This is an archive of CompuServe forum messages from 1985 to 1995, as saved in transcripts by John Foust.
Search Results (6 messages)
Bob, >>Please elaborate on the type of information that a physical model can provide that a computer model cannot. Most architectural models worth keeping usually end up under Plexiglas to keep from getting damagedThis is something you can't do with digital, barring wearing silly looking headgear that costs a bomb…
Gus, I see the need for both. The virtual rendering can give a sense for the lighting, colors, and materials. But the physical model gives a feel of the whole mass and volume, this is important also. The viewer may be excited to see the renderings at first, but he…
Bruce, >>I could easily see more desktop CAD/CAM work leading to a marriage of the two arts. After all, we're only talking about *output* here. One is flat (dye-sub or video screen) that looks 3d but is easy to mail or carry about. The other *is* 3D.
David, We have been talking about comparing finished models to computer renderings. But what about the use of study models and massing models. Even if these are not ever shown to the client, arent these used to help prove designs, and help the architect study his/her design? Scott Gaul
Carlton, Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is an important topic for our work. >>Then to be able to imply depth through lighting, parallax of objects in the scene during a walk through> Sometimes people are so amazed to see the animation that they are blinded by the technology
3D Physical vs. Virtual
Message #117350
To all the 3D builders both physical and virtual, No doubt that 3D computer rendering and animation has brought many benefits and has been a great innovation to design visualization and presentations. Photo realistic renderings are now widely used where 3D physical models made of paper, wood, and plastic were…