Davey wasn’t being derogatory about modelmakers

I’m prompted to write this in response to Daniel Carey’s letter (DW 13 March). To try to clarify what I understood from Andy Davey’s article (DW 27 February), I don’t think Davey was being derogatory by stating that there is ‘interpretation’ on the modelm

I’m prompted to write this in response to Daniel Carey’s letter (DW 13 March).

To try to clarify what I understood from Andy Davey’s article (DW 27 February), I don’t think Davey was being derogatory by stating that there is ‘interpretation’ on the modelmaker’s part.

Before 3D CAD it was very difficult to communicate a product’s form through conventional 2D drawings, especially if the form was organic. What happened between section A and section B was very much open to interpretation, no matter how good the modelmaker. The only thing to do was either to generate hundreds of cross sections or to sit with the modelmaker while they hand-worked the design.

I don’t think Davey was suggesting that rogue modelmakers are scattering random features willy-nilly over his designs.

You only need to look at the proliferation of ‘soft-tech’ products in the mid-1990s to see how relieved designers were with the advent of 3D CAD. For the first time, what you saw on screen was actually what you got.

As for designers only considering the form of a product and disregarding how components fit together, if this is his experience, I would suggest Carey finds himself some new clients as his existing ones aren’t going to be around for long.

Jeremy Offer

Creative director

Geo Industrial Design

Cheadle SK8 1JD

Latest articles