Hello Box:

That is a hugely impressive megaliner ....

A virtual tour (such as the one featured in the link) would seem to represent a potentially most elegant solution to this problem. [The word "compromise" would seem somewhat harsh and inappropriate to use under these circumstances]. After all, I am indeed looking for any possible innovative options that could provide us with some much-needed functional "eye candy" to enhance our (presently somewhat graphic insipid) application ....

Nevertheless, I still need someone to voluntarily assist us in compiling such a virtual tour - indeed possibly a somewhat more complex virtual tour than the one featured in the link ....

Btw: What software was used to create that lovely (and highly functional) image?

Box:

My second attempt was somewhat more successful (I saw the lady with the red jersey). There was still a massive amount of lag ....

@unknownuser said:

I'm sorry you were unable to view the file on your computer, perhaps it is one of those lightweight ones designed for the masses.

I am afraid that is all that I can afford as an unemployed caregiver ....

No disrespect was intended with my earlier comment. It just seems to represent a factual observation ....

Hello Box:

I have long given up (with SketchUp at least) the possibility of any form of internal walk-through. All I would desire is an external THC model. In fact, the series of internal divisions appearing in my outlines (which are ultimately not essential) are merely an attempt at "correcting" the measurements of the individual wings.

@unknownuser said:

Jeremy, you seem to be missing the main point here, a white knight isn't what you need, the extent of your project exceeds the capabilities of sketchup.

I was hoping that such a "White Knight" would have access to and be proficient with one of the standard professional CAD products. Sadly (and with all due respect) Google SketchUp seems to be a "light weight" freeware product specifically designed for the (admittedly) creative masses. It certainly does not seem to possess the capabilities of its (admittedly hugely expensive) equivalent commercial products specifically designed for the professional market.

They are sadly (but in truth) obviously "chalk" and "cheese" ....

@unknownuser said:

Open it up and have a look how it behaves when you try to navigate around it.

The programme immediately became unresponsive and froze ....

Point taken ....

Hello all:

I have tried the Autodesk forums - but with no success ....

This is as far as things have gone in a long time. However (if it is deemed impossible to replicate an admittedly far more complex version of Sandy's original model) I am prepared to "call it quits" with this seemingly overambitious aspect of our healthcare education application ....

If there is a "White Knight" lurking in the background, I humbly suggest that s/he "comes to the party" now ....

Extra comment:

I was previously informed by a professional architect that many of his colleagues use SketchUp to refine their designs. They then subsequently import the finished SketchUp design into a CAD programme in order to render it. I don't know whether this insight is of any relevance to us ....

Charly:

You seem to have included four of the five wings in your models. Therefore not too much is missing. However I do easily appreciate the fact that (as further possible details are inserted into the developing model) its size will most likely continue to soar.

Does SketchUp have a predefined limitation in the amount of information (for want of a better term) that it can store?

Admittedly, Sandy's earlier (and much simpler) model was developed with 3ds Max 2008 ....

Therefore "quo vadis"?

Hello Karl, et al.:

Please forgive me - but it has taken me ages to see where your above interpretation of my proposed THC model further departs from the original concept ....

The inner decagonal rings are totally missing and have been replaced by a small innermost square. Admittedly this solution obviates the possibility of additional deadspace existing between decagonal arrangements of the modules. Maybe we can still attempt this rather tricky aspect of the design which will determine the alignment of the FIVE (and not four) outer double wings .... ??

Now perhaps you are beginning to see the inherent difficulty in this design ....

Hello Charly:

You are certainly getting a bit closer ....

Unfortunately a 2d outline (of only one wing) does not easily translate into a fully-fledged 3d model of the entire complex (which consists of five identical wings and the central rings). For instance, the series of (presently flat) square shaped areas situated between the sets of modules are actually internal quadrangles (open spaces) that need to be enclosed within each floor. The internal passageways will also need "cut across" the internal water features (as a series of perspex-lined structures).

Maybe you can try these (fairly minor) modifications and we might (hopefully) slowly move forward ....

Hi there:

Unless something truly meaningful transpires, this will most probably represent the final post of this thread.

I have taken the liberty of attaching a (reduced size to meet the requirements of this forum) schematic outline of one of the five identical "double wings" (where each labeled rectangular block is a 110m x 22m module).

I would like to forward my kindest regards and sincerest gratitude to those people who have contributed to this thread.

![A more accurate "double wing" outline](/uploads/imported_attachments/Lhej_TwincruciformTHwingMegaTHC2.png "A more accurate "double wing" outline")

The above outline placed within Google SketchUp

A slightly more complex (at the base) outline placed within Google SketchUp

Hello Box:

I am really impressed with your obviously fairly hastily designed model of my proposed main THC design. While not perfect in the positioning of the individual modules, it certainly does provide one with a good idea of what it could like at a slightly different scale.

I see that it has already had (iirc) 27 downloads. Is there anyone "lurking" in this thread who would like to try to "run" with this?

Otherwise I suppose that this might (quite possibly) represent a somewhat appropriate final post for this lengthy and ultimately vainglorious thread ....

Hello Wo3Dan:

I have actually previously tried to master Google SketchUp but sadly possess extremely poor 3d perception. This disability has already not only caused me to repeatedly fail the yard test component of my drivers test but also caused me to struggle with all forms of venisection (thereby effectively blighting my clinical career) ....

I am still (seemingly against all sound judgement) hoping that a master modeler might either take pity on me and/or be sufficiently motivated by the challenge presented to offer their services to our project.

In all truth, this model does not represent an indispensable component of our proposed application - although it would surely add much value to it. It is therefore a much-cherished luxury that could (as previously suggested) function as a showcase centerpiece for it ....

I know that many Google SketchUp masters love to model real life buildings. Maybe one of them might instead be prepared to try to create something unique ....

In summary, you are also most correct in your comment that I have indeed spent a great deal of my time trying to (seemingly unsuccessfully) explain the "rules" (a good term) defining the proposed main THC. Unless I can soon find someone who is prepared to actively assist me in this regard, I think that it will be time to consider closing this already rather lengthy thread that has ultimately (and sadly) delivered nothing.

I was obviously hugely lucky to have managed to acquire the services of Sandy to create the "single winged" and "single ringed" model adorning the first page of this thread ....

Hello TIG:

Thank you so much for your sage input.

I am indeed looking for someone who is prepared to actively assist me with developing the exterior model. I fully realize that this process will not only require fairly intricate planning (which does not represent my strong point) but also a fair amount of time in execution.

[Sandy and I spent several months working on the comparatively simple "single winged" and "single ringed" THC model. I have compiled an extremely lengthy (and somewhat confusing) transcript of the most relevant correspondence we conducted during this period. There are therefore some details regarding some of the features that could (should) be included in the exterior of this proposed model. There is also significant scope for much further embellishment - so that the modeler could quite feasibly impart a great deal of themselves into this model].

I just need to find someone who is prepared to attempt this fairly complex task ....

Hello Gaieus:

Yes - I have sadly come to the same conclusion ....

However, you do raise two interesting possibilities that might potentially release us from some of the emphasis on process:

[*]I am still extremely interested in a fairly detailed exterior view of the proposed "twin wing" and "twin ring" model (as iirc appears on page 1 of this ever lengthening thread). However, I am not too sure whether either mac1 or Charly would ever be prepared to even attempt this rather fanciful design (with minimum emphasis on process). I still feel that a suitably well-crafted model would provide us with a wonderful centerpiece to showcase our application ....

[*]I have previously discussed a series of fairly simple templates for the nine different types of clinical facilities with Charly. However, this discussion has become increasingly "bogged down" with references to process. I am basically looking for a series of fairly simple (but well-crafted) designs that can possibly be inserted into our Schematic World Map.

Maybe I place too much emphasis on appearance over form - but I am somewhat desperately looking for suitable content to complement our Schematic World Map. I now see that the "monster" I initially envisaged is just too large, too ambitious and too impractical ....

Hopefully I have not "chased" Charly and mac1 away with this impossible idea. However, I do need something reasonably definitive sometime soon. Therefore I entreat them to seriously consider undertaking some creative modelling on my behalf. I have already seen the high quality of Charly's work and somehow suspect that mac1 is equally adept ....

SUMMARY:

I am beginning to wonder whether this concept of a fairly detailed main THC model (whose components are directly linked to the content of the Schematic World Map) is possibly a "bridge too far". I certainly don't seem to possess the ability to provide Charly (in particular) with the depth of details required. However (to be absolutely honest), I really don't think that most of these seemingly highly detailed processes are currently relevant to the envisaged nature (and scope) of our application. Maybe (with the passage of time and successful completion of the absolute basics) it might eventually prove possible to successfully fill these gaps ....

I see our application slowly growing from a fairly humble beginning into (hopefully) something ever more detailed. However, I honestly feel that we need to initially build a solid (albeit somewhat basic) foundation before adding a huge amount of (presently unnecessary) technical data. Hence my analogy of a "bridge too far" ....

I would really love to work with you two highly-skilled professionals - but you are going to have to substantailly lower the proverbial bar for this non-engineer. Otherwise we will forever be talking at cross-purposes and wasting all our time. This would be really sad - but I am well-aware of this risk ....

Charly and mac1:

@unknownuser said:

What are you talking about 3000 modules, that's unrealistic.

This concept appears to work rather well in my (albeit rather simplistic) Schematic World Map (the relevant section of which appears as a screenshot in the MS Word document I forwarded to you containing the list of all the relevant clinical disciplines and their component clinical subdisciplines). I am basically exploring ways of presenting this information in a far more striking, dynamic and interactive fashion ....

@unknownuser said:

It is important to have a realistic basic concept as a starting point. Start with a small basic hospital. Later extensions are always possible.

While I suppose that we could do this (especially if you and mac1 are prepared to assist me with this process), I suggest that there is already a concept in place - the proposed taxonomy (classification) of 18 major anatomical systems, their 65 component clinical disciplines, their 382 component clinical subdisciplines and (finally) their circa 2600 dedicated clinical facilities (including 8 main component upgradeable structures).

@unknownuser said:

The basic form of a hospital is, ideally, based on its functions:

1. Bed-related inpatient functions
2. Outpatient-related functions
3. Diagnostic and treatment functions
4. Administrative functions
5. Service functions (food, supply)
6. Research and teaching functions

Now we are coming to the "heart of the problem" ....

Each clinical subdiscipline (generally) features the following clinical facilities (a clinic. a unit, a clinical diagnostic laboratory, a surgical operating theatre (where appropriate), a clinical research unit, a teaching unit, a scientific research unit and an intensive care unit (where appropriate)). Each clinical subdiscipline is well-defined (such as Adult General Cardiology which will include medical heart conditions affecting adults not relating to the other specialist adult cardiac clinical subdisciplines).

Therefore it should prove fairly simple to generate a series of fairly basic relevant functions for any one of the proposed 2600+ clinical facilities based upon either their type (clinic, unit, etc.) or clinical subdiscipline (such as Adult General Cardiology as quoted above). I really don't know what further details will prove necessary .... ??

@unknownuser said:

Define the Services for each function which should be included as a minimum

Please refer to my comments above.

I even provided you with possible staff lists in this regard - although I admit that they are still a little "exploratory" ....

@unknownuser said:

That would be a basis for further dicussions and we could then talk about further details and working steps.

I must admit (with all due respect) that I would hugely welcome some fairly definitive action ....

@unknownuser said:

Otherwise you'll notice after a further six years you did not get a step forward.

Well - this is not entirely true as my volunteer programmer is making some (albeit slow) progress with our all-important Schematic World Map. It is just extremely unfortunate that he has been affected by poor health for the past 6 months ....

@unknownuser said:

I think where Charly and I came from is the detail of the hospital vs how it fits in with the functions to be performed. You have targeted lay person and high school students in your original OP. So now what do you want to convey to them in your virtual world and what do you expect them to have when they get done with the simulation or tour?

They will (for absolute starters) know what each clinical facility does as each clinical discipline and clinical subdiscipline has been defined. The function of each clinical facility has been likewise defined. [We are also busy exploring a healthcare delivery model whereby healthcare services are delivered to the community on a major anatomical system-specific manner].

Depending upon what else can possibly be included within the virtual world, there might conceivably be other healthcare education opportunities within the main THC (which is only a part of the entire application) ....

@unknownuser said:

Also this will not be free so you must get funding form maybe some NPO OR ? and will need enough info to get the required help. At present I not not think you can submit coherent request to ask for a grant

I fully realize this - hence the relative urgency in my quest to create a high-impact "flagship product". However (at present), everything has been created by a series of selfless volunteers ....

@unknownuser said:

I guess I am saying you must first determine what the capability of the target population has at their disposal before you can go off and build something they can use

The model would obviously have to be fairly easily integrated into our default application. Otherwise, I suppose that it could represent an optional "extra" that could be used (by some) in conjunction with the essentially rather basic default application (which was of some interest to the local Education Department) ....

More in follow-up post ....

Hello all:

Sorry for the repeated posts - but (as earlier stated) I am extremely keen to try to make some ongoing definitive progress with this most important aspect of our project ....

Upon deeper reflection, I think that a lot of our current misunderstandings can possibly be ascribed to our differing levels of process planning:

[*]On the one hand, Charly and mac1 (being experienced engineers) are looking at the lowest level details involving the microstructure and microfunction of the individual modules that will eventually be collated to form the body of the main THC. I fully understand and appreciate that this approach represents standard real world engineering practice and conventional wisdom.

[*]On the other hand, I (largely due to my complete lack of any engineering knowledge) am looking at the next level details relating to how the individual modules (both clinical and non-clinical) will structurally and functionally interact with each other within the body of the main THC. [Maybe it has been somewhat of a mistake and/or represents a major departure from real world engineering practice and conventional wisdom (although I tend to view it as more of a practical challenge) to initially propose a rather esoteric macrodesign for the main THC (especially as it is potentially hugely constraining) to house the circa 2600 (actually the final figure will ultimately be much nearer to 3000) modules].

I hope that there is a suitable (and possibly even highly innovative) way of overcoming this deep impasse as I sense that you are both keen to assist me and I dearly need whatever assistance that I can readily obtain with this most important aspect of our project. Does anyone have any ideas as to how we can proceed within (hopefully) the coming days ....

Hello Gaieus:

Great to hear from you ....

Thank you so much for that important piece of technical advice that will surely be employed when the individual modules are "collated" into the main THC model. However, my main concern is more aesthetic in nature - insofar as I am really keen to develop a truly striking main THC model (for the reasons previously mentioned) that will function as a detailed "walk-through" facility ....

This is going to prove very tricky indeed - especially as the various anatomical systems (18), clinical disciplines (65) and clinical subdisciplines (382) need to be rationally (systematically) grouped. Now this is what I would tend to refer to as process ....

Another extremely relevant consideration:

How does one combine (collate for want of a better term) 2600+ of these already fairly large individual clinical facility modules (excluding additional non-clinical facility modules) into a composite main THC building?

This is the issue that currently worries me the most and will undoubtedly ultimately provide the greatest challenge ....

Charly:

The various versions (both schematic and 3ds max) of the 110m x 22m unit that I forwarded to you. This could seemingly represent our default unit. I attempted to explain the comparatively minor series of amendments that would need to be made to this in order to successfully convert it into a clinic. Maybe my explanations were rather poor ....

Please also read my earlier reply to mac1. Maybe (or maybe not) my comments might seem a little more clear ....

Perhaps (if mac1 is prepared to become actively involved with this project) you can forward him copies of your plans and models (as well as perhaps even my corresponding plans and models as comparisons) with any explanatory comments that you might feel are appropriate?

Hi mac1:

Well - from the point of software, I effectively have zero budget. I am currently an unemployed person trying somewhat desperately to make some beneficial use of his spare time (when not acting as a geriatric caregiver).

Maybe my obsession with the hospital layout is indeed somewhat inappropriate - but I am looking for a suitably high-impact centerpiece (with a high OMG factor) for our application. There is a fairly well-known maxim that "graphics maketh the game". Our Schematic World Map (which is presently envisaged as the core of our application) currently features extremely simplistic graphics (as created by me). The main THC model is meant to complement (and possibly eventually augment) the series of Schematic World Map tiles representing (in a largely abstract fashion) the individual clinical subdisciplines.

The main purpose of this part of our application could largely be stated along the lines of "finding ones way around the hospital" and explaining the function of the various clinical subdisciplines. I don't presently envisage developing a detailed medical science simulation as this is the property of large university research departments (such as Stanford University). Therefore the underlying purpose is actually rather simple - although I would like to include a fair amount of detail within this model to show the major components of a clinic (outpatients department), unit (ward), etc. [I have already listed these as a series of potentially upgradeable structures].

I am hoping that the user will be able to "walk through" the complex (which can feature a large series of explanatory labels as well as links to the relevant tiles featured in our Schematic World Map). Although I am hoping to eventually develop a healthcare systems simulator, it will not (at least for the foreseeable future) feature any detailed clinical simulations. This is somewhat outside my relevant area of expertise and (as stated above) there is no way in which I can even think of competing with the current major players in this area. However, an application featuring a large (and suitably detailed) main THC (without clinical simulations) appears to represent a more unique concept (especially when it forms an integral part of a greater healthcare system) ....

Therefore the concept is seemingly strongly based upon macro-design rather than overly on process. I am especially interested to see how all the individual clinical (and non-clinical) modules can be functionally arranged within a macro-complex. [Maybe the proposed main THC model can be "ditched" for something more sustainable .... ].

I hope that I have not severely disappointed you with this answer. Maybe it does (hopefully) more accurately explain my seeming obsession with the macro-design. Please (maybe with Charly) try to help me as best as you can to achieve my stated goal (and maybe any others that might follow from this) ....