topic Poorly written GDL Part Libraries in Libraries & objects

Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

rm — Wed, 24 May 2023 10:48:19 GMT

WARNING: THIS IS A RANT ABOUT GS AND OTHER VENDORS OF POORLY WRITTEN AND INCONSISTENT LIBRARY PARTS. So you may not want to waste your time reading this if you don't experience problems with library parts, in particular doors and windows.

Doors and windows are without question the most commonly used library parts in most ArchiCAD architectural projects. Being continually frustrated by the limitations of so many of the libraries available to us ( not that there are many ). So, recently I decided to try the new GS AC limited edition library for the US on a model with quite a few doors and windows. Initially I was excited to see what on the surface looked like a good set of doors and windows, with good adjustablility, especially for those who need fairly realistic looking windows and doors for their models.

That said, I have asked GS before, but they seem not understand the importance of being able to assign a different material selection for all exterior surfaces ( read, sash, frames, jambs, sills, aprons, trim, and the like) versus interior surfaces on doors and windows. This may not be important if you don't use your models for renderings, but for those of us who do, it is a problem. It takes countless hours and attention to detail when sellecting parameters for materials so that your renderings will appear correctly both from the inside and out.

However, because of GS inflexible decision to continue to make window and door parts the way that they do, models can not be made to look correctly, concurrently, both on the inside and outside where windows and doors have different material selections. For buildings using, say aluminum storefront, not a problem, but for too many other building, it is. This is absolutely maddening.

Oh, and while your at it GS it makes much more sense, even for those who don't assign materials to their objects, to gang all material selections under one heading called, oh I don't know, say MATERIALS!!!!!!!!!!!!

To help make matters worse, I just noticed that there is still an inconsistantcy in the GS windows in setting materials for different surfaces depending what wood windows you select. On awing windows for instance the exterior trim color controls the interior trim color. Yet on "W Single Hung2" window the interior and exterior trim colors are set independtly as they should be. To make matters worse yet, the exterior sash color can not be set independent of the interior sash material, again rarely on a wood or aluminum clad window would this happen in the real world.

It is really getting quite old to find window and door part developers not checking their parts thoroughly. I don't want to single out GS on this either, as there is another major vendor here in the US of a large library that has doors and windows included in it that alledgely works well with AC 9. This well known unamed library developer has SO MANY errors and inconsistantcies in its door and window library, its a joke. I wrote that developer several times starting in February this year, and most of the errors I pointed out to him have not been fixed yet. Yet that library is still available for sale at Objects Online as well as numerous locations on the web. That particular developer has in the past always fixed found problems, but for what ever reason now just keeps selling "broken" library parts.....unbelievable!!!!!!

Unfortunately, people keep buying these libraries, and until a lot of time is invested in them, they might not find what inconsistantcies exist until it is crucial to them, usually the day before a presentation is due, and there is no time to fix the problem.

But Graphisoft really has no excuse for inconsistencies in their windows and doors. Each of there parts should be fully tested, in straight and curved walls, and masonry veneer walls ( READ, EACH WINDOW AND DOOR FULLY TESTED ). If GS doesnot feel qualified to test their own parts, then they should hire some of their customer to independently to do so. Im tired of haveing my office be a perpetual beta test site for library part developers!!!!!!! I could NEVER get away with this sloppiness in my Architecture practice. I'd be in court constantly. I spend way too much time taking screen shots, sending them to GS and other developers, only to find the problems ignored.

If we go through the trouble of documenting the problems for you GS, you should take the responsibility to fix these problems, even its for just one user, if infact it is a real problem with the library part.

I am currently submitting over a dozen screen shots of inconsistencies to GS tech support us, for bad library parts. Hopefully they will quickly resolve these issues and reissue the parts before v10 comes out. But I'm guessing that GS is putting almost all of its efforts into v10 and problems found in AC 9.0 at this point, are being tabled indefinitely.

Come on GS, we are on version 9.0!!!!!!! Considering the current catch phrase is BIM, you would think you guys would get rid of all your dated, and unrealistic library parts, and finally commision top dog GDL developers to build really solid libraries, and contract them to keep them up to date. Split 1 million dollars amongst ten GDL Gurus.....trust me they will come out of the wood work to jump on this opportunity.

Your modeling capabilities are constantly limiting design, especially without the use of dozens of add-ons, and your library parts are dismal at best. Look how few available parts there are available compared to the AutoCAD world. Manufacturers throw themsleves at Autodesk customers with free parts. And as BIM moves more from a marketing term to a real necessity, you guys keep churning out the same old tired parts....more and more Architects currently using AC will have no choice but to switch to Revit.

Radically improve your modeling and documentation tools. Those who write to this forum are a minority of users, and while too many here seem willing to evangilize AC to their death at any cost to the rest of us., most just want to get their job done faster and with more effeciency and industry standardization.

AutoCAD is going to hand you your lunch with a serving of REVIT if you guys don't stop repeating the same errors. Listen and fix problems that users keep bringing to your attention, without being called out on the table, like......... ( disclaimer to readers, this is one of my wishlist items, this is really for GS benefit, just in case someones actually listening )

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=6583

....hope this was more than entertaining to those who made it this far
!

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Rob — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:26:07 GMT

Rm,
you have to be really off your tits writing such a long story but I have to agree with you. The door and window elements are THE FUNDAMENTAL parts of any architecture and GS should pay really better attention to it. What about a proper library part, sort of prototypical and thorough example of a window/door that could serve as a standard for any 3rd party developer or basically anyone who wants to fiddle with openings.
Talking about GDL development, it has started quite well during version 9 beta testing, when GS introduced a set of routines in GDL which are supposed to help a potential programmer with wall geometry etc. A fantastic idea but it hasn’t got any further.
In conclusion – we are missing basic (and functional in real designing) parts in our libraries as oppose to having a 3D fire-extinguisher or even better an air diffuse in there.

This well known unamed library developer has SO MANY errors and inconsistantcies in its door and window library, its a joke.

Unfortunately, this is only ‘potent’ solution on the market at the moment capable creating windows/doors at least to some decent extent. But again, it’s a 3rd party developer working at level of GDL programming. GS, it’s a bit risky business…

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

rm — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:36:16 GMT

Rob wrote:
Rm,
you have to be really off your tits writing such a long story but I have to agree with you.

Rob,
I'm not quite sure what your saying about my post, but I like the sound of it, and Im laughing my arse off.........I've got to get to Australia one day!

But I'm glad you had the spirit to read the whole thing. Now make me real happy and tell me you REALLY work for GS

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Rob — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:59:00 GMT

A useful link...

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/index.htm

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Rob — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:13:30 GMT

Yes, and I have almost forgotten. I don't work for GS...but considering my occasional frustration with AC/PM I feel sometimes like I should...

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

__archiben — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:00:13 GMT

well said. all of it.

nothing to add.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

TomWaltz — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:29:56 GMT

Two things to add:

1) The AC library was limited enough that our company quickly came to the conclusion that instead if relying on GS and Objects Online, we would make our own. On the plus side, I got good enough at it to do a little programming sidework and win a T-shirt for tip of the month 🙂
2) If you think they are inconsistant to use, you should try looking at the actual code. You can tell some of it is pretty old, and uses lovely variable names like "oc" or "m" (making it very difficult to figure out what's going on), not to mentions comments in German and Hungarian....

Don't even get me started on what the doors & windows look like in section or at larger scales...

It's a shame, since GDL is really an amazing technology. I've come to the conclusion that the AC library really is a great example of what COULD be done with Archicad, but is not so great for actual production. I would say that my office uses about 60% in-house objects, 35% ObjectOnline objects (many customized after purchase), and 5% GS objects.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

James Murray — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:05:10 GMT

TomWaltz wrote:
The AC library was limited enough that our company quickly came to the conclusion that instead if relying on GS and Objects Online, we would make our own.

We got the old (1998) SmartParts library after about ten minutes of using the AC (5.1) library. If you think it's bad now... I started doing GDL a year after that. A year later, we were using only my own windows and doors. I'm on about my fourth version of them now.

The only parts we use from the AC library are things like furniture, appliances, faucets. We view these items as symbolic, and they don't have to be perfect, which, hoo-boy, they aren't. (Personal peeve: sinks can't operate in SEOs, so they can't cut the counter slab.) We won't invest time in making a perfect sofa object. (For other users, sofas might be critical.)

(Near-)Perfect windows, doors, structure elements, symbols, and annotations are required, and we have invested a lot of time in creating/maintaining them. Pretty much every object in our projects that isn't furniture/fixture is home-grown.

Yes, the libraries are bad, although they've been worse. Things like the interior/exterior sash material make me wonder if they've ever talked to a single american user, though I know they have. Truly bafflingly bad, and so easy to fix. My personal GDL hobby-horse is scale sensitivity, and the AC library makes very poor use of it. But they could fix all the big problems, and the libraries still couldn't meet the needs of thousands of users. User customization will always be needed.

It's a shame, since GDL is really an amazing technology.

I am permanently amazed that GS is actually sort of middle-of-the-pack in appreciating GDL's power. The power of objects isn't geometry (you can get geometry anywhere), it's parametrics. GDL is really the only tech for building custom parametric models from scratch.

The investment I describe above, or Kitchen & Associates' investment, is not feasible for smaller, lower-margin, or solo-practice type firms. GDL isn't exactly hard, but starting it is a little hard, and it uses different skills from architectural, or drafting, practice. Yet customized libraries are critical to using AC to its potential IMO. Even if the AC libraries were great, they can't possibly meet everyone's custom needs. Look at all the parts. Look at all the kinds of parts. On top of developing AC itself, the AC library is hugely complex.

What is needed is a graphical method for creating parametric objects. It needs to be easier for architects to make building elements that respond to the environment. If you want more people to make their own objects, and stop griping about the shipping libraries, the price of creating our own has to come down.

Objects are critical to the success of the AC platform. GS has a choice: offer perfect libraries, or lower the bar for everyone doing it for themselves. The first isn't realistic, so here we are.

With the development investment needed to make half the user base happy with the libraries, they could instead develop an environment to radically simplify the whole process, and let more people do more of it by themselves (and working together).

The other thing that never seems to take off is manufacturers' creating their own stuff. Why on earth am I scripting a Marvin window? Why should Graphisoft? Again, if it were cheaper (easier) there would be more of it. Manufacturers also demand intellectual property protection. Whether they demand it reasonably is another matter, but GS should provide this facility for people who want it. Inability to control copying is a deal-breaker in the current IP climate.

Update the tools, and work with the manufacturers, and the end-user library problems will quickly become tolerable.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Vitruvius — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:45:54 GMT

My view is also that GS should produce a solid set of generic doors and windows.

I've ended up scripting all my own doors, windows, cabinets & plumbing fixtures. One of the primary reasons is that I want the power that GDL provides - Library parts that are scale variable (pen weights & level of detail); Library parts that know when they're rendered in plan, section or 3D views; and, a consistent user interface across each type of library part. Most of the current library symbols are too crudely implemented.

I use about 1% of the GS library parts - and only if I'm desperate. I've tried tweaking them, but as previously mentioned, the antiquated and idiosyncratic coding make it almost impossible.

Which is a shame, because GDL is one of the key features GS promotes. And it is a very powerful feature - but a few very well considered generic parts would be a real boon to helping GDL along.

Cheers,

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:50:18 GMT

So manufacturers interested in GDL cannot look at Graphisoft objects to see GDL at it's finest??

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

TomWaltz — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:17:49 GMT

Rashid wrote:
So manufacturers interested in GDL cannot look at Graphisoft objects to see GDL at it's finest??

Pretty much, yeah.

Though I do have to say, the TrusJoist guys did really well!

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

LiHigh — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:12:31 GMT

I agree with all you guys. GS libraries are just not good enough. I use my own GDL object most of the time.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Rob — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:42:34 GMT

Back to the original topic. Could we finally get a library part of a window, door, niche/empty opening as standards. Properly analysed to details, like principals of opening, mullion, sill/threshold etc shaping, door/widow furniture and door panels/window panes libraries in easily extendable macros with proper description of parameters so any customised solution could be added by a local office GDL guru. So, for example, we would have a macro for ALL door panels in one with predefined parameters, a macro for handles and same with all other bits and pieces. I have to say we have some sort of organisation in it at the moment but yet again it’s not good enough. An example: we have 50 different door panels for internal doors why don’t we have them for bifolds???!!! Such silly (I would call them) mistakes really drive me schizo.

It shouldn’t be so hard to analyse that just by looking at the door/window builder and considering that it was quite recently pretty much one-man-operation company.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

rm — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:28:10 GMT

Rob wrote:
Back to the original topic. Could we finally get a library part of a window, door, niche/empty opening as standards. Properly analysed to details, like principals of opening, mullion, sill/threshold etc shaping, door/widow furniture and door panels/window panes libraries in easily extendable macros with proper description of parameters so any customised solution could be added by a local office GDL guru.

Hi Rob,

Actually, the original topic WAS, that there are too many inconsistencies in door / window objects being put out on the market for sale both by GS and here in the US by GDL developers. This IS the problem. While I fully admire any office that can afford the resources to build there own GDL libraries, that strategy does nothing for the majority of offices, ( nor does it do ANYTHING for GS in sales ) that don't know how or have the time / budget to learn how to make GDL objects. THIS strategy does NOTHING to further GS ability to convience large number of AutoCAD / Revit users to switch to ArchiCAD, and we ALL need them to do so.

Imagine you have an office of say, ten architects........maybe you do, I don't mean to offend. Now you use Revit, the AC salesperson gives you a good deal on AC. Now he/she explains to you that you can not use paramentrically the 100,000 + objects available in the market allready to you in the AutoCAD world.

Where do you think that sale is going...........NO-WHERE!

GS talks about BIM this and BIM that. They NEVER say in order to make AC fully capable, you REALLY need to learn GDL because we just don't have a very large database of libraries available to you, at least not ones that consistantly work well.

In a market like Chicago, which is a HUGE architecture market, do you know how hard it is to find Architects with AC experience, MUCH LESS GDL experience. Lets be realistic here, MOST not all, but MOST people who worked to get an Architecture degree and work in the business want to be practicing architecture. Writting GDL objects may be a creative process, but it is NOT practicing architecture......nor should any confuse it as doing so! I personally dont care if I every "build" a GDL object again ( although I have done some simple ones ) I am way to busy running my office, designing buildings that work, that are functional and appealing to my clients and hopefullly my future clients. I have never had a prospective client ask, by the way, does your firm write its own scripts for GDL objects. GDL has no room in my radar, and if we switch to Revit sometime in the future, GDL will be bid a good-day!

So, the original point is GS needs to get its act together ASAP on library parts ( but not JUST this ) and HIRE, YES HIRE, GDL "Experts" to create new and reliable "FULLY TESTED" library parts, and start with the doors and windows! Then they need to convince manufacturers to jump on board too, and make it as EASY as possible to get them involved. Because without the manufacturing market jumping on board, you and I will all eventually be Revit users. Maybe not today, or in a year, but within 5 years.

That IS the point!

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

James Murray — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:41:35 GMT

rm wrote:
So, the original point is GS needs to get its act together ASAP on library parts ( but not JUST this ) and HIRE, YES HIRE, GDL "Experts" to create new and reliable "FULLY TESTED" library parts, and start with the doors and windows! Then they need to convince manufacturers to jump on board too, and make it as EASY as possible to get them involved. Because without the manufacturing market jumping on board, you and I will all eventually be Revit users. Maybe not today, or in a year, but within 5 years.

That IS the point!

Now I have nothing to add.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

TomWaltz — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:31:26 GMT

I think I'll take this opportunity to also mention that the GDL/object interface is in serious need of an update. The graphical interfaces starting to appear in some objects are an improvement, but there are still a few other major items missing:

- Zoom in/out on previews. Nothing like changing a parameter on a 15'-0x12'-6" object and having no idea if anything changed
- Full rotation of previews, without actually changing the object's rotation angle (like a mini 3D window)
- More than one level of "expandable" headers
- Better methods for 3D linetypes (dashed lines in 3D are currently arrays of small solid lines with gaps between them!)
- Ability to select multiple parameters of the same type (like selecting all pens or fills)
- Ability to set all objects to a company standard, such as all door swings to pen 19 or all fonts to Architext.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:25:32 GMT

rm wrote:
...Writting GDL objects is may be a creative process, but it is NOT practicing architecture...

Exactly rm,

I personally like programming process, especially when I do that for my projects, but I'm architect and working on drawings, doing sketches etc is more creative process for me than working on software omissions.

I would like to use GDL only in very specific cases. Software developers must care only automating processes and write more universal programs.
So back 2 original post that's means, that we need more universal and independent DWs, structural elements, etc.. We architects must care about design and not GS or Autodesk. They are "soft. developer companies" and must work in the way to develop CAD and not theoretical projects to be more original, the last is our job .

So I fully agree all that's above. We need next generation universal libraries and also universal tools to develop these lib-s much more easier, without waiting new lib releases from GS. And finally i just want to spend time on GDL programing process for my creative profession .

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:57:03 GMT

I fully agree with all this.

May i add another point. To write his own parts is one thing. To maintain them through different versions of AC is another pain.
When some old features suddenly work differently with a new release, this is very anoying.

I think to mask values for wallhole and cutpolya, completly changed from 7 to 8, without any warning or explanation.
Detail, OK, but consequences are significant.

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

Karl Ottenstein — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:58:42 GMT

I have nothing to add to the comments below either. (It is difficult even teaching GDL when "none" of the library objects is a good example of how things should be written and documented.)

But, on a constructive note, perhaps the US people who have posted to this thread could comment on the revised doors/windows in the SE 9 library and give specific feedback to GS on what works, and what does not?

I agree with all of the general gripes and emotion (!) ... but I think specific and constructive requests are more likely to receive attention.

My 2 cents,
Karl

Re: Poorly written GDL Part Libraries

rm — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:06:44 GMT

Karl wrote:
But, on a constructive note, perhaps the US people who have posted to this thread could comment on the revised doors/windows in the SE 9 library and give specific feedback to GS on what works, and what does not?

Karl

Karl,

Since I'm in that group, I will respond. I have sent files to tech support. The objects are plagued with problems, and I had to compile numerous screen shots to indicate what the problems are that I found to this point. Needless to say, it is very time consuming assembling screen shots, writing little narratives, than packaging it so it is clear to the recipient. I just didn't see the need to post those items here. I also have done so with the SmartParts 9.0 Library. But that has not done much good either.

I think that my original posts are clearly in line with almost everyone who has posted here! I know you try to help people as much as you can on this forum, but you jumped the gun a little on your suggestion here.

I have numerous emails into GS for found library part inconsistencies. In this case I decided to be go public with the need for improvement, because I'm tired of wasting time with tools that simply don't work as advertised. Every 18 months +/- we get a new upgrade from GS. It sometimes takes months for problems to crop up in design and production of construction documents while using AC. By that point GS is already moving on to the next "upgrade" and we are left holding the bag......that's unacceptable anymore from GS, Abvent or MS as far as I'm concerned. I invest too much money for half-backed software, and I'm sick of it. If you paid retail for all your software, you might see my point here.

Resellers and related consultants can make all the excuses they want for the shortcomings of the software they represent, or gain income from by espousing its virtues; but architecture and design firms need to keep their office efficient. Just as in construction, sometimes a bigger hammer gets the job done faster. I decided to use a 5lb. hammer, I could have used a sledge hammer instead.

But thanks for your suggestion, none the less. I know it was meant to help