Real models vs. virtual models

[oluv]

i finished my diploma thesis with a survey that compared real models versus virtual models.

 

the idea was to produce virtual interactive models that actually look like real models. my intention was to simulate the visual quality of a real-model, not trying to simulate reality but rather a real built model...

 

during the survey both models real and virtual were presented side by side. also stereo-projection with anaglyphs took part, in order to test the importance of threedimensional presentation-techniques.

 

as i am a landscape-architect, the projects i chose are rather urbanistic and not particularly architectural. 2 different projects with different scales were chosen to test various abstraction-methods and different plant-representations at various scales. i intentionally tried to avoid "real looking" plants.

 

the models were built in rhino3d then textured and baked in max. the virtual models were done in quest3d. the final models were executable files, of about 11mb for each model.

 

attached are some screenshots of both models. the first model had an option of switching between day- and nightversion as well to demonstrate the lighting-concept better.

 

i don't have a web-host yet, otherwise i would have uploaded the models. the only way i found so far was to upload them to rapidshare. but many have complained about rapidshare, so i won't post the links here.

 

i still hope you like the results. the most interesting finding was, that about 60% of the participants could imagine to apply and use virtual models like these instead of real models. 90% would use virtual models alongside real models. only 10% wouldn't use virtual models at all.

[oluv]

here are some comparison images of the real and the virtual models:

[oluv]

here is a recent example of a virtual model that was presented some days ago to the public:

http://forum.quest3d.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=66424.0;attach=128322

[1d2d3d4d]

interesting topic for debate,

 

both the digital and physical model have their pros and cons,

Edited February 12, 2009 by 1d2d3d4d

[oluv]

another example. i did this 3d-model for an architect within some hours so that he could let the client walkthrough and feel the space. i kept it very simple and abstract in order not to define any materials or functions. when the architect walked through the virtual model he didn't like it and preferred using the physical model for the presentation instead. he didn't want the client to walk into areas, that were not entirely planned... well, so why is he doing any design, if he is afraid of the result?

 

i attached an image of the real model and a screenshot from the virtual one.

 

you can download the quest-exe here:

http://forum.quest3d.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=66634.0;attach=128567

[neko]

interesting subject - for me, it's all about materials.

 

during the design phase of a project, i often model with no intention of showing materials other than flat white (and maybe a transparent material for glass) - just like you would if you were building a real model.

 

it saves a lot of time, and allows people to focus on the spaces/forms rather than being distracted by materials.

 

i like it.