topic Re: Problems with Sliding Door Library Parts in ArchiCAD 8,9 in Libraries & objects

Problems with Sliding Door Library Parts in ArchiCAD 8,9

Anonymous — Wed, 24 May 2023 09:05:03 GMT

Has anybody else noticed that most or all of the library parts under Object Library 9 -> Special Doors 9 -> Sliding Doors 9 have been really buggy in the way that they draw the doors inaccurately and without detail in plan and 3D since version 8? In 7 they seemed to work great. Is there an easy way to fix them in 9 or should I just continue to load the ArchiCAD 7 library just for these doors.

Re: Problems with Sliding Door Library Parts in ArchiCAD 8,9

Laszlo Nagy — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:49:36 GMT

Could you be more specific?
Could you post a screen shot and show the problem on it?

Re: Problems with Sliding Door Library Parts in ArchiCAD 8,9

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:08:12 GMT

laszlonagy wrote:
Could you be more specific?
Could you post a screen shot and show the problem on it?

Attached is an example of what I was speaking about. This is the D2 Sliding Library part. Notice the ArchiCAD 7 library part the door panels are drawn with the correct overlap and detail for the door panel selected. This accuracy also carries through to the 3D. In the ArchiCAD 8 & 9 library part the panels are drawn wrong in plan and 3D. They should have more detail (like the ArchiCAD 7 symbol to reflect panel choice) and they should overlap instead of touch at the corners like real sliding doors. I didn't go through and retest all of the symbols but from what I remember this problem effected every slider in the library under: Object Library 8 or 9 -> Special Doors 8 or 9 -> Sliding Doors 8 or 9. I use the Mac OS X platform and have the latest versions of all three ArchiCAD Versions.

Re: Problems with Sliding Door Library Parts in ArchiCAD 8,9

Laszlo Nagy — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:51:37 GMT

I see what it is.
There was another issue similar to this, but with another type of Window:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=4533&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I think we should report this just as we did it with the other one.