[npgatech]

I think this is more of a vanity/luxury than actually TRULY useful thing. Many complex geometries are designed on CAD - from Airplane assemblies to intricate VSLI circuits.

Physical model is nice...but its utility is not justified for the expense of 3D printing.

Probably in industrial design and architecture. I don't come across a 3D graph where I go "Gee! I wish I had a physical model. I just can't understand this thing".

Don't get me wrong, it is nice. But I am debating how much better?

[Cogito]

Yeah I agree with you, the value in this case is probably pretty small.

I think it comes down to two things, how useful it is to understand the detail of the geometry, and how much easier the printed model makes it to understand.

It's hard to estimate how much being already familiar with the geometries in question helps as well. If you've studied them a lot then a physical model probably adds little. If you're trying to explain to a designer why they need to move a component it probably helps a lot.

A physical model also has an extremely intuitive interface. The value probably comes more when introducing someone to the geometry for the first time, rather than for the person making the print (though I can still imagine situations where it would be worthwhile).

[bartwe]

There is value in the 2d -> 3d print -> 2d because the realworld lighting is much better in showing us aspects of the shape than say a raw CAD render.