You inherently get a better sense of the pattern since you can use stereoscopic vision rather than parallax+movement. It could give you a better sense of what a complicated shape looks like. When you look at something complex enough[1] it helps to get as much information as possible. The eyes alone are not optimal for grokking it, even when the shape is moving around[2].

[1] https://images4.sw-cdn.net/product/picture/710x528_583780_19...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9YAAS0cZ_w

also all hail king Quilez, master wizard

And his physical models are now rendered to our computer screens just like a virtual 3D model would be. Just with a bit more noise and shading.

Hard to say.

Is it much more enlightening for a doctor to hold a model of a medical scan in their hand, or rotate it on a screen?

There's potentially a lot of information to be interpreted in a 3D model, being able to use our natural systems to interpret the model seems like it would make it easier to understand. I imagine VR would be a step from looking at a model on a flat screen.

Having the physical model goes a step further, allowing you to experience it tactiley as well as visually. I suspect that the ability to manipulate the model with your hands while looking at it would make it easier to understand its features as well.

For simple antenna models I suspect not much is gained by having the printed model, they just look pretty cool. If you were to model more complicated antennae, or include interference from surrounding components, the resulting physical models have the potential to make understanding exactly what is going on much easier.

Maybe for some other phenomena, but for antenna radiation it's not that complex, it just looks cool.

This is done with an inkjet process :)

Most antenna patterns are plotted at the 3dB roll off. While this is logarithmic, it's also "half power".

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/6959/what-is...