|
|
|
@@ -40,3 +40,25 @@ I expect that these improvements would have had a significant impact on the desi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Development Cycle} |
|
|
|
\subsection{Design and model} |
|
|
|
Prior to the case study I expected the model to be the design. |
|
|
|
So when the level of detail of the design is increased, this is achieved by expanding the model with more detail or components. |
|
|
|
Resulting in different versions of a single model where each version has more detail than the previous one. |
|
|
|
However, during this development a 2D dynamics model, 3D dynamics model and a 3D component model. |
|
|
|
Although these models have components in common, they are not compatible. |
|
|
|
Therefore, adding detail to the design requires two or three models to be updated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the step from 2D to 3D physics was in no means a small increment in detail. |
|
|
|
The first four levels of detail, as describe in the previous section, all were implemented in with two dimensions. |
|
|
|
As the later details required a third dimension, all the detail was directly converted from 2D into 3D. |
|
|
|
This is a large amount of work, introducing a high cost when the conversion fails. |
|
|
|
Moreover, it creates a new 3D physics model, parallel to the 2D physics model instead of adding detail to the latter. |
|
|
|
Alternative approaches for 3D model physics could be: |
|
|
|
\begin{itemize} |
|
|
|
\item Ignore 2D and start implementation in 3D modelling. |
|
|
|
\item Retrace all incremental detail steps of the 2D model in a 3D model. |
|
|
|
\end{itemize} |
|
|
|
Both options are not ideal, the first one does not allow a simple basic model and the second approach redoes work. |
|
|
|
The advantage of starting with 3D is that allows for a continuous development of one model, instead of switching the complete model. |
