topic Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries? in Libraries & objects

Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Wed, 24 May 2023 09:01:36 GMT

Hi all,

Whilst looking through the latest Cad digest article here I noticed they were refering to a 'free downloadable Detailer template'.

So after a bit of hunting around I find its only in the USA version of the library. I appreciate I can extract it from the container myself if I want, but I'm curious why it's not included in all library versions. Are the details not typical of European construction or is it set up in a style European architects never use perhaps?

I also noticed that in the Help menu in AC there is a link to the 'AC 10 Library Guide'. In the INT version it stretches to some 48 pages, with a beautiful picture included of every single library part.

After digging further, the USA guide I find, is 66 pages long! The AUS guide is also 66 pages long. Amazingly the GER version has got 78 pages. Obviously much more comprehensive (but still no detailer parts).

So the question is, why the difference?. Surely the library parts are so generic anyway that you can't call them area specific. When was the last time you placed an object without modifying at least some of the parameters to get it to look how you wanted?

If the argument is that some parts wouldn't be used in some areas of the world, surely lumping them all together and letting us decide to use what we want would be best solution for both the end-user and the developers, in terms of maintaining them.

For example, the German Library has eleven types of garage door listed. But in the INT version we only have three!!?

Why do Graphisoft think we would have no use for the other doors in this country? Is the UK renowned for its lack of garage door styles or something!!

Go on, translate them and lump them all together in ArchiCAD 11 for me... Please!!

Ta muchly

Pete.
(BTW - That's a genuine question about detailer at the top:- why is it not included in INT version?)

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Fri, 11 May 2007 04:18:38 GMT

Hello Pete,
I have wondered the same thing and also agree with you
about having the freedom to decide which part to use
among all AC written parts and all parts should be available to all.
There are considerable differences between the libraries including
the folder structure and even the user interface,
as you point out, but there are also, as far as I can deduce,
striking differences in the localized versions of the application.
I cannot document this because I do not have any version
of the application except the US versions but I think Link could verify this.
To extend your question, why are there different versions
of the application ? Aside from language, what possible
need could there be for the application to be different
in different locations ?
Peter Devlin

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Laura Yanoviak — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:47:51 GMT

Good question! (and take a look at the Cabinet Objects and their graphic interface in the INT version -- it's truely a shame that the US version has not been brought up to speed).

Concerning the Detailer, I suspect the main barrier here is Metric vs. Imperial units of measurement. The majority (if not all) of the Detailer Objects are not truely parametric -- they are actually created via different 2D symbols (FRAGMENTs) -- so making this library metric would require either 1) re-creating all of those fragments to comply with european standards, or 2) re-writing the 2D scripts to be parametric.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Sat, 12 May 2007 16:27:52 GMT

To Peter Clark.
You are indignant that in other library you have found elements which are not present in your library. For me your reaction is strange.
Our Russian library is a copy of version INT. But in it of 140 more other elements. These elements have been made in Russia still for AC5 and AC6 and have not consisted basically library. Then Graphisoft has bought them. Since then ArchiCAD RUS contains these elements.
For certain, a similar situation and with libraries for other countries. The majority of additional elements are specific. Therefore, it is not necessary to make noise because of it.
I saw the American library. In it(her) too there are many elements which are absent in INT versions. But I have not seen among them that could be useful to me. Only Restroom Partition, strangely enough.
Likely, and 140 elements from RUS libraries, too are necessary for nobody except for Russians.
The basic library should contain the universal and standard elements. And localizers supplement with its such elements what users of that country wish. If identical elements are present at many countries the basic library is supplemented.
I not against your desire to have some more garage doors. I wanted to consider only a situation because of which there is a difference at versions of libraries.
I see, that Graphisoft undertakes some actions facilitating creation of elements (custom object). But it would be desirable to see advanced and powerful GDL the editor. Then users had not to wait and ask new elements. All would be in their will.

To Laura
Do not experience concerning Cabinet Objects. In version INT they made it is obvious hastily. There is a new interface. It is good. There are new opportunities. It too is good. But there it is a lot of mistakes. Because of it work becomes impossible with them.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 12 May 2007 19:30:08 GMT

Laura wrote:
Concerning the Detailer, I suspect the main barrier here is Metric vs. Imperial units of measurement. The majority (if not all) of the Detailer Objects are not truely parametric -- they are actually created via different 2D symbols (FRAGMENTs) -- so making this library metric would require either 1) re-creating all of those fragments to comply with european standards, or 2) re-writing the 2D scripts to be parametric.

Laura is correct concerning the majority of the 2D DET parts in the US library.

This particular group of parts, though, has a history that is linked to country-specific budgets.

The DETailer parts were originally a standalone retail product called MSA Detailer, produced by Michael Sotero. At one point (version 7.0 I think?), this package was purchased by Graphisoft US (as opposed to Graphisoft Corporate/Hungary) from their own budget and included in the US distribution as a 'bonus' value...which indeed it was.

With ArchiCAD 9, I pointed out some compatiability issues with working methods of the MSA library and the way view sets and more had evolved. GSUS - with their own budget - hired me to do some very limited bug fixing and to create the new template organization. I also wrote the step by step Detailer user manual which is a PDF download.

The US windows/doors, curtain walls, and more were developed, as far as I know, from a budget allocated to the US. Different countries have received some specific developments from their budgets AFAIK.

So, there is that history - country-specific budgets, country-specific objects, and perhaps metric vs imperial objects.

I and many others would still like to see most objects available to all of us so that we can choose what works best for ourselves. (The German window library is of interest to North American users, for example.) I'm sure that Graphisoft has their reasons for partitioning development and budgeting as they do though...

Cheers,
Karl

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:43:22 GMT

Hi again,

Thanks for the replies.

Continuing on with this thread now it has been resuscitated (no more funny characters Valery!! )

I fully agree that I would never use the majority of 2d symbols from other countries. But they still should be included in this 'Universal Library' I'm proposing. What do you do if you have jobs both in the UK and Russia, for example, and both have to comply with local graphical standards?

They could easily be catagorised under a separate subfolder by country in 2d parts, for example. This would mean only one extra click to get to them and they would still be available to all.

You would, unfortunately, have to distribute the same library in different languages.

As an alternative you could recode all the library parts to refer to a specific 'code' instead of an alphabetic localised name. Just make this code read from an external text file that has the correct language listed against the corresponding code line in it and it will display correctly in ArchiCAD. Any user would then be able to look at the library parts in any language they like without having to download and install another library. Graphisoft would also have to only code one set of parts too. A win-win solution maybe?

I've had a chance to flick though a handful of the different libraries and I see that, although arranged differently, they are mostly identical apart from the 2d symbols which are very country specific.

Looking at the parts that are different though, I feel any user would benefit from having these extra parts specifically from the GER library in this example.

Not a full list, but for example they have:-

More extractor hoods
More kitchen cabinets
More appliances
Various extra cupboards
Shower screens
A much larger range of sanitaryware (basins toilets etc)
Garden Pergolas/Archs
Play equipment
more 2d cars
more 2d people
Vehicle turning circles
More 2d trees & bushes
Auto material swatches
Auto pen and colour swatches
Arched top transom windows
Extra terrace doors
Window cill
Louvered shutters/doors
Garage doors / sliding + rolling shuttered doors
...amongst others that I may have missed.

You can see these aren't country specific and would definitely benefit all.

I know that we can make our own parts when necessary, and yes, a more powerful GDL editor would be good, but my argument is that the parts have already been made - the difficult work done so why not make them easily available to all.

I understood Graphisoft were a fairly small company in terms of staff numbers. Surely it would (should?) be the same handful of people doing all the coding for the libraries in order to maintain parameter and graphical consistency, which are then translated into various languages afterwards. It seems daft to specifically exclude certain parts from distribution to certain areas!

With regard to the various budgets of different countries in making these parts, we are only talking about 100 or so parts. They cant be that expensive to make in terms of man hours. I appreciate this may be measured in weeks or longer for more complicated parts, but with so many users over the world, each paying several thousand dollars/pounds/euros, why not spread the cost. Added value for the customer etc. I know a few parts is not going to make a huge difference to productivity, but every little helps! We do pay them money to make our lives easier.

With regard to metric/imperial differences in detailer, in the UK at least, although metricised for many years now a large number of component dimensions are still sized to imperial units, but are peversly referred to in metric units eg. timber studs 38 x 75mm (1 1/2" x 3") doors 762 x 1982mm (2'6" x 6'6")etc etc. So perhaps not so large a difference as you may think.

If they think it would add value to their product then they should go ahead and spend money converting the detailer parts. Nobody needs fancy new features as there are always workarounds, but it would be nice to have and would make the product appeal to more businesses which in this time of greater competition can only be a good thing. (Does Revit have a built in 2d detailer kit of parts?)

Just a few more points to ponder if you're bored!!

Cheers,

Pete.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Laura Yanoviak — Tue, 15 May 2007 22:25:39 GMT

Peter wrote:
With regard to the various budgets of different countries in making these parts, we are only talking about 100 or so parts. They cant be that expensive to make in terms of man hours. I appreciate this may be measured in weeks or longer for more complicated parts, but with so many users over the world, each paying several thousand dollars/pounds/euros, why not spread the cost. Added value for the customer etc. I know a few parts is not going to make a huge difference to productivity, but every little helps! We do pay them money to make our lives easier.

I agree with the majority of your points -- after all, it seems like it would take less effort to update a "universal" library in different languages, then to maintain a number of separate libraries (casework, for instance, is very different in at least 3 versions (US, INT, and GER).

P.S. I was told that the GER library is so much more extensive because AC sells for a higher (relative) cost in Germany, and thus receives more attention.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Andy Thomson — Wed, 16 May 2007 03:56:23 GMT

Along these lines ACE has assembled a mashup of the INT/GER/USA libraries. It will go live in mid-June for free download. All macros have been resolved, it shows 0 errors in loading report. The foundation is INT, the GER parts not found in INT are added, and the US parts not found in INT are added (I used some editorial discretion here)

The mashup will only work in AC11, since there are many 'too long names' for AC10. Anyone is free to rename them. I won't due to management considerations. Also, the German characters offend the PC's in the USA. I don't know what to do about that. If I rename all the GER parts (with umlauts and s-sets switched to ae/oe and ss) my synchronization utility won't work.

There will be a USA door, window and steel subset that you can swap out if you need Imperial (US) or Metric (Canada/Mexico)

Oh, and it is all based on the 2004 CSI divisions, not the outdated pre-2004 version. One last thing, I don't exactly want to host the bandwidth to allow hundreds of downloads of a 300MB library (yes, there is a lot more in there than just GS stuff) - ideas welcome. Also, I agree the INT millwork is a bit buggy - but it still renders and prints better than the USA stuff.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Wed, 16 May 2007 09:27:56 GMT

Peter wrote:
I fully agree that I would never use the majority of 2d symbols from other countries. But they still should be included in this 'Universal Library' I'm proposing. What do you do if you have jobs both in the UK and Russia, for example, and both have to comply with local graphical standards?

Norman Foster now makes projects for Russia. Can ask him as he makes out drawings. Under the Russian standards or under standards UK. But I do not know in what program he works.

As an alternative you could recode all the library parts to refer to a specific 'code' instead of an alphabetic localised name. Just make this code read from an external text file that has the correct language listed against the corresponding code line in it and it will display correctly in ArchiCAD. Any user would then be able to look at the library parts in any language they like without having to download and install another library. Graphisoft would also have to only code one set of parts too. A win-win solution maybe?

This offer already was in section of "Wishes". But it does not find support of developers. Advice has been given only how to write a script that it was easier for translating on other languages.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Petros Ioannou — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:12:34 GMT

Valery wrote:

Norman Foster now makes projects for Russia. Can ask him as he makes out drawings. Under the Russian standards or under standards UK. But I do not know in what program he works.

Off-topic but I think they use microstation...

petros

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:33:24 GMT

Valery wrote:
Norman Foster now makes projects for Russia. Can ask him as he makes out drawings.

Mmm, Let me have a look in my contacts book. Ah no, I don't seem to have his number anywhere!! I don't think he visits the westcountry very often!

andyro wrote:
Along these lines ACE has assembled a mashup of the INT/GER/USA libraries. It will go live in mid-June for free download. All macros have been resolved, it shows 0 errors in loading report. The foundation is INT, the GER parts not found in INT are added, and the US parts not found in INT are added (I used some editorial discretion here)

Great idea Andy, I think that's just what I'm after. How are you going to deal with the periodic updates that GS make to the library every so often?
Are you also going to add the best custom parts found on various sites on the internet?

300mb file! That's a hell of a library! The INT library is only around 70mb currently. The GER version is over 130mb though. You must be adding a lot of extras!

Don't forget that the lcf package is quite 'wasteful' of file space. Zipping the file using winZIP, winRAR or the mac equivalent will reduce the file size probably to a third of the original which is much more reasonable.

For hosting how about something like using Rapidshare.com or similar to take the bulk of the downloads initally. You would have to split it into three parts if not compressed (max file size 100mb) and with the free version you have to wait 1 1/2 hours between each download, not the best solution but it may be useful to you perhaps. I'm sure somebody here must have some spare bandwidth you could use instead.

Cheers,

Pete.

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Laura Yanoviak — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:50:37 GMT

andyro wrote:
All macros have been resolved...

This is what has postponed my adoption of the INT casework -- it calls for macros that are identical in name to those of the US casework, but in fact are different, so the two couldn't co-exist -- you've addressed this?

So, Andy -- not sleeping much lately? Still waiting for your materials update...

Re: Why the differences in area-specific libraries?

Anonymous — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:39:53 GMT

Laura wrote:
So, Andy -- not sleeping much lately?

I think Andy has sworn off sleep all together 😉