Post Removed: Data Collection Complete
I completed the survey and found the 3D version better for outside views, but I feel it would be confusing to apply to the interior portion. Being able to see openings on the outside is a significant benefit that most 2D plans lack in a single view. But, when we start "moving" into the interior, it is would seem harder to maintain orientation and would likely not represent the conditions found once a building is in use? The 2D plan view allows the IC the ability to plan a route of anticipated travel for the various objectives, using a simple expected route. The 3D may quickly appear different causing an immediate confusion? The actual crew making entry would likely benefit from an accurate 3D image of the interior, but the accuracy would seem to be key. Unless the preplan is maintain routinely, I'd be concerned that overstimulating the senses with a mental picture that doesn't match the actual visual would lead to problems. A 2D plan forces one to maintain a relatively "clean mental slate" which is built upon by actual visual cues. That said, there are some things the 3D visual show that a 2D plan view does not, such as ceiling height, storage over spaces, etc.
Like anything, the best of both worlds would be the most beneficial.
Thank you for your feedback, this is very helpful!
Retrieving data ...