diff --git a/content/case_evaluation.tex b/content/case_evaluation.tex index 7804ce3..38fdf10 100644 --- a/content/case_evaluation.tex +++ b/content/case_evaluation.tex @@ -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.