Homework 03 Marking scheme and feedback
followed all rules (1)
- 1 - submitted all (created) requested files according to instructions
quality of results (5)
- 5 - excellent output (well demarcated envelope+rooms with correct semantics)
- 4.5 - very minor issues (eg model is fine but has minor semantic errors)
- 4 - minor issues (eg rooms okay but no envelope)
- 3.5 - multiple minor issues
- 3 - okay, mostly working (eg only some geometries extracted with significant issues in them)
- 2 - part of the workflow working
quality of report (4)
- 4 - very good report (overview of steps, engineering decisions, nice visualisations, good analysis of results)
- 3 - okay report with 1-2 elements missing (eg superficial analysis, unclear visualisations, engineering decisions not discussed)
penalties
- -1 point for one day late
Overall feedback
To mark your assignments, I first opened your CityJSON file (if submitted). I checked whether you had a clearly delineated building envelope and individual rooms. Then, I compared it to the input file and made sure that your output made sense, using the original IFC file for reference when I wasn’t already familiar with that model.
Afterwards, I read your report. In it, I looked for the elements requested in the instructions and analysed whether you had a good insight of the process based on your comments and analysis. I only looked at your code for reference when something wasn’t very clear.
It was very nice to see that all of the assignments (output+report) ranged from okay to excellent, and so the marks are quite high. Even those who struggled with the process (or programming in general) managed to show an implementation of significant parts of it. All of the reports showed an effort to document what had been done and contained most of the required elements.
If you want more personalised feedback, come to my office on Monday April 24, or send me (Ken) a DM on Discord or an e-mail.