critical analysis of the absence of interior - Bilkent University

Initially, in the ‘drawing’ features, the main gap between the general purpose and
domain specific software is revealed to be the capability of drawing 2D and 3D
interior architectural elements, like kitchen, bathroom, furniture and accessories.
Actually, as the analysis in the chapter 3.2.2 indicates, these interior architectural
elements already exist in the currently used domain specific software. Nonetheless,
the user has only ability to draw these items from a pre-defined object library in
domain specific software. This model differs in this point by providing its users the
flexibility to create new objects from these libraries or by modifying these objects in
a proper and detailed way.
In the ‘transformation’ analysis, it is revealed that general purpose software involve
an extensive feature list compared to domain specific ones. This can be interpreted in
two different ways; whether the interior architects do not need this much of
transformation features, or the general purpose software introduce too much
unnecessary transformation features. To decide whether these features are really of
use, a domain specific software should be developed based on the given model and
should be tested on both education and practice.
Furthermore, the proposed model improves ‘rendering’ features of general purpose
software by adding ‘photorealism’ to ‘material library’ and ‘light editing’ features.
The ‘photorealism’ issue has an important part in the formation of the proposed
model. The students and the professionals want to visualize their projects as real-
looking as possible, not in sketch view. Therefore, this model provides and
emphasizes the need for ‘photorealistic’ interior views, which will improve their
visual communication between their instructors, their colleagues and their customers.
113