. functions, expressed and engage-able within the digital models themselves?
Could it be possible that such equipment in models would help optimize our efforts to create and adequately interpret very high quality AEC models?
Would new equipment for visual close study (V.C.S.) built into models, this new lens for looking at models, would it not get more people more thoroughly, thoughtfully, critically and meaningfully engaged in model development, evaluation, interpretation, and use in general. Would built in V.C.S. not elevate model utility and increase model utilization?
Should the fullest potential development of this new V.C.S. lens for close study of very complex digital models not diversify with unique capabilities for V.C.S. built into many different modeling apps and environments as envisioned by every different software development organization?
Would diverse and unique V.C.S. development not get a big boost by developing around a commonly shared open source V.C.S. core feature set, backed up by standardized feature definitions agreed upon by an industry consortium that manages an open specification and standardizable development of an open source library for V.C.S. (Visual Close Study) equipment available for developer implementation into modelers of all kinds and brands, and portable across all of them?
There is a proposal for this. And an open source volunteer developer team building a codebase.
OPEN VCS Proposal, Specification, mockup demonstration, and open source code repository:
After knocking on doors a long time, OPEN VCS now finds support in some AE firms large and small, and in some of the well known software companies. A tipping point may be nearer than we realize. I hope so. We search for ways to tip things over into development action on a large scale.
We want to do this by finding people who want to help stand up an industry consortium to manage the specification and development of an open source industry standard for V.C.S. (Visual Close Study) equipment built into modelers of all kinds and brands, and portable across all of them.
This document is meant as a call to form such a group.
Post Script
A quick note about drawing automation. The automation thread continues as it has for decades. Drawing automation from models of course is not new, and of course some new software products do it better than others, automating more of the annotations and so on. Even automating layout, and even drawing origination. Some claim that 20 percent of, for example, mechanical engineering labor hours are eaten by drawing production. So, the best automation software could save something approaching that 20%.
Yes, develop the best automation possible. But it’s not enough. Those creating the models, and using them, spend a lot of time looking at them. And the set of drawings, is a lens for looking. One cannot develop adequate models without looking closely at them while developing them. You have to pay attention to what you’re doing in a systematic, sustained and articulate manner to see and understand what you’re doing.
So, the point is, you can automate drawings, but you can’t automate LOOKING AT THEM. You can automate drawing production but you can’t automate drawing’s usage and primary purpose and function.
Most of the time spent on drawings is dedicated to their use, not their production, although use and production do overlap. Separating use and production is not so easy to disentangle. Engineers and Architects are often at the same using and producing drawings.
Again, here are the uses, the very specific functions and purpose of drawing:
Drawings are specialized equipment enabling articulate and sustained expression of the act of visual close study (V.C.S.) of models.
They empower physical evaluation of models, primarily checks against omission of physical items, and development of good fit among the physical items present.
Clear affirmation of model QA/QC. Who affirms what, where, is made clear (affirmation of accountability)
Technical Drawing sets in place the 2-pole engine of thought itself. Thought, which can be said to be a (wide/narrow) (model/drawings) (environment/focus) INTERPLAY. Where the serious work of model development and model interpretation happens, it’s in this interplay. An interplay that without technical drawing (either in its traditional form, or in future forms of V.C.S. expression within digital models) is like the sound of one hand clapping.
Lastly, drawings supply the minimum courtesy of drawing attention to things not to be missed in the model.
We can’t automate the human visual engagement that spurs thought that drives models forward to adequate completion and quality.
But we can evolve the LENS FOR LOOKING. We can improve the form of expression of technical drawing in ways that increase its utility in supporting these essential functions.
Here is the proposal for doing that, that are our open source team has begun to develop:
Hi! My name is Rob Snyder, I’m on a mission to elevate digital models in AEC (architecture, engineering, and construction) by developing equipment for visual close study (VCS) within them, so that they supply an adequate assist to the engine of thought we all have running as we develop models during design and as we interpret them so they can be put to use in support of necessary action, during construction for example.
OPEN VCS, a lens for looking at models 