CAD Renders

[pamarine]

Thanks! Those worked great!

[D.I.M.1]

You know if you think about it aesthetics don't matter when designing any concept, the beautification is done by market engineers so that way the job of you and me are to make a better boat. The ipod was originally just a cobbling of gadgets, and aesthetic engineers just made into a sleek and high-rise product. My advice, unless you work for a very private firm with a tight-nit group don't worry about aesthetics, ad if it bothers you include it in your engineer's report to you boss or whoever your presenting it to, product descriptions are more important than any picture of a product.
-DIM a future engineer

[DMacPherson]

DIM, I have to respectfully disagree with your premise that you do not need to worry about aesthetics. Let me give you my opinion as an engineer, the parent of an engineering student, and an instructor (part time) in the engineering department of our local state university.

Like it or not, engineering contains a significant "sales" component. We sell ideas, products, our status in the company. We sell to clients, sponsors, and supervisors. This leads us back to an age-old discussion about which is superior - "form" or "content".

As you ended with the tag "a future engineer", I'm guessing you are an engineering student. I have found in my many years of work with students, that they are all about the "content", and sacrifice the value and importance of the "form". I have even seen some students who are convinced that "form" is completely irrelevant in engineering.

Much of successful engineering is about managing expectations. If two engineers deliver identical 39 knot boats, but one worked from the position with the client of delivering a 38 knot boat, everyone is happy. The other promised 40 knots, and only delivered 39. The client? Not so happy. The content was identical, but the form of delivery was different.

Consider a technical drawing with perfect content, but sloppy line quality, proportion, or placement of components on the page. Compare this to a neatly done drawing with inferior content. Which gains the client's trust? Which give the client an expectation of inferior work? In this case, the "form" (aesthetics) becomes superior to the "content" in gaining the business.

Should we aspire to inferior content? Of course not, but on level content, superior form or aesthetics will always win. You'll never get the job if the boat is not pleasing to the eye, and lacks the impression of thoughtful design quality. You can be the best technical naval architect, but if no one likes the look of your boat and omits you from consideration, then what's the point?

Regards,

Don MacPherson
HydroComp

[pamarine]

I am the entire Engineering and design department at my company, so I have to not only design a good product but also provide images for our website and sales literature. Hence this thread.

[Joe Petrich]

Originally Posted by DMacPherson

DIM, I have to respectfully disagree with your premise that you do not need to worry about aesthetics. Let me give you my opinion as an engineer, the parent of an engineering student, and an instructor (part time) in the engineering department of our local state university.

Like it or not, engineering contains a significant "sales" component. We sell ideas, products, our status in the company. We sell to clients, sponsors, and supervisors. This leads us back to an age-old discussion about which is superior - "form" or "content".

As you ended with the tag "a future engineer", I'm guessing you are an engineering student. I have found in my many years of work with students, that they are all about the "content", and sacrifice the value and importance of the "form". I have even seen some students who are convinced that "form" is completely irrelevant in engineering.

Much of successful engineering is about managing expectations. If two engineers deliver identical 39 knot boats, but one worked from the position with the client of delivering a 38 knot boat, everyone is happy. The other promised 40 knots, and only delivered 39. The client? Not so happy. The content was identical, but the form of delivery was different.

Consider a technical drawing with perfect content, but sloppy line quality, proportion, or placement of components on the page. Compare this to a neatly done drawing with inferior content. Which gains the client's trust? Which give the client an expectation of inferior work? In this case, the "form" (aesthetics) becomes superior to the "content" in gaining the business.

Should we aspire to inferior content? Of course not, but on level content, superior form or aesthetics will always win. You'll never get the job if the boat is not pleasing to the eye, and lacks the impression of thoughtful design quality. You can be the best technical naval architect, but if no one likes the look of your boat and omits you from consideration, then what's the point?

Regards,

Don MacPherson
HydroComp

Very well put.

[Ad Hoc]

Agreed D.Mac.
BUT, there is a fine line between a pretty looking CAD rendered image and pretty CAD rendered image that has been thought out and numbers crunched.

Just being a pretty picture with no thought...is not enough. It may convince the client, who doesn't know any better.

One only has to look at many images on this forum...some great looking renderings, but ask a simple technical Q about the "image"...and the reply is more often "oh..not thought about that yet" ..or "my computer program tells me...blah blah blah", or some "airy fairy metaphysical" nonsense about...well, go figure....ugh!.

Form and function go hand in hand.

Engineers are not renowned for their aesthetic ability. However, the corollary of:
"but if no one likes the look of your boat and omits you from consideration, then what's the point"
is the boat that looked nice, but didn't make speed or capsized or kept cracking....looked nice though! Of which there are many many examples afloat in the real world, not just in the computer rendered. Said naval architect, wont get many more orders....

Unless of course the design/build is cheap...in which case, form and function are ignored for the bottom dollar.

You only get what you pay for.....

[DMacPherson]

Ad Hoc,

I'm not sure the underlying message that you are trying to get across, but I don't think I ever said that you can omit the "content". In fact, I think I stated that we must not "aspire to inferior content". However, even if you are technically excellent with the "content", you cannot omit the "form". Complaints about pretty pictures with no technical merit are an entirely different discussion.

Regards,

Don MacPherson
HydroComp

[Ad Hoc]

D.Mac

It was in response to your statement of:
"..but on level content, superior form or aesthetics will always win..."

If the client is swayed by pure imaginary alone, then yes. But that is rather patronising to clients who know what they want and know 'technical issues'.

As such I'm not sure how you can differentiate between:

"..You'll never get the job if the boat is not pleasing to the eye.." but you then say..."..Complaints about pretty pictures with no technical merit are an entirely different discussion.."

Pleasing to the eye and pretty pictures is the same thing. So what is it you are referring to, if you think the two are different discussions?

A very similar discussion is here
Just a thought
only a few pages, but worth reading through...

[DMacPherson]

In your discussion of my comments, you've overlooked my phrase "on level content". This is the basis for my comments.

My comments to the poster = "content without form" is bad
Your reply to me = "form without content" is bad

Both valid discussions, but different discussions. Please read my comments again, and I think you'll find that I never suggested that nice drawings without the underlying technical details was proper engineering.

I stand by my comments, which can be summed up as "Great technical merit that is delivered in a poor wrapper will always be considered of lower quality than if it were delivered in a pleasing package".

(And I do consider "pleasing to the eye" and "pretty pictures" as different. I've seen simple hand-drawn sketches that were neat, crisp, and pleasing. I've also seen "pretty pictures" of ugly boats. Quite different things.)

Regards,

Don MacPherson
HydroComp