- How do we learn, in any field?
- Learning as you go, while developing an AEC project
- Because FIELD/V.C.S. INTERPLAY is the engine of model development and interpretation, then embed V.C.S. equipment in digital models
I want to show you something. About how we think and study and learn about our projects as we develop and build them, in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry, and likewise in other industries like manufacturing, ship building and many others.
If you work in such fields, I hope this document describes something you know very well but maybe never put into words, probably because you’re too busy actually doing this work to spend time describing it to anyone. And if you don’t work in these fields, but are curious to know about them, I hope this is an enjoyable read.
To begin, I have to back up, a long way back. Way way back starting with a common sense story about how we study and learn anything in any field. The story is a long and winding road and I hope you don’t get bored along the way. I understand you might, but I tell the story for good reason.
How do we learn, in any field?
In general the question is how do we engage any field of knowledge, how do we learn, how do we think and acquire our understanding of any field?
voice narration of this intro section, 17 min.
So, take any field of knowledge. I mean, pick anything: spacecraft, or physics, or history, or language, literature, painting, medicine, Ancient Rome, pick any field you want to learn about in depth.
How do we do that? How do we engage with any field, productively?
It’s not a trick question and the answer is pretty simple really.
We do two things.
First, we sort of run around the field like an excited hunting dog or something, running around like crazy. We do a kind of overview reconnaissance. We don’t understand the field much at all, but maybe at least we just recognize that we’ve jumped into one. And maybe we see that there are various features in it that maybe we could look at.
That’s the first thing then. We just pick a field, and we see that there’s a lot of stuff in it. I don’t know what to call this? It’s sort of LESS than an overview. And it is certainly not a summary. It’s just a kind of recognition that there IS a field. And it has, maybe, boundaries, somewhere, and there are a lot of things in it.
And, because most fields of knowledge are pretty broad and deep, and also because they’re complex, networks of interrelated parts, what happens when we’re running around doing our initial view of the field, is, we just don’t really know what we’re looking at, and a lot of this not knowing involves just not being able to see things that are right there in front of us. There’s a reason we can’t see. I’ll get to that.
But, if we feel like this is a field for us, one that we’re compelled to invest effort into, to understand, then we dive in.
So that’s the second thing: WE DIVE IN.
Within the field we’ve chosen, we pick a few places to do some deep dives. Or at least one place. We go down into some rabbit holes and find out what’s down there. In other words, we DO SOME CLOSE STUDY THERE.
You don’t do close study of the whole field all at once. That’s NOT POSSIBLE because fundamentally that’s not how our minds work.
No, we pick some areas of interest within the field and we start studying those closely.
So for example, if we picked the field of Physics, I don’t know, maybe we decide at random, let’s look at a particular physicist, maybe Isaac Newton. We see that he says that apples fall from trees and that this in fact, whatever this is, it’s the same thing that has the moon continually falling into the earth but fortunately at the same time moving tangentially at just the right speed to keep it in a state of perpetually falling over the edge of the horizon instead down onto us.
Well OK, fine. Do I understand the field of physics now?
Hmm. Maybe. But maybe we need to go further.
If you’re really curious, or, you want a job in the field, you’re gonna have to keep going. So you’ll keep finding aspects or regions of the field to keep studying closely.
What happens because of this is what’s interesting.
Let’s be clear.
We have TWO THINGS:
- the expanse of THE ENTIRE FIELD of study,
- the deep dives of CLOSE STUDY, at areas THAT JUMP OUT AT US from the field seeming important somehow
AND WE DO SOMETHING WITH THESE TWO THINGS.
WE PERCEIVE THEM.
And this is most important:
OUR PERCEPTION OF BOTH OF THOSE THINGS DEVELOPS IN TANDEM in some kind of INTERPLAY.
In looking and seeing and studying and thinking,
WE WEAVE THE TWO THINGS INTO EACH OTHER.
Let’s talk about that.
As I said before, our awareness of the field begins as fuzzy at best, vague. That says nothing about the field. Only our perception of it. The field might be very well developed, meticulously detailed, deeply connected, well articulated everywhere you might happen to look, across its entire terrain. The real world is like that, for example.
But whether a given field of knowledge is well put together or not, what I’m saying, here, is that YOUR understanding of it starts out insufficient.
Your understanding may even be off target. The field is fuzzy to you, not well defined, in your perception, and at best full of gaps, many many gaps, in your awareness. You have no idea how various parts are connected. You know next to nothing, or nothing, of the meaning of any particular part, nor its relation to the whole, which is where parts get their meaning.
And you also don’t know what you don’t know. You may have a birds-eye view, but you don’t have an eagle eye and you’re just simply unaware of just about everything, whole and part.
But, here’s the thing: you proceed anyway. Right?
That’s kind of amazing.
You just dive in anyway.
You start doing these deep dives, of close study, on certain aspects or regions of the field, disregarding your own ignorance, as you must! There you go anyway, with concentration and effort!
So what happens?
Well, you start to learn some things, even just partially learn. And because you do, now your mind is better prepared, for the next thing. A prepared mind can see things it otherwise couldn’t, before. Close Study gets you progressively better prepared.
Therefore, it gets you able to see more. So then you start seeing other things IN THE FIELD. They were there, of course, before you saw them. You just didn’t see them. Now you see them.
And you can put THOSE under close study.
This is a cycle. It continues. And your vision expands. You see more. You study more. So you see more, again, and so on.
I mean, you were already in the field running around like an excitable dog, but that was just you running past just about everything, recognizing not much, seeing little.
The Close Study expands your ability to see. If you keep going, then after awhile you start to understand some things about the field, not just the parts. You begin to see connections.
You start seeing relations between things, how some things follow from other things. How some things set up some kind of potential for other things becoming things.
If this goes on, if you keep studying, finding more and more connections tying things together, then you might start seeing the MEANING of things. You might see MEANING EMERGE through or from interrelations throughout or across the field.
That would be a good thing. So let’s draw a line under it:
The ACT OF CLOSE STUDY expands your vision. This lets you begin to see. After you see enough, you see that the field you’re engaged with is a weave. A kind of tapestry woven together. This is a way of saying just that it is NOT a bunch disconnected unrelated pieces. It’s a whole thing.
If you get to this point, you’re probably on reasonably safe ground to begin to think, OK, maybe I am starting to understand something here and THE FIELD IS COMING INTO BETTER VIEW. It’s LESS FUZZY now, less ragged, better fitting together, connected. Yeah it’s getting CLEARER. And maybe some meaning can start to be formulated, or at least you can start to say, IT’S STARTING TO MAKE SENSE TO ME.
THE MORE YOU ENGAGE IN CLOSE STUDY, THE MORE THE FIELD MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
Just one more thing in this common sense overview story about how we study, think and learn things, in general.
There is another aspect to this that’s kind of mysterious. It might be worth noticing that it IS mysterious. We won’t be able to solve the mystery. I just think it’s helpful, in learning, to recognize something about what we DON’T KNOW about how learning works.
So far we’ve said two things:
- THE WIDER FIELD BECOMES CLEARER TO US AS WE STUDY NARROWER REGIONS OF IT
AND
- THE NARROWER REGIONS UNDER STUDY BECOME MEANINGFUL TO THE EXTENT WE RECOGNIZE THEIR CONNECTION WITHIN THE WIDER FIELD.
So this suggests that we are doing some kind of mental exercise that could be described as some kind of INTERPLAY, between the FIELD, and the REGIONS WITHIN THE FIELD THAT WE PUT UNDER CLOSE STUDY.
That INTERPLAY is no simple thing, and how it works is at least exceedingly mysterious. I mean that’s an understatement. How can we look at one thing. And recognize its connections to other things?
Come on. Be honest. We don’t know what’s going on. But there IS something going on. We don’t know what it is or how it works, and evidently we don’t need to know that. But it is plain to see: THERE IS AN INTERPLAY.
So, yeah. It’s strange. Just admit it. And it is full of strange characteristics. Here is one of them:
BOTH THE FIELD AND THE ITEMS WITHIN IT THAT WE STUDY ARE COMING OUT OF OBSCURITY FOR US AT THE SAME TIME
Information flows in both directions at the same time.
From wide to narrow.
From narrow to wide.
From the broader field to the narrower Close Study.
And from the Close Study to the wider field.
Your brain enters this picture too, or enters this field.
ALL THREE ILLUMINATE EACH OTHER AT THE SAME TIME.
This is what’s called, ENLIGHTENMENT.
Is it not the nature of thinking itself?
Is this not how we EXPAND OUR MINDS TO GRASP VERY COMPLEX THINGS?
In fields in which we need more than superficial glancing understanding, is this NOT how we get it?
Let’s underline this then too.
The close study, the field, and OUR MINDS come into the light, illuminated at the same time, but progressively, step by step, like as if on a dimmer switch, going up.
Picture it this way:
The room is dark. By getting our minds engaged in the place through the optimistic deep diving we started doing, slowly the dimming switch controlling illumination in the room begins de-dimming. The room brightens, slowly, progressively. After awhile we see the room and the things in it. Our mind is there, doing the seeing, doing the work. We’re turning our brains on. Thinking happens. In the INTERPLAY, thought happens and understanding grows.
You don’t throw a switch.
It’s not instantaneous.
It takes effort. Focus. Concentration. Work.
The reward is everything gets brighter. You. Your mind. The Field. The Things in it.
INTERPLAY IS THE WAY.
And there is no other way to get there.
Avoid the close study?
See the field superficially, and dimly at best, if at all. Probably not at all. it’s just dark. You might think you see some slight light but your vision is shuttered, too limited, too little is revealed.
The Field too dimly illuminated?
Then the things in it hardly make sense. Looking at them, they appear suspended in a dark vacuum, connected to and connecting nothing, serving no purpose.
There are those who think they believe there are shortcuts. They think, apparently, that the field is everything, that sustained articulate expression of the act of close study is nothing. Such thoughts are amusement stops on a road to nowhere.
For better than superficial understanding, of anything, there are no shortcuts. You have to do the work in the INTERPLAY weaving together:
THE WIDE AND THE NARROW,
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE FOCUS,
THE FIELD AND THE CLOSE STUDY,
WORK and lift the fog. Let the bright light of day shine on.
That’s the end of the intro story.
Now let’s look at a particular field.
Let’s call this the field that involves DESIGNING THINGS THAT DON’T EXIST YET, AND THEN BUILDING THEM.
Learning as you go, while developing an AEC project
This FIELD includes sub fields like Architecture, Engineering, and Construction, the AEC Industry, and similar things like SHIP BUILDING, AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT, AUTOMOBILE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE, all things that are designed and manufactured. Less complex things too like furniture, or kitchen appliances, or shoes, or lawnmowers, whatever.
In AEC it’s about buildings, and roads and rail, infrastructure, power stations and utility networks, damns, and, well, everything in “the built environment”.
Complex fields, no doubt. I’ll just talk about about how these things start from nothing and end up becoming whatever they become. From nothing. To some design concepts. To a completed design. To interpreting that and building it. To the thing actually existing.
There is no magic. Does anyone understand a project in any of its development phases INSTANTANEOUSLY? Or COMPLETELY understand it, at any time?
Or is it better to admit that the FIELD of a given project is large enough to basically EXCEED OUR GRASP?
Yeah. Well if that’s the case, then how do we LEARN about the FIELD while we‘re the ones CREATING THE FIELD?
If we’re DESIGNING A HOSPITAL, or, say, AN AIRCRAFT, these project FIELDS are very complex assemblies of millions of physical items occupying a pretty significant span of SPACE and TIME.
You see what I’m getting at. We can say that engineering is a field. Architecture is a field. Construction is a field. But a project is its own FIELD.
So how do we LEARN about that FIELD while developing it?
Do we push a button, and the design of the next Airbus or the next University Hospital appears out of nowhere to us? Fully formed instantaneously by miraculous emergence? No. Of course not. But even if it that would be so, do we just grasp it entirely, in whole and in part all at once?
Is the magic that we just put on some augmented reality goggles and gain instantaneous understanding of everything?
What kind of strange idea is that?
Come on. Come out of the fantasy world. That’s not realistic AND IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND SELF DEFEATING to perpetuate IDEAS LIKE THAT WHICH ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND SELF DEFEATING.
SO HOW DO THINGS REALLY HAPPEN?
Well again, it’s through an INTERPLAY that unfolds and takes time, …an INTERPLAY BETWEEN:
- OUR SLOWLY AND PROGRESSIVELY BRIGHTENING AWARENESS OF THE WIDER FIELD OF THE PROJECT AS IT DEVELOPS, AND,
- OUR ACT OF VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (V.C.S.) OF NARROWER REGIONS WITHIN THE FIELD OF THE PROJECT, through the sustained and articulate expression of A MULTITUDE of those acts of V.C.S. throughout the FIELD OF THE PROJECT.
THIS INTERPLAY is the BASIC dynamic OF CONCENTRATED SERIOUS THINKING from which UNDERSTANDING GROWS THAT DRIVES THE PROJECT FORWARD.
Visual Close Study (V.C.S.) within the FIELD of a project
This drawing sheet below contains 4 expressions of visual close study (V.C.S.) on one sheet. When you develop these drawings as their author, and as, likewise, anyone else downstream looking at them, you engage your mind in an INTERPLAY between these and many other acts of close study, and the wider FIELD of the whole project model. Now traditionally, the latter, the FIELD OF THE PROJECT MODEL is something that you formulate in your mind, in imaginary space. It’s a MENTAL MODEL.
So the INTERPLAY is YOU VISUALIZING all of the V.C.S. expressions of CLOSE STUDY where they actually are, within the context of the WIDER FIELD that is the MENTAL MODEL held and developed IN YOUR MIND.
And that model is a bit fuzzy, full of gaps, inaccurate, incomplete… But you SHARPEN it through these sustained and articulate ACTS OF VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (V.C.S,) that ARE technical drawings:
This project is by McKay Snyder Architects, Jim McKay Architect, in Lexington, Kentucky. From 2007. All the drawings can be viewed at full resolution here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1l27oFepeM20_5sby0bzYZ91JrJj661EG
At the Google Drive link are all the drawings, and all the digital models, and some renderings. Take a look. There is also a folder with some extra custom data that’s used in the source application, MicroStation, to define the graphics stylization in the drawings (like line and pattern styles).
The drawings were automated in total detail from the digital model, except for some of the annotations, and dimensions.
Look at the digital models of this project. At the link, the models are downloadable in IFC format and in the original DGN format.
I have to point something out about this. I authored these models. So, I know them very well. I developed them day and night between October 31st and December 25th, 2007, along with the renderings and all the drawings.
If anyone understands these models, it’s me. I built them. But I attest to these facts:
FACTS:
- The digital model means next to nothing, to anyone, without formation of an adequate mental model of the same FIELD. “Proofs” of this are not necessary. Experience and logic alone suffice to say that if you’re looking around in a digital model and not learning as you go, by building a progressively less fogged MENTAL MODEL of the same, then what you’re understanding from the digital model is superficial at best, and likely even less.
MENTAL MODEL FORMATION IS NOT OPTIONAL. - Within a couple weeks after project start, the digital model already exceeded my cognitive grasp. I could no longer answer even the most basic questions about it, like:
- is it done yet?
- is it good enough yet?
- is the model forming a coherent functionally successful whole?
- is there good fit among the physical items modeled?
- are any physical items that matter, missing? Where? Where not?
- is the model good enough in some regions and not others?
- where are the regions that are good enough?
- does anything signify to anyone the useful distinction between regions that are good enough and all other regions that may not be?
- I rely on the drawings as a lens for looking at the models in a sustained and articulate manner as the model develops, and for interpreting the model in very specific ways such as to assist in answering the questions above, and also for other reasons described next.
A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK for VISUAL ENGAGEMENT WITH MODELS IS NECESSARY
a.k.a.: 5 PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF TECHNICAL DRAWING
- At significantly informative LOCATIONS within models mental, physical, and digital, we conduct sustained articulate expression, of the act of VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (V.C.S.).
- We conduct PHYSICAL EVALUATION of models at V.C.S. locations. Evaluation is primarily A CHECK AGAINST OMISSION of physical items in the model, and A CHECK FOR GOOD FIT among the physical items present. It takes thoughtful effort through the lens of visual Close Study (V.C.S.), and time, to develop and complete these checks, particularly during model development during the design phase of a project. Models start from nothing and grow into what they become. The checks are done all along the way in a process of effort-full thinking, using the engine of thought, *see (4).
- Physical evaluation at V.C.S. locations concludes in a state of AFFIRMATION of model QA/QC. Who affirms what, where, is made clear. This supports ACCOUNTABILITY.
- Successful expression of Visual Close Study (V.C.S.) sets out the necessary array that is the 2-pole *ENGINE OF THOUGHT* itself, an engine formed as an INTERPLAY between the wide expanse of a modeled environment (the FIELD), and the narrowing act of our attentive focus within it at V.C.S. locations.
- In this INTERPLAY, thought happens and understanding grows.
- The two poles, (wide/narrow) (FIELD/focus) (model/V.C.S.), are as distinct from each other as the cosmos is from a lens for looking at it, as distinct as the universe is from a telescope, They’re not in any way the same kinds of things and one cannot replace the other.
- Finally, VISUAL CLOSE STUDY supplies THE MINIMUM COURTESY OF DRAWING ATTENTION TO THINGS NOT TO BE MISSED IN THE MODEL
Think about those 5 functions put in play when authoring a digital model of significant complexity. I made this video showing that even a small project is a lot to handle, when you’re the one developing the model (same project as at the Google Drive link above). The video is a glimpse of the model structure, and then zooming into just a corner of the project and deleting pieces one at a time. It gives a hint at what it’s like to do that in the other direction, building them up, putting them in place, taking care that they’re all there, everywhere:
This post continues below with what’s been done already, for the evolution of V.C.S. equipment for Visual Close Study in digital models, and what’s coming next.
Because FIELD/V.C.S. INTERPLAY is the engine of model development and interpretation, then embed V.C.S. equipment in digital models
This is a no-brainer; there is no rocket-science level brain power needed, to arrive at this conclusion. In a way, it’s like the fusion of sound into silent film in the 1920s. The two things are mutually supportive and amplified in fusion.
So why doesn’t modeling software develop, such that it supports this fusion, automatically?
Well in fact that has happened.
The original drawing-model fusion
The video below shows the same project model and drawings I linked to in the section above. The model and drawings were separate there. In the video below, you see the screen capture of a modeling software (MicroStation) that handles the fusion of the drawings in to the model. The fusion shown happens automatically with zero user effort. It’s just there. You can engage with it if you want. Otherwise turn it off and you won’t see it.
It was my proposal to develop this. I wrote a specification for it and was hired by Bentley to lead the development team that built this. We did it first and released it commercially as part of MicroStation in May 2012. Since then 9 software companies that I know of do this:
- Bentley MicroStation (2012)
- Graphisoft (in BIMx Docs, mobile) (2013)
- Dalux
- Revizto
- working together: Morpholio and
- Shapr3D
- Solidworks (since 2015)
- Tekla
- Autodesk Docs (2022)
So it has spread around. But not everywhere, and many have never seen it:
I have a page with more information about this development and its proliferation into different software products since 2012. If interested, I hope you are, read more here:
I keep a playlist with demo videos I made showing the fusion in action. There are 27 videos here:
design flaws (mine) in the original drawing-model fusion
There are two main flaws.
The first is the lack of portability. These fusions (scroll up above a bit) are expressible only within the application in which they’re authored. So, in the examples above in MicroStation, the fusion only works in the software where the model is authored and the drawings generated. You can export either of those, separately, but the fusion never leaves the source app.
This is mostly true in the other applications (listed in the section above) that have done drawing-model fusion since then too.
Two apps that I know of support a one-way pipeline of models and drawings that are mutually externalized from each other, and then those apps create the fusion automatically in their own app/platform outside the source app. Those are Dalux and Revizto. And those are great, and the flow is great, from one app to another. But this needs to expand. Portability needs to expand everywhere, to everyone.
Another general design flaw with the fusion, are a set of issues related to legibility of the fusion. There is a lot to be done here. But among first things, is getting control over engage-ability. Sure, skilled users can invoke one of the fusions and move the digital camera around effectively and go in and take a look at what’s shown in the fusion. But EVEN for the most skilled users this often becomes an irritant as the camera orbits on some huge arc far away from the area of interest, and getting back on track can be quite the magical mystery tour spawning cries of anguish,
“why is this not addressed adequately in software…? Why after all these years?”
Of course the problem is far worse when handing the model off to others, including those less skilled in your particular modeling software of choice, and asking them to go somewhere in a model and have a look at something you want them to see.
So check this out.
See the original drawing-model automated fusion in action, in this hospital project from Stanley Beaman and Sears:
Now ask, why does the software not automatically supply a suitable viewing path built-into each of these fusions? Like this: the red curves as built-in viewing paths:
Here’s a large one for an entire building section:
If you had these paths built in, then each one of these fusions, or if you use my proposed terminology, each expression of Visual Close Study (V.C.S.) Equipment embedded within models, becomes easier to engage with, easier to look at, easier to interpret, understand, and easier to share with others.
The story will not end here.
Simply having viewing paths built in changes, not everything, but a lot. Consider that having technical drawing in its traditional form embedded within digital models is not the end of the story but the beginning.
Because of the built-in V.C.S. viewing paths, the way that V.C.S. equipment can be authored can now change, improve, evolve significantly. And likewise the way that V.C.S. equipment can be viewed, engaged with, and shared, can radically improve.
Potential for new evolution of VCS (visual close study) equipment embedded in models is practically limitless
I repeat the basic questions about models that we all have as we author and use them:
- is it done yet?
- is it good enough yet?
- is the model forming a coherent functionally successful whole?
- is there good fit among the physical items modeled?
- are any physical items that matter, missing? Where? Where not?
- is the model good enough in some regions and not others?
- where are the regions that are good enough?
- does anything signify to anyone the useful distinction between regions that are good enough and all other regions that may not be?
Likewise repeating again the primary functions of technical drawing as we’ve known it for centuries. Drawing IS equipment for visual close study (V.C.S.) of models. Here are the functions:
The functions of V.C.S. equipment
- At significantly informative LOCATIONS within models mental, physical, and digital, we conduct sustained articulate expression, ofthe act of VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (V.C.S.).
- PHYSICAL EVALUATION of models at V.C.S. locations. Evaluation is primarily A CHECK AGAINST OMISSION of physical items in the model, and A CHECK FOR GOOD FIT among the physical items present. It takes thoughtful effort through the lens of visual Close Study (V.C.S.), and time, to develop and complete these checks, particularly during model development during the design phase of a project. Models start from nothing and grow into what they become. The checks are done all along the way in a process of effort-full thinking, using the engine of thought, *see (4).
- Physical evaluation at V.C.S. locations concludes in a state of AFFIRMATION of model QA/QC. Who affirms what, where, is made clear. This supports ACCOUNTABILITY.
- Successful expression of Visual Close Study (V.C.S.) sets out the necessary array that is the 2-pole *ENGINE OF THOUGHT* itself, an engine formed as an INTERPLAY between the wide expanse of a modeled environment (the FIELD), and the narrowing act of our attentive focus within it at V.C.S. locations.
- In this INTERPLAY, thought happens and understanding grows.
- The two poles, (wide/narrow) (FIELD/focus) (model/V.C.S.), are as distinct from each other as the cosmos is from a lens for looking at it, as distinct as the universe is from a telescope, They’re not in any way the same kinds of things and one cannot replace the other.
- Finally, VISUAL CLOSE STUDY supplies THE MINIMUM COURTESY OF DRAWING ATTENTION TO THINGS NOT TO BE MISSED IN THE MODEL
A proposal for OPEN V.C.S.
I made the proposal and wrote the specification for the original drawing-model fusion automation in modeling software. And I led the development team that commercialized it first, in 2012 (see above). That concept spread to 9 different software companies since then, that I know of.
Now in 2024 I propose to solve significant design flaws (mine) in that earlier work, leapfrog far past it, and make it available to everyone in their preferred modeling applications and platforms. All of them.
The proposal is here:
The V3.0 OPEN V.C.S. page is just a click away. There is a summary outline, proposal diagrams, explanatory text, links to download a longer form specification for developers and interested users, and mockup videos.
Why not take a look at it?
If you want better equipment for Visual Close Study (V.C.S.) built into YOUR favorite modeler, why not consider the V3.0 OPEN VCS proposal?
Take a look and let us know if you’d like to join our open source team.
The invitation is for everyone who wants better equipment for evaluating models as we develop them in AEC professions, and the same equipment for use downstream where people need to engage and adequately interpret and understand digital models in support of the complex tasks in construction, and operations and maintenance of complex facilities.
Why not join us in shaping what OPEN V.C.S. needs to be?
And if you work at a software company that develops AEC modelers, why not help us not only shape OPEN V.C.S., but help its implementation in your modeling apps and platforms?
Here’s a form for feedback. Please, state your interest!
OPEN VCS, a lens for looking at models 