Steel is the one discipline that can come very close to total completion of a 3D model, but even there, such totally complete 3D models benefit from the clarifications that come from hypermodeling the project’s structural document set INTO the 3D model, so that what was said in the drawing documents about specific locations in the steel can now be seen in-place in the 3D model, automatically, on demand.


In other disciplines, like architecture, 3D models will never be totally complete, and so it becomes critical to visually differentiate the locations in the 3D model that are graphically complete from the rest of the locations that may not be.


No one is going to 3D model every layer of roof membrane as it folds over every cant and parapet condition, nor is anyone going to completely model every piece of flashing in a model, nor every single piece of rebar and tie everywhere (see note below).  So what happens when someone finds something in the model that is missing?  A dispute? 

This is untenable.  People must be able to communicate clearly regarding which locations in the model are reliable, the locations at which they assure that the graphics are reliable and complete (enough).


Hypermodeling does this, automatically. 

The drawings in a document set ARE the locations at which a team assures that graphics are reliable and complete (enough).  Now with hypermodeling these very locations (the ones drawn in the documents) are indicated in 3D automatically, with the document graphics (clarifying and completing those locations) displayed on demand in 3D. 

This improves the documents, making them easier to understand (because they are in context) while it makes the models clear, finally, about location-specific reliability.

Therefore, for the first time, the 3D model  is deliverable with the confidence that comes from clear disambiguation. It is reliable at specific locations.


note: If there is steel consultant on the job, the steel consultant may (or may not) model every piece of rebar.  If they do, they may or may not authorize this model (in total) as representative of their authorized statements and communications.  

A drawing set is shorthand. It carries with it implied meaning (implied completions).  These implied meanings now are carried forward into models by hypermodeling. Therefore hypermodeling is a tool of model INcompletion.  

As some have said, "we have enough tools of model completion; we need tools of model incompletion."



..I go back to the analogy of movies / cinema. To tell a story, you use picture and sound,


You don't have to say everything with picture. You can fill in some of the gaps with sound. Sometimes, in fact, sound is the only thing suitable, and tells more than anything else could. The point is that you use both together in the same space. You CAN listen to a movie's sound separately from the moving picture, but you are not forced to do so. The natural viewing method is the fusion of sound and picture together, as it is with all things. Very soon we will look at (and think of) drawing documents and models in exactly this same way.


Sound into picture = movie


Documents into model = hypermodel


Sound and documents are essential, but are much more effective in context.  The reverse is true too.  Picture without sound and model without docs, both are totally ambiguous and nearly useless.


windows media video:  ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/hypermodel-01.wmv 

quicktime movie:  ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/hypermodel-01.mov