OPEN VCS developer specification
This is the third version of the OPEN VCS Specification. Please read it at this link:
OPEN VCS equipment for Visual Close Study in all digital models 26NOV2024x
The spec includes detailed description of the 8 core features of OPEN VCS, plus a dozen or so related features, among many other possible features beyond the proposed, shared, standardizable OPEN VCS feature set.
If you read earlier versions I shared in 2018 and again in 2021, I apologize. Having worked on it now in November 2024, I see it was discombobulating to say the least. I would fault no one who read it before and found it confusing. Thoughts have matured since then and the writing is clearer. In any case the document organization at least makes sense now.
This is a living document. If you would like to comment or be invited to help edit the OPEN VCS specification, send me a message on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/robsnyder3333/
INTRODUCTION
The spec document begins with a new introduction copied here.
OPEN VCS: Equipment for Visual Close Study in (all) digital models
OPEN VCS is a triple fusion of:
- Digital modeling in any combination of model types and formats typical in AEC
- Technical Drawing in fusion within digital models, at true orientation in situ within the model, and with modern, model-based evolution in drawing’s form of expression.
- Cinematic camera rigging techniques inspired by the hundred years to date of the history of film.
“camera moves in film, combining informational control and emotional positioning; movement becomes the director’s editorial voice”
“…everyone knows how to use the software but no one knows what to actually show on a drawing, people are so lost in the BIM model that they often forget (what they’re doing, what matters)…”
Adam Jackson, commenting under the article Why are Design Drawings Getting Worse? (Explained by AEC Professionals)
OPEN VCS IS FOR GETTING UN-LOST IN THE MODEL
To get a grasp on complexity.
To make things understandable.
To grapple with oceans of information.
To make things clear.
Remembering Peirce:
How to Make Our Ideas Clear
Charles S. Peirce
Popular Science Monthly 12 (January 1878), 286-302:
© 2024 Robert Snyder and the OPEN VCS Collaborative
Robert Snyder
Tangerine (project website)
VCS: Visual Close Study of Complexity
There is likely to be little or no controversy from saying that complex things are not easy to understand. And very complex things, even less easy.
As complexity increases, our ability to grasp decreases. There is no shortcut to understanding. Beyond just a haphazard and superficial graze, or bare scratch, against the surface of something very complex, adequate understanding that reaches a depth adequate to carrying out some task(s), requires effort. In general, the more complex a thing is, the more it requires close study.
In fields like architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC), close study includes visual close study. This is just to say that, yes, there are various kinds of close study, and among them, and important in AEC and similar fields is visual close study. Let’s designate this. Let’s draw attention to it: visual close study is a thing; it exists; it’s a thing worth naming and being cognizant of.
We can shorthand it ‘VCS’.
The act, or the expression of the act, of visual close study (VCS) requires some kind of carrier or vehicle, or equipment, rigging or technique, container or medium for embodying the necessary expression, of the act of visual close study. Call it what you will; try even palimpsest (it seems particularly apt). You can also call it as it is traditionally known in AEC:
technical drawing
Visual Close Study (VCS) in architecture, engineering and construction must be expressed, and recoverable, in a sustained, coherent and articulate manner, that keeps it also from fading away in the fog of memory.
This is true whether models are mental, physical, or digital, or any two of those three, or all three.
Traditionally, and for many centuries, the vehicle or medium expressing visual close study of AEC models is precisely what we’ve known for centuries as “technical drawing”. A technical drawing is the sustained, articulate expression of the act of looking closely, of putting under observation or VISUAL CLOSE STUDY, a particular region within the model (again, mental, physical, or digital) of a project.
And again, whether that model is mental, physical, or digital alters not at all the need that persists in all of them: our need, for the articulate development and capture of visual close study (VCS).
Complexity induces that need in us. We need to engage and grapple with complex environments to make sense of them. We engage precisely in a manner that moves our minds out of the fog of bewilderment, in the midst of too much complexity, into the clarity of functionally adequate understanding. How this happens is described below. Read on. But first a remark for those who might doubt this.
Where there is complexity, the need for close study always persists, fundamentally. Arguing otherwise, which has been fashionable for 20 years or so in AEC, is the same as arguing that complex environments in general do not induce a need for concentrated effort through close study.
Just as that argument in general is not one that anyone would normally entertain, yet it is entertained in AEC, and even cherished. Whether we ascribe to the fashionable slogan (goodbye drawings; hello models) or not though, the outcome is the same and the judgement harsh: the argument is a non-starter, malformed from the beginning. It has been and remains self-defeating and counterproductive. It undermines, among other things (us, our projects, the project’s objectives), the modeling endeavor itself.
UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF VCS IN AEC
Let’s narrow focus from the general concept to unique characteristics of VCS equipment in the AEC industry (architecture, engineering, and construction).
As mentioned, technical drawing is VCS equipment in its traditional centuries old form of expression. Consider these facts about VCS in AEC, and its 5 primary functions:
FACTS:
A. The digital model means next to nothing, to anyone, without formation of an adequate mental model of the same FIELD. “Proofs” of this are unnecessary. 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 less.
MENTAL MODEL FORMATION IS NOT OPTIONAL.
B. Within a short time after project start, an AEC digital model quickly already exceeds our cognitive grasp. This is easily demonstrated by our declining ability to 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?
C. We rely on the drawings as a lens for looking at the models in a sustained and articulate manner as the model develops, during design, and again later, during construction we rely in the same manner on technical drawing for interpreting the model in very specific ways such as to assist in answering the questions above, and also for other reasons described next.
D. A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK for VISUAL ENGAGEMENT WITH MODELS IS NECESSARY
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 (quality assurance and control). 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 what we can call: 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 from a telescope, They’re not in any way the same kinds of things and of course are mutually irreplaceable.
- Finally, VISUAL CLOSE STUDY supplies THE MINIMUM COURTESY OF DRAWING ATTENTION TO THINGS NOT TO BE MISSED IN THE MODEL
There is more discussion about the facts listed above about models, and the 5 (most general) functions of technical drawing, and about, in general, how we think about anything complex, and how we communicate about that, in my blog post here: https://tangerinefocus.com/2024/10/13/open-vcs-equipment-for-visual-close-study-in-digital-models/
EVOLUTION OF VCS EQUIPMENT
Just as technical drawing is for close study (of mental models), OPEN VCS is for close study of digital models.
Would anyone argue against noting that technical drawing in the form we’ve long known it, was and still is equipment for visual close study specifically of mental models?
Those who create and study drawings, visualize them, imagine them, this is vitally important, in situ at true orientation within the complex environment (or field) of the project. That is, within the mental model of the project.
Visualized there, by mental exercise alone, in situ within the model, drawings acquire their meaning and carry out their function (the 5 functions above).
Otherwise, not visualized where they are in the model, drawings are at best interesting looking abstractions suitable for display (in a gallery?), but not functionally participatory in an AEC project, not an energizing pole in the engine of thought (4th function above).
It may surprise some to hear that the mental exercise of visualizing VCS expressions where they are in the mental model, continues today in the era of digital models, in the same manner precisely, as it has been experienced for many centuries, except for the last 50 years, predating digital computing.
It continues unaltered today for 2 reasons:
- because as mentioned above, digital models mean little, at most, to anyone without adequate mental model formation underway along the way. Mental modeling is not optional.
- because to date (2024), little to nothing has been done in the software industry to upgrade V.C.S. equipment in situ within digital models. The great potential to elevate the pragmatic functional power of V.C.S. equipment therefore is left unrealized. The possibility of it occurs to very few people. The failure to develop software industry the VCS area undermines the modeling endeavor itself.
I think it’s worth clarifying that the software industry did not abandon effort to upgrade/develop/evolve VCS equipment. Rather it just didn’t think of it to begin with. There was a partial start. More on that below. But for the most part, VCS upgrade has instead been blocked, simply because it doesn’t occur to anyone to do it. Or in some cases, where VCS development concepts are presented, the development proposal is rejected. This I believe tends to happen because, just like most blockages, resistance comes from an idea that is popular and entirely wrong. That’s very common in human history.
People have been led to believe that models are the new drawings. That models replace drawings, or should replace them, and would replace them if not but for laggards holding things back. For obvious reasons this idea, which is wrong, has a very powerful suppression effect on any discourse involving drawing and especially drawing’s evolution. Because people have in mind, well and truly embedded in minds, that the portends the abandonment of drawing. Which precludes its evolution. So the latter is a thought that is not allowed to take root, or become anything.
As mentioned above, this unintentionally, undermines the digital modeling endeavor itself, so it is self-defeating and counterproductive even on terms defined by those advocating and working toward a modeling future.
The whole problem here derives entirely from putting things in the wrong category.
CATEGORY ERROR
- Drawings are a lens for looking at models.
- Models are environments, spatial visual fields.
So called ‘data’ are contained within those fields/environments (models) and nonetheless these two, drawings and models, are completely different categories. Because of that, arguing for one to replace the other is as nonsensical as arguing that because the universe exists, we should discard all our telescopes. It is that absurd. Those are, very obviously, non-mutually replaceable categories.
It’s because we have models, and because they’re very complex, that a lens for looking at them is much needed (very much needed).
Yes, just as the cosmos is the reason we need telescopes for looking at it.
You cannot, if you’re thoughtful at all about this, let alone rational, invert this logic and claim that the universe is all you need.
Because there is a universe (and we’re in it), therefore we need telescopes for looking at it.
The same is true here. AEC models compel our need for equipment for looking at them for close study, for clarity, for illuminating them for us, for improving our grasp, for activating the interplay between environment and focus, field and perception, wide and narrow, ocean and raft, the cosmos and being… Right? It’s in this interplay, between the world and our acts and expressions of attentive focus within it… it is there, in that interplay, where thought happens and understanding grows. Absent that interplay, we can for awhile fill the void with self delusion, believing we know what’s going on. But this always in the end reveals itself: we’re dealing with things well beyond complex enough that they slip our grasp. Truly we need VCS equipment to engage such complexity and maintain at least adequate grip.
Returning to the category error, we can put it this way: in AEC there were/are two progressions commonly mistaken for one.
Two Progressions, Not One
We saw technical drawing, and then we saw digital modeling.
And then we thought, and we were told by software marketing copy, that that’s the progression: from drawing, progressing forward to it’s replacement, modeling.
But our view of the field of progress was cropped too tight. We lopped off both the leading and the trailing ends of the progression. So we missed, in fact, that we’re faced actually with two different progressions, one progression in each of the two categories, drawings and models.
THE ACTUAL PROGRESSIONS:
PROGRESSION 1:
A progression in the form, or format, of modeling:
- from mental modeling to digital modeling (or rather, from mental modeling to mental and digital modeling in tandem, actually)
PROGRESSION 2:
A progression in the form, or format, of technical drawing:
- 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 mental and digital, an evolution in form compelled by the new ground that VCS is planted in: the digital model.
An OPEN VCS Collaborative
We intend to organize and stand up an OPEN VCS COLLABORATIVE that defines, builds, and manages a standardization acceptable to the AEC industry for the development of equipment for Visual Close Study suitable for implementation in all digital models and model-handling apps, platforms, CDE’s, environments, and formats.
Just as technical drawing is for close study (of mental models), OPEN VCS is for close study of digital models.
OPEN VCS is the future of technical drawing. And it’s fully reversible in both directions, automatically, with technical drawing in it’s centuries old, traditional form of expression.
WHAT IS OPEN VCS?
OPEN VCS is a set of feature definitions and an open source software codebase expressing those definitions. It is developed collaboratively by all interested AEC software developers and is intended as an open source environment for imagining, defining, building, and managing the development and standardization of a core set of OPEN VCS features to be made available for implementation in all commercial and open source modeling and model-handling software apps, environments, platforms, and formats, with interoperability built in, to the extent possible from the beginning to support VCS rig portability from one modeler to another, or from many modelers to many other modelers.
However, we hasten to add a very important point. OPEN VCS is intended as the minimum set of features that can make a real difference for VCS equipment embedded within digital models of all kinds. But this must not be conceived of as a limiting factor. On the contrary, anyone can extend OPEN VCS features and add additional VCS features beyond the open source core feature set of OPEN VCS. All developers can at once develop VCS equipment all the way up to the limits of their imagination, while at the same time benefiting from the minimum core feature set of OPEN VCS, the shared development that happens there, and the VCS rigs portability that OPEN VCS can enable with graphics fidelity intact at least to the extend defined in the OPEN VCS standard.
EARLIER WORK ON VCS (simple fusion)
The original drawing-model fusion work was my invention. It’s described here: https://tangerinefocus.com/tgn/earlier-media-innovations/ There are 27 demo videos linked on this page demonstrating the commercial development that the team I led delivered in 2012. Nine software companies in total, that I know of, have done similar drawing-model fusion development since then. They are listed at the linked ‘earlier innovations’ page.
This earlier work is a springboard. OPEN VCS obviates the earlier work now with a completely new form of expression for VCS equipment in models and a completely different mechanism of creation, while also maintaining reversibility to and from technical drawing in its traditional form of expression, and, the OPEN VCS expression in digital models, with the expression reversible in either direction from one to the other, automatically.
OPEN VCS equipment for Visual Close Study is a triple fusion of:
- Digital modeling in any combination of model types and formats typical in AEC
- Technical Drawing in fusion within digital models, at true orientation in situ within the model, and with modern, model-based evolution in drawing’s form of expression.
- Cinematic camera rigging techniques inspired by the hundred years to date of the history of film.
Demonstration
Here are two demonstration videos partially showing (they’re not bad mockups but could be even much better) what OPEN VCS rigs can look like within modelers of all kinds.
These demo videos will make more sense to you, probably, after you read the OPEN VCS features outline in the section below. And more so after you read the more detailed feature specification sections after that. But here’s a glimpse at possibility:
Notice that first video has a ‘camera normal’ parallel projection segment at the midpoint of the VCS rig’s built in viewing path. While the second video shows a VCS rig with two such conditions, one at the start of the rig’s viewing path and another at the end.
OPEN VCS IMPLEMENTATION IN ALL MODELERS
Our goal is to get OPEN VCS feature definitions and an industry standards-suitable VCS-enabling codebase integrated within all model-authoring and model-handling software in AEC, in all apps, platforms, environments, CDEs, formats…
That’s easier said than done. But we have a strategy for doing it.
First, OPEN VCS is open source.
We propose to enter the market through an open source set of core features to be developed, shared, and promoted to existing and new software companies and relevant standards organizations (e.g., Open USD), with myriad business opportunities for software companies for extending beyond the open core with additional development serving more particular market needs than the generalized nature of the open source core feature set of OPEN VCS.
8 open source VCS core features are described in a summary outline below and again in further detail along with other possible VCS features beyond the open core.
OPEN VCS CODE for supplying equipment for visual close study within models, is intended for implementation in all model-handling apps and platforms by commercial and open source developers alike. A proof of concept of VCS rigs in at least two AEC modeling apps, including portability of VCS rigs from one modeler to the other, is proposed.
How can that be done?
This is the second point: through a code transformation layer.
OPEN VCS proposes a code development structure consisting of three code layers. See the diagram:
The diagram simply shows
A. in vertical columns, the 8 proposed core features of OPEN VCS (formerly I had called it OPEN TGN). The features are numbered 1 though 8. Zoom in for a reminder of the names of the 8 features described in outline summary and in detail in the sections below.
B. Horizontally, a blue code layer at the top of the diagram refers to the code enabling any or all of the 8 features already present in any given target application for OPEN VCS implementation. For example, if the target app for OPEN VCS CODE implementation is RHINO, then Rhino’s existing code features for (2) scope boxes, (3) cameras, (4) camera movement, (5) model filtering, (6) graphics styles, (7) extra graphics, and so on then that blue Rhino code is what it is, and OPEN VCS certainly will not alter that code. Notice that most modeling applications do already have code that enables many, if not all, of the OPEN VCS core features. However, no modelers to date package these 8 functions together for systematic, sustained, coherent and articulate, and easy to use VCS function.
C. Also horizontally, is the bottom code layer in orange color. This layer is the OPEN VCS code layer that embodies in code a syntax suitable for seeking industry agreement on a minimum standard for VCS feature definitions and the code supporting them. These definitions and codebase, along with a packaging into coherent function of the eight features together, are the job of the forthcoming OPEN VCS COLLABORATIVE.
D. Finally, between the orange and blue code layers is a code transformation layer. In this layer, developers will wrangle and mash and nuance as necessary to transform code from blue to orange, and from orange to blue, for each of the 8 OPEN VCS CODe features, along with a packaging into coherent function of the eight features. For some implementations the transformation code layer may be the job of the OPEN VCS COLLABORATIVE. For other implementations it may be the job of developers who own their blue layer. For example, if the target application is Rhino, then McNeel may choose to do the transformation layers themselves. Or they may collaborate with the OPEN VCS COLLABORATIVE. Or McNeel may join the collaborative, which sounds ideal to me.
That’s the end of the introduction. The open source software development specification continues after the intro, in the document at this link:
OPEN VCS equipment for Visual Close Study in all digital models 26NOV2024x
OPEN VCS, a lens for looking at models 