While searching avidly for pioneer practitioners in the field of visualization as part of my thesis work, I came across the visionary product of the Brisbane-based infrastructure visualization company, Urban Circus. Urban Circus is a powerful tool for real-time visualization of large-scale multi-disciplinary urban projects. Its interface is ideally user-friendly and to a great degree interactive. Base models are imported from 3DSMax, Maya, ArchiCAD, etc. Outputs range from 2d rendered scenes, 3d panoramic views, 3d videos and 4d planning environments to interactive web pages featuring all the above-mentioned. Created scenes are fairly realistic and delicately detailed. Urban Circus Company was founded by an urban planner, Dr. Ben Guy in 2004.
As part of a recent conversation among Dr. Ben Guy and me and in response to an inquiry on my opinion about key centres for 3D visualisation study and analysis around the world and where we are standing here at KTH, I made an effort to conclude my findings in the field as followed:
Diagram 3
Diagram 4 Firstly, the definition and delimitation of 3d visualization is not fully agreed upon among scholars and practitioners. So, I try to delimit the term and clarify in which sense I would prefer to use it before proceeding. As depicted in diagrams 3 and 4, visualization may address the transitory process with an input from the modelling phase and an output for the simulation phase. The term can also be used in a wider sense describing the entire process. Throughout my studies, the latter definition has proved to be more appropriate when mentioning visualization as a means for participatory planning.
Secondly, contemporary practitioners in the field take different approaches to the very nature of visualization tools and techniques. The variety of categories can - in my opinion - be summarized to two major groups. These two classifications are in turn derived from Raper, McCarthy and Williams' (1999)* categorization of virtual reality tools: Some institutes such as MIT Media Lab are mainly equipment-oriented which can correspond to Raper and others' immersive (egocentric) VR. Batty, Longley and others at UCL's CASA, on the other hand, are more focused on the through-the-window or exocentric definition of VR tools. Again, I find the latter better addressing contemporary needs for 3d visualization and more compatible with participatory approaches.
Sweden is a pioneer in visualization in Scandinavia and among top ones in Europe with a number of active visualization centers such as those in Norrköping and Göteborg. They are however still more into immersive VR approaches and somehow more specialised in other uses of visualization such as medical applications rather than planning. In recent years, KTH has been offering various programs on visualization which are unique in the sense that they are closely linked to satellite imagery, semi-automated modeling and GIS utilities from one side and visualization of social aspects of planning using Space Syntax, Place Syntax, etc. on the other hand.
There are in fact vast grounds and potentials for further developments, but still much to be done for integrating the variety of visualization-related activities and research programs within the department before strengthening our links with pioneers in the field. I have much hope and enthusiasm in our recent activities for better embracing the topic at our planning school in the future.
Sources:
Raper, J., McCarthy, T., & Williams, N. (1999). Georeferenced four-dimensional virtual environments: principles and applications.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , 22 (6), 529-539.
Ball, J., Capanni, N., & Watt, S. (2008). Virtual Reality for Mutual Understanding in Landscape Planning. International
Journal of Social Sciences , Volume 2 Number 2 2008 ISSN 1306‐973X.
ReplyDeleteExcellent blog ,Thanks for sharing...try to see these too
BIM Implementation
BIM Implementation in usa
BIM Implementation in uk
BIM Implementation in india