Asks Gergely, who I presume to be a ‘model purist’.
...and good on him for standing up for something as noble as that.
My intentions are generally much murkier than his (I guess) as I try to force the 3D and 2D into one environment and get them to talk to each other more directly than the orthogonal views of various packages will let them.
This little-battle is between Archicad and me –
I repeatedly ignore the creators’ hints to use the product in-a-certain-way and force it ‘kicking and screaming’ to perform tasks I dream-up.
Tasks, the program generally feels to be beneath-it, degrading even – which amuses me, considering I know lot of people that still use it purely for 2D-drafting.
Now, that I’d call humiliating for a modelling program of any colour but I guess, we all have our standards, and GS/Archicad seem to be less worried about the practice of broken sections and 2D lines as long as they are ‘architectural’.
On the other hand, applying it to construction modelling and 3D/2D coordination (within one, spatial view) appears to be perceived as heresy if not outright abuse of the program.
To answer Gergely’s question: the point is to compare a 3D AND a 2D representation of a space within one environment;
The two info-packages are usually prepared by different parties.
Makes sense to me.
Gergely’s original post is here: