At issue: what are drawings and what are models, what are they for, or more specifically, how effective are they at what they are for?
Whatever they are for, we seek to make them better through combination and permutation,
To argue the merits of one over the other (drawings or models), as is common today, instead of the combination of both, is like arguing for recorded sound or silent film instead of the combination of both together, as happened over 100 years ago when silent film was transformed by the synchronization (alignment) of sound into film – a boon to communication, and through mutual contextualization an improvement to both sound and film individually.
The same is true now with drawings and models:
To share a model | dagsljus
The software to do this is available now. It’s automatic, it just works. It scales and it’s recursive; it works on projects of projects. Bentley’s solution is functional, comprehensive, and completely automatic. It requires zero time and zero effort; if you make drawing documents using the BIM process, then those drawings are automatically aligned in-place, contextualized into the model, marked, and displayed in-situ on-demand according to their current live state. That is, they are a live view of the actual drawing documents, displayed by reference, in the model.
Alternatively, this combinant permutation of the entire document set contextualized into the model can be archived into one file, published at milestones. Within that single file, all external documents are internalized, links are correctly redirected, and the archive becomes static and standalone. So it runs either live as a connective web of work-in-progress mutually contextualized modeling and drawing, or it is published whole as a self-contained snapshot.
Drawings, by being what they are, true to their nature, do the following: they tell someone specifically what to look at, what to see, understand, and do. “Look at this, and do this.” They are directed thought, directive communication.
This is why they are in demand.
Models are environmental, undirected. Models, on their own, don’t communicate what to look at, see, understand or do, albeit there are some partial exceptions. Out goal was to combine the essential nature of each together: within an undirected modeled environment, draw attention to what should be seen, understood, and done.
This is an elementary concept that opens a lot of possibility. It opens the door to more effective visual communication in design and construction (and elsewhere), but it also opens other possibilities resulting from the continuities formed by the combination and permutation of information-rich visual media and data.
Do you see the possibility of combinant data and media permutation, or are you still arguing the merits of silent film or isolated recorded sound? Synthesis, or isolation? Single puzzle piece or the whole picture?