Comments on: 3D Limits, or How to Avoid Killing 3D with 3D applications? http://plmtwine.com/2009/02/20/3d-limits-or-how-to-avoid-killing-3d-with-3d-applications/ Product Lifecycle Management by Oleg Shilovitsky Fri, 25 May 2012 04:36:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Non-3D User Experience for PLM « Daily PLM Think Tank Blog http://plmtwine.com/2009/02/20/3d-limits-or-how-to-avoid-killing-3d-with-3d-applications/#comment-2266 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:19:46 +0000 http://plmtwine.com/?p=657#comment-2266 [...] However, sometimes I think we really overkill by 3D. Few months ago I discussed this in my post (3D Limits…). During this weekend, I was looking on Google Side by Side interface for GSA and [...]

]]> By: olegshilovitsky http://plmtwine.com/2009/02/20/3d-limits-or-how-to-avoid-killing-3d-with-3d-applications/#comment-444 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:52:30 +0000 http://plmtwine.com/?p=657#comment-444 Michael,

Thanks for your comprehensive feedback. I agree with your view on trends related to 3D. It becomes cheaper and easier to handle from all standpoints. So, I’m with you on the side saying in the near future we will see more and more attempts to provide tools to create 3D for wider audience. I’m also see part of the tools will be provided by non-CAD software vendors.

In the second part, I think you made right point by saying sometime essence of communication is to provide 3D model/information. This is what I called co-design, but you emphasized it very well.

At the same time, I tried to analyze and see if 3D can become universal language for communication and provide context similar to geo/map/location role in Google Map and all applications related to Map services in general. I cannot say that I see people tomorrow move to total 3D, but there is definitely trend toward higher acceptance of 3D in communication.

Regards,Oleg.

]]> By: Michael Reitman http://plmtwine.com/2009/02/20/3d-limits-or-how-to-avoid-killing-3d-with-3d-applications/#comment-414 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:03:46 +0000 http://plmtwine.com/?p=657#comment-414 First, concerning the discussion in original post (“Do Designers Really Want to Communicate in 3D?”), I support the comment by Rachael – the main criteria about which means to use for communication is “ease of creation and communication”.
At the moment it is easier to create 2D images in PowerPoint, graphs in Excel, some sketches. And the easiest environment to put together graphic and non-graphic info is PowerPoint (and also Word).
Plus performance issues related to communicating those heavier documents are being resolved. And I see rapidly growing usage of graphic info in all kind of communications.
The only limitation for using 3D (except for its size – that is not big problem already and will become less of problem soon) is the ways to create it. It is still not as easy to create 3D graphics compared to sketching or adding shapes in ppt, or creating graphs in Excel.
But once it is easy to create 3D, it becomes the preferable choice for graphic info to communicate.
E.g., capturing movies from CAD tool session and communicating them as part of discussion becomes popular. Even more popular (almost commodity) are snapshots of CAD tool window with 3D view of object in it.
So if creation of 3D is one pick away and embedding it to “communication means” is another pick – the designers would definitely chose to communicate 3D.
__________

Now concerning the analysis in this post. Pretty nice attempt to classify basic types of communications and design activities and try to look at usage of different info types in each case.

Two comments here.
First, comparing 3D vs textual info is not the only (and maybe not the essential) comparison.
One could also compare 3D vs 2D (sketches, graphs, basic shapes) if objective is to assess the usage of visual communication means; or, alternatively, visual (all kinds) vs non-visual (text, tables) info. This can add interesting new dimensions to the analysis.

Second, I do not fully share your conclusion that 3D is mainly to provide context for communication (ability to visualize the object).
In general case I would not say for sure what provides the context and what defines the essence of communication.
• In some cases 3D is the essence of communication and the main criteria for decision to make (e.g., aesthetic criteria for body surface of product). And textual info is just a context of communication (version of product, release level, cost, weight, manufacturability considerations)
• In other cases, indeed, 3D is needed mostly for visualizing the context of communication
• And in yet another (rapidly growing) class of cases you cannot say for sure what is context and what is the essence – since visual and non-visual information must be considered together and provide two equally essential “views” on the object of discussion.

Note two trends going on in parallel:
(a) Attempts to visualize textual info (various graphs instead of tables, showing textual properties in 3D context when relevant, annotation-type);
(b) Growing interest to technologies for analyzing 3D objects to capture their properties in non-graphic attributes – to provide all kinds of “indexing” for 3D objects, categorize them, tag by “shape”, “fit” and even “function”.

It seems to me that these two trends are converging to one common point where it will be neither purely 3D view nor purely textual view.

One can fantasize about the ultimate definition of object used for design communication that combines 3D views (maybe sound?), movements, simulation of physical functioning – with relevant textual info directly encapsulated into this “virtual reality” (as annotations, or graphs/tables “on the glass”).

]]>