topic Re: GDL by any other name in Libraries & objects

Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

rm — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:12:27 GMT

I'm guessing this question is for a GDL pro. I find there to be a shortage of real & true furniture objects available for free or purchase to use in AC that are made specifically for AC.

Now, there are a ton of real manufacturers' 3D furniture objects out there that can be imported into AC as an object, then saved.

PROBLEM: Unless I am missing how to do this, there seems to be no parameters for materials. In otherwords, the beauty of an AC library part is the ability to change parameters of materials. That is a chair can have a material for the seat, and another material for the legs, which then can be rendered realistically. But everytime I import a dwg object or a 3DS objects, they come in with only one material for all components of the object.......bummer!

1. Am I missing an obvious setting in the translation that preserves material settings from DWG or 3Ds objects.

2. If what I am asking can't easily be done, is Graphisoft working on translators that will solve the problem.

Thanks in advance,

RM

Mac OS10.3
AC 8.0/8.1

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

David Larrew — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:28:51 GMT

No 3D objects brought into AC from .DWG or .3DS format are translated with parameters other than overall size.

That doesn't mean that you can't add/adjust parametric functionality in the converted object.

The trick is, prior to conversion, assign independent materials/pen colors to any entities of the object that you want to control with parameters. Once you bring the 3D entities into AC as a GDL scripted object you will be able to open the code and separate/organize the converted scripts by material/pen color and assign/add parameters to control the different parts.

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

rm — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:48:09 GMT

David,

Sounds to me that you are well versed in GDL and changing scripts. I'm not good at either.

I don't have the time or inclination to learn code.....to many other tasks on my plate., and I suspect I am not alone. Graphisoft would serve its customers well to either invest in hiring someone with your skills to convert manufacturers objects for use in AC so when we place furniture in our models, it looks real. Too many (read....not all) furniture objects, and this goes for plumbing and lighting objects too, are simply too simple. They are interpretations of real objects often with sharp edges that should be smooth. But more importantly, I would like to be able to place furniture in my models that is commercially available.

If I was using AutoCAD we would not be discussing this.

Regards,
RM

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Karl Ottenstein — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:24:21 GMT

rm wrote:
David,

Sounds to me that you are well versed in GDL and changing scripts. I'm not good at either.

I don't have the time or inclination to learn code.....to many other tasks on my plate., and I suspect I am not alone. Graphisoft would serve its customers well to either invest in hiring someone with your skills to convert manufacturers objects for use in AC so when we place furniture in our models, it looks real. Too many (read....not all) furniture objects, and this goes for plumbing and lighting objects too, are simply too simple. They are interpretations of real objects often with sharp edges that should be smooth. But more importantly, I would like to be able to place furniture in my models that is commercially available.

I hear your pain, but you have to realize that it is highly unlikely that all people will like the same furniture, etc. (For example, a lot of people have wanted the Steelcase line. I and other residential people have no use for these objects.) Personally, I think quite a few of the objects in the AC library suck - but they're fine for place/spaceholders. But, they are reasonably flexible, and most important, have very few polygons and display in 3D/section rather quickly.

Most of the parts that you'll find as DWG and other formats tend to have lots of polygons to provide the 'look' that you describe, and most of the time, people don't want to wait to see that.

ArchiCAD makes it very easy to bring in any external 3D object. Yes, it takes 10 minutes of learning (and then a few minutes per object), but you cannot expect GS to hire someone to convert other objects if you aren't willing to take a few minutes to learn to use the program. In your defense, however, GS should certainly have a 3 page tutorial on how to do exactly what you want to do, since nearly everybody wants/needs to do it at some point. Without such a tutorial, hands-on training with a reseller, consultant or archi-neighbor - or someone willing to type it all here - is unfortunately the only option. That is the real problem IMHO.

Karl

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Thomas Holm — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:40:48 GMT

Karl,

GDL is surely my weakest side. Nevertheless, I decided to try David Pacifio's tip on custom windows the other day. But I ran into a problem that I posted a question about in the GDL forum. Maybe the question is too newbie for that forum, but I wasn't sure where to put it. Perhaps you or any other knowledgeable person might take a look? Please?
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=4968#4968

Thanks

Thomas
(I'm still on AC7v3)

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

rm — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:27:00 GMT

Karl writes:
"ArchiCAD makes it very easy to bring in any external 3D object."

I believe I pointed that out already in my post, Karl.

Karl writes:
"(For example, a lot of people have wanted the Steelcase line. I and other residential people have no use for these objects.)"

What qualifies any other member on this forum to know what other Architects do, or don't need in there 3D models, or to what level of quality those models should be produced. Its rather bold to assume what other firms NEED for THEIR practice.

Generally your quick to be helpful on this forum, but I think you have made one too many unqualified presumptions in your responce to my post!

Karl writes:
"Most of the parts that you'll find as DWG and other formats tend to have lots of polygons to provide the 'look' that you describe, and most of the time, people don't want to wait to see that."

Karl do you really believe that YOUR clients don't need clear and precise information or are you just unwilling to take the time to provide it for them. Perhaps it is because you don't budget your proposals and fees to accomdate such services? My firm does!

By your statements, one could extract, as an example, that Ferrari should stop building exotic sport cars because more people buy Toyotas......God forbid!

NOTE TO ALFAVILLE, keep making the excellent reallistic looking car models you folks make, my firm WILL keep buying them!

Karl writes:
....."but you cannot expect GS to hire someone to convert other objects if you aren't willing to take a few minutes to learn to use the program".

now this statement really shows great thought, Karl......Since I think GS should harness the intelligence of people who are ACTUALLY talented at GDL scripting, so as to improve GS libraries, you seem to have made the connection that I need to learn the program.

Karl, forgive me, but how the {censored!!!!} do you know what I have, or have not tried with the program. Have you seen a set of the contract documents my office produces, or the animations, or renderings we produce...that is where my office places its emphasis of effort on, not scripting GDL. We chose to leave that to people who are good at it.

Try staying focused and being helpful in your future responces, as you normally are, and maybe you won't get a reply like this one in the future.

Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.

RM

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Karl Ottenstein — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:29:06 GMT

Hi RM,

rm wrote:
Try staying focused and being helpful in your future responces, as you normally are, and maybe you won't get a reply like this one in the future.

Sorry about that. I couldn't figure out how to say what I wrote and convey the right message ... and certainly didn't intend to rile. Your response to David, below, was what prompted my reply:

rm wrote:
I don't have the time or inclination to learn code.....to many other tasks on my plate.,

after your initial post that seemed to make clear that you were talking specifically about bringing freely available DWG or 3DS objects into ArchiCAD, not creating new GDL objects:

rm wrote:
1. Am I missing an obvious setting in the translation that preserves material settings from DWG or 3Ds objects.

2. If what I am asking can't easily be done, is Graphisoft working on translators that will solve the problem.

No, I don't presume to know what any one architect needs: that was exactly my point. You seemed to say that GS should presume to know that answer and thus create a better library. I agree on certain core elements - as I said in my post, the library sucks. But, no matter what GS decides to put in the library, it won't be enough for somebody (or many bodies) ... so each of us has to know how to bring in objects from other formats if that is important to our work (or how to create them, or shop for them on OOL - as you are with Alfaville, or hire someone to create them).

Bottom line that I was trying to convey is that there needs to be a good tutorial (perhaps on ArchiGuide until they put it in the manuals) ... but that it takes 10 minutes of learning and the 'inclination' to have control yourself - to be able to freely browse the internet to find 3D objects and in a few minutes add them into your project. It is those objects that you were originally talking about converting...not writing new, custom GDL versions.

rm wrote:
Karl writes:
....."but you cannot expect GS to hire someone to convert other objects if you aren't willing to take a few minutes to learn to use the program".

now this statement really shows great thought, Karl......Since I think GS should harness the intelligence of people who are ACTUALLY talented at GDL scripting, so as to improve GS libraries, you seem to have made the connection that I need to learn the program.

There is a big difference between just making a DWG or 3ds object appear in 3D, possibly with customized materials (your post and David's answer) ... and making a custom GDL object. You specifically talked about "converting" a manufacturer object, not creating a new one equivalent (or better) one in GDL. No GDL guru is going to take a DWG object and make it a meaningful, efficient GDL object - all they can do is the stuff you can learn yourself in 10 minutes ..but you'll still end up with a large (storage size and polygon count) object with minimal customization options.

Peace,
Karl

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Djordje — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:32:11 GMT

Karl wrote:
In your defense, however, GS should certainly have a 3 page tutorial on how to do exactly what you want to do, since nearly everybody wants/needs to do it at some point. Without such a tutorial, hands-on training with a reseller, consultant or archi-neighbor - or someone willing to type it all here - is unfortunately the only option. That is the real problem IMHO.

... not.

http://www.graphisoft.com/archiguide_archive/ArchiGuide_Online_6o/issue20/3ddxfimport.html

http://www.graphisoft.com/archiguide_archive/ArchiGuide_Online_6o/issue20/3ddxfimportadjusting.html

I wrote the above quite some time ago. It probably needs updating to 8.1, but it is a basic How To method.

One important thing:

DXF and DWG models LOOK right, however:

1. They are usually too heavy, with high polygon count
2. They are just dumb polygon models
3. They carry no other data

I agree that each manufacturer of each building component, furniture, etc should have the GDL catalogue - who said marketing?

Lots of converted objects can be found for free on, for example, StudioArkada Web site. Would you use a 3MB chair in your project? I would not. You need at least two of them.

Technically, you need a DXF/DWG or 3DS savvy application to sort the model out BEFORE you open it in ArchiCAD. Going throught the script is quite tedious.

Another problem is the scale and size - the proportions are (almost) always right, but the origin, rotation, etc are usually wrong.

For extensive use of 3DS/DXF/DWG objects, one HAS TO have basic GDL skills.

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Karl Ottenstein — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:03:45 GMT

Djordje wrote:
http://www.graphisoft.com/archiguide_archive/ArchiGuide_Online_6o/issue20/3ddxfimport.html

http://www.graphisoft.com/archiguide_archive/ArchiGuide_Online_6o/issue20/3ddxfimportadjusting.html

I wrote the above quite some time ago.

Thanks, Djordje. Forgot about those.

Karl

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:03:45 GMT

IMNSHO GS should not be scripting objects at all. They should however be marketing its products, more aggressively than they currently have been and currently are, to manufacturers of building products, furniture, etc. If GS can't see the advantages to the manufacturer (not to mention itself) in using its products, how are they going to be able to persuade them to provide their offering in a GDL library format-!? I probably have over a million dwg/dxf drawings of specific manufactured items and I've never received a single one created by Autodesk. If GS really believes in the concept they pioneered why can't they get this going? Personally I don't think they have another 20 years to ponder the future of their concept. The ArchiCAD vs Revit (whoever) issue is going to be won in the real world; whoever has the most support (Family? Libraries or GDL Libraries) will eventually move to the top of the most poplar CAD list regardless how much the program may draw into the mouth with a force produced by movement of the lips and tongue.

This remains the single most neglected area by GS if they don't do something soon another BIM type application will. The longer they sit and wait for their "big bang" marketing theory to happen they'll find themselves choking on the dust of someone else who actually believed in the solutions they have to offer.

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

vfrontiers — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:28 GMT

Jeffrey wrote:
IMNSHO GS should not be scripting objects at all. They should however be marketing its products, more aggressively than they currently have been and currently are, to manufacturers of building products, furniture, etc. If GS can't see the advantages to the manufacturer (not to mention itself) in using its products, how are they going to be able to persuade them to provide their offering in a GDL library format-!? I probably have over a million dwg/dxf drawings of specific manufactured items and I've never received a single one created by Autodesk. If GS really believes in the concept they pioneered why can't they get this going? Personally I don't think they have another 20 years to ponder the future of their concept. The ArchiCAD vs Revit (whoever) issue is going to be won in the real world; whoever has the most support (Family? Libraries or GDL Libraries) will eventually move to the top of the most poplar CAD list regardless how much the program may draw into the mouth with a force produced by movement of the lips and tongue.

This remains the single most neglected area by GS if they don't do something soon another BIM type application will. The longer they sit and wait for their "big bang" marketing theory to happen they'll find themselves choking on the dust of someone else who actually believed in the solutions they have to offer.

Graphisoft DID do something... They helped GDL Central get started. GDL central took to the streets and tried to rally the manufacturer's to produce GDL objects.

A few of us formed the GDL Alliance to spearhead a "grass roots" level involvement in the evolution of the mass use of GDL. The GDL adapter for AutoCAD was created as well as the ability to showcase GDL objects ONLINE.

These movements NEED your support! If no one cries for these things to get done directly to the manufacturer's, they are only left to assume that no one needs them!

Lastly, these objects will NOT be free. I don't believe, as others have stated, that it is up to GS to define the CONTENT. They should take advantage of the TOOL nature of GDL and give us BEROL templates without having to be so specific. Of course, I believe they should not put out 2nd rate cr_ _, I mean, STUFF either. Many of the items are just to "ametuer" to use in a professional plan.

So, if you want to take advantage of the millions of .3ds stuff already available, learn how to code a few simple material calls [it really is easy] and get on with life. [ not a dig]. Otherwise, you'll have to wait for someone else to do it!

Check out OBJECTS ONLINE [surely your time is worth something!] or the other GDL Object Rings [they were posted here some time ago]. Take a look at GDL Central or www.GDLAlliance.com.

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

rm — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:11:56 GMT

Jeffrey wrote:
IMNSHO GS should not be scripting objects at all. They should however be marketing its products, more aggressively than they currently have been and currently are, to manufacturers of building products, furniture, etc. If GS can't see the advantages to the manufacturer (not to mention itself) in using its products, how are they going to be able to persuade them to provide their offering in a GDL library format-!?.

This remains the single most neglected area by GS if they don't do something soon another BIM type application will. The longer they sit and wait for their "big bang" marketing theory to happen they'll find themselves choking on the dust of someone else who actually believed in the solutions they have to offer.

I couldn't agree more with Jeffrey on this! I just don't get this obcession with the evangelist of GDL on this forum to almost insist everyone using AC should learn how to use GDL, to what end I ask?

I know that there are actually Architects on this board who are obviously have working experience with GDL, Duane, David to name a couple. And I commend there willingness to learn GDL.

But for sake of discussion, I think GS, and many (not all) of the GDL evangelist need to realize that most practioners are just that, practioners. We are not acedemics or consultants that have the luxury of time to ponder, practice, and hopefully execute scripts for realistic, and broad library parts selection.

Time to accept reality, evangelist, we are trying to make money selling design, technical, and presentation services for the most part as Architects, or Interior Designers......our for the most part does not accomdate becoming GDL novices, much less experts. I know that there are Archiguide tips that can help all of us, but in a medium or large firm, and even some small firms, do you really think principals of these firms are ok with employees spending time mastering GDL on company time when what they are ultimately doing is trying to get buildings or interiors built.......your fooling yourself if you think differently, and your not dealing in reality.

I believe most firms are willing to pay for good GDL objects, unfortunately, for what every reason we are not seeing mass adoption by manufacturers or part developers of GDL.

Look at Objects Online, do you realize how many parts are stale, not up to date for 8.0/8.1. Many (not all) of these objects are no better than "cartoons" with little or no user definable parameters. They might work well in plan, but the minute ones expectation rises for realism in a 3D seen, the house of cards fall.

I wish I was a GDL expert and could whip up any object I wanted instead of wasting time hoping that inspired GDL experts will keep raising the bar on production quality, and quantity of available GDL objects, as well as strong participation of manufacturers to produce library parts.

Maybe Jeffrey is right evangelist, one day you might wake up with no one to preach too......and that day may come sooner than later if GS does not become more active in working toward this as one of there major goals.

Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.

RM

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

vfrontiers — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:58:21 GMT

While I'm beating dead horses today, It just occurs to me that this problem is merely an evolution of the practice of architecture. For instance, if I wanted to "draw" a mercedes in a view BC (before computers) and there wasn't one in ENTOURAGE, I'd have to buckle down and come up with one myself! Same for a Refridgerator, BBQ or whatever other "object" I needed. What purpose would be served waiting for Entourage to do it.

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:20:09 GMT

vfrontiers wrote:
Graphisoft DID do something... They helped GDL Central get started. GDL central took to the streets and tried to rally the manufacturer's to produce GDL objects.

GS has informed me that GDL Alliance is only interested in the "over $100,000.00 projects" even though the majority of manufacturers of products that are frequently used don't have a library large enough to warrant that size of an investment. Let's also mention the objects that had been created in the past, though free to the users have always been under tight guard of GDL Central and EVERY manufacturer I've contacted whose objects were available were/are completely unaware of their existence or of ArchiCAD either. The latest being Trus Joist they loaded me up with AutoCAD compatible and their own generic software at Build Boston but were clueless about the availability of the ArchiCAD library, further phone calls resulted with the same response. It seems apparent to me that GS was unable to obtain the order that was discussed on e-scribe not too long ago. Can anyone verify?

vfrontiers wrote:
A few of us formed the GDL Alliance to spearhead a "grass roots" level involvement in the evolution of the mass use of GDL. The GDL adapter for AutoCAD was created as well as the ability to showcase GDL objects ONLINE.

I commend the effort but fail to see any real progress in the area of manufacturers awareness of the solutions available to them or the availability of their products as GDL libraries.

vfrontiers wrote:
These movements NEED your support! If no one cries for these things to get done directly to the manufacturer's, they are only left to assume that no one needs them!

I had a building products distributer who was interested in having its entire building products catalog available as GDL objects, their product line includes everything from complete lines of interior and exterior doors, windows, mantels, trim, columns, cupolas, weathervanes, stair parts,... the list goes on. This company is over 110 years old because it knows how to market building products. When I explained the VB concept and demonstrated how it works they immediately saw the potential of generating NEW business by being able to offer these objects, especially if they could be one of the first companies that were to offer such an extensive and complete library. Being unable to develop such an extensive library single handedly I contacted GS and was left hanging by each person I contacted. If I were to post the reply from the person who indicated that "he, if anyone, would be the person to make this happen" , he would be out of a job, or I would at least hope so. Any company who had a product that they believed was the best solution for OUR MARKET (not just architects) and were trying to expand market-share wouldn't think twice about showing him the door. His reply to me indicated that he has no confidence in himself, GS or the people around him to make a successful attempt of promoting the solutions offered by GSs products.

vfrontiers wrote:
Lastly, these objects will NOT be free. I don't believe, as others have stated, that it is up to GS to define the CONTENT. They should take advantage of the TOOL nature of GDL and give us BEROL templates without having to be so specific. Of course, I believe they should not put out 2nd rate cr_ _, I mean, STUFF either. Many of the items are just to "ametuer" to use in a professional plan.

Manufacturers spend tens of thousands of dollars for the printed and CAD materials they send you, free of charge. Why could this not happen with GDL?

Personally I refuse to purchase any catalogs /dwg's from manufacturers to specify their products. Even when there is a charge for there drawings/literature they will usually always wave the fee when you can demonstrate the advantages to them if they were to give you access to this material. If GS can't figure out a way to get the majority of items to the user for free, Revit (whoever) eventually will and therefore be able to achieve the dominant presence in the BIM market place.

I agree 100% that there should be standards that are adhered to so that users don't need to reinvent the wheel for every object they use.

The quality issue is a major one for me as well. I'm sure if the question was presented you'll find many who are disappointed with the c__p they've purchased from Objects Online. Don't get me wrong, there are indeed many fine, quality objects available but it's buyer beware.

The consensus among the users is, why should one invest in an object that they'll have to modify to represent the manufacturers specs?

vfrontiers wrote:
So, if you want to take advantage of the millions of .3ds stuff already available, learn how to code a few simple material calls [it really is easy] and get on with life. [ not a dig]. Otherwise, you'll have to wait for someone else to do it!

I script objects from scratch, so what-!? This is not the issue. If someone will produce a .3ds and offer it for free again what the problem with gsm. This board is primarily comprised of architects & designers that work for architectural & design firms this program is marketed to them that it will allow you to do what you do best and do it quickly and efficiently.

Personally I'm waiting for the manufacturers to do this, they've done it before (dwg/dxf, 3ds) so they WILL do it again, they just don't know the current demand and advantages available for using this format. Dwg, dxf, or gsm is irrelevant to them if it facilitates in the sale of their product, it's about as important as the color of the truck used to ship the goods, it really doesn't matter as long as it performs the task as expected. The only reason they even exist is to sell you something. It's quite obvious that the future is leaning towards the Virtual Building or BIM and it's just a matter of time before the entire industry embraces it and acquires these types of solutions to replace AutoCAD at their CAD stations. Who is going to be able to lead them in making that decision? GS has the definite edge over any competition based on the maturity of the software and the successes of the company to date, that's not to mention the (I'm assuming) largest user base of a BIM software at this moment... . GS has every tool in the box necessary to successfully lead the way, unfortunately it seems it has yet to find anyone capable of identifying these tools and how to use them properly, it seems they wait until they're rusty and obsolete before they decide to put them to use.

vfrontiers wrote:
Check out OBJECTS ONLINE [surely your time is worth something!] or the other GDL Object Rings [they were posted here some time ago]. Take a look at GDL Central or www.GDLAlliance.com.

Our time is worth something, when is GS going to acknowledge this?
I've been at all these locations several times. What I and many others are looking for simply isn't available, we're looking for real solutions, not objects that require modifications to achieve the desired result. The firms that assemble homes comprised primarily of stock building products have to make unnecessary investments of time, money or both that are not usually transfered to the clients.

Re: Converting 3D objects not made in AC for use in AC

David Collins — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:43:36 GMT

I couldn't agree more with Jeffrey on this! I just don't get this obcession with the evangelist of GDL on this forum to almost insist everyone using AC should learn how to use GDL, to what end I ask?

Taking this over to the GDL section for a gentle response...

GDL for Dummies

David Collins — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:51:32 GMT

I couldn't agree more with Jeffrey on this! I just don't get this obcession with the evangelist of GDL on this forum to almost insist everyone using AC should learn how to use GDL, to what end I ask?

Rather than take the interesting and useful "Converting non AC Objects..." off on a tangent, I thought I'd start another thread here to gently respond to rm's anti-GDL rant.

For me, learning a little bit of GDL was a simply a matter of expedience. When I switched to ArchiCad I had the same problem of adding materials to an imported object, I couldn't see waiting indefinitely for the help of the GDL alliance or some full time GDL guru, so I simply sat down and learned just enough GDL to go into the script and add the materials. I read somebody's two page tutorial and figured out how to do it in about two hours.

But I do think the GDL evangelists do get carried away, maybe because of the astonishing things that can be achieved in GDL, such as entire steel structure warehouse objects that re-design themselves when you change the overall dimensions. That's not how I advocate the use of GDL.

Here's the thing: when a GDL guru sits down to create an object, he has to make it work for the largest possible number of users, so he creates this immensely complex object with hundreds of adjustable parameters and alternates. We users then have to go through all those menus and all those lists and adjust all those parameters in order to arrive at a version of the object that starts to look like the way we do things. And guess what, it never quite gets there. Something is always just a little bit off. The GS library offers at least thirty door styles and none of them look like a door I would consider using in a project. So I wind up using the one that sort of comes closest to what I had in mind. Gaaah! That's not the way I want to do my job.

That's why I wound up creating my own objects. But what happens? When you script your own object, you know exactly how it has to work. You give it only the parameters you need and the rest is hard-wired. The script is going to be very dumb, simple and straightforward. You work on it only long enough to get it to the point where you can use it and get back to the real work of being an architect. This is not guru-level GDL. This is GDL for dummies. If you go back to it later, you'll always understand what's going on because it's your GDL, not some guru's. It can never get too complex because it will always exactly match your current understanding of GDL and whatever is left of your high school geometry. And when GS releases a new version of ArchiCAD, chances are it will still work fine. It's too dumb to have the kind of problems the guru objects go through every time we upgrade. And most importantly of all, its exactly the object you need it to be.

I don't mean to evangelize, honest. I have friends who refuse to use a computer at all and that's fine. Everybody has their own way of working. But that's the point. That's why I learned a little bit of GDL.

Re: GDL for Dummies

Djordje — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:14:28 GMT

David wrote:
Rather than take the interesting and useful "Converting non AC Objects..." off on a tangent, I thought I'd start another thread here to gently respond to rm's anti-GDL rant.

I hope you don't mind that I joined the threads again, David, in both forums.

Why?

Using the GDL objects is essential to the process of working in ArchiCAD.

IMHO, scripting the GDL objects is NOT essential. BUT, the basic knowledge of GDL is essential, no less than a basic 3D modeling is essential for a user of a standard surface modeling CAD application.

The topics covered here (and in the original thread) are multiple, but there is ONE point that Duane made that (almost) nobody responded to: user support.

The manufacturers are not going to produce GDL libraries if there is no interest. They will know there is interest if they are flooded with requests. I do not only mean the US - although the situation seems to be better in Europe, and that the Europeans seem to ask for more.

Then, there is lack of information.

While Truss Joist was mentioned as NOT having GDL libraries, at the same time you have Trust Joist people here on the list spewing out wonderful GDL?!?!?! A case of the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing?

There are technical guidelines for scripting GDL objects for commercial/public use. They are even more important now in the 8.1 times, with the object subtypes - a prerequisite of IFC compatibility if I am not wrong - as the gurus can confirm.

I don't mean to evangelize, honest. I have friends who refuse to use a computer at all and that's fine. Everybody has their own way of working. But that's the point. That's why I learned a little bit of GDL.

Quite agreed. If your way of working includes scooping up free surface models off the Web, DXF and/or 3DS most of them, then you should AT LEAST invest some time to learn how to tweak them. Also, you are going to spend time for the regeneration of multiple polygons that could be represented with one line of GDL (the famous sphere example).

But, to each their own ... I wish that in four days an Aeron will mysteriously materialize by my desk, and that I will receive an email from santa@northpole.com with a Herman Miller library attached ...

Jingle bells, jingle bells ...

Re: GDL by any other name

vfrontiers — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:32:09 GMT

Hmmm.... I would also like to add that I am currently creating MANY one-off objects using slabs and other elements saved as a GDL object. I am sure everyone KNOWs that this can be done and it is getting not only easier but allows for much greater flexibility and creativity than before.

Case in point: I am working on some Spanish Style custom homes. Cornice details are done by using Profiler. Custom Entry Gates with SLABS and MESHES (beveled raised panels) are saved as DOORS... Slabs draw as elevations in Plan are shot and saved as FIREPLACES. Other PROFILES are used for MANTLES. AND with boolean ops I can give them just the right look.

This is the kind of "Working Man's GDL" I have been advocating for some time now. It is unbelievable how easy this is an how custom you can make things.

I agree I'd love to see a BUNCH of Manufacturer's jump on board and create libraries of their stuff. But there is a limited amount of GDL talent to actually DO the work and even less people asking for it (that means asking the manufacturer's). It will take some blind faith of some programmers to create stuff in the hopes that someone will buy it; either the company or the general public. It is clearly a catch-22 now.

So to turn this into something useful.... what would be at the top of your list for objects? I think you will find a HUGE diversity of requests.

We (gdl alliance) fought for and finally got the GDL ADAPTER technology to be available to the masses. It may be too late. It is just not catching on as hoped. The idea being that if we introduce our GDL smart objects to AUTOCAD users, the community at large would self populate and GDL would be the language of choice. This is struggling.

Please keep this thread going.

Re: GDL by any other name

rm — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:58:35 GMT

"vfrontiers" wrote:
Hmmm.... I would also like to add that I
We (gdl alliance) fought for and finally got the GDL ADAPTER technology to be available to the masses. It may be too late. It is just not catching on as hoped. The idea being that if we introduce our GDL smart objects to AUTOCAD users, the community at large would self populate and GDL would be the language of choice. This is struggling.

Duane, this qoute of yours hits the nail on the head. If business does not bring to it customers what the customer needs, the market shifts, and customers go else where.

The internet really is a useful tool, unfortunately many abuse it to launch unsubstatied claims or commentaries against fellow users.....case in point...

David Collins wrote
"Rather than take the interesting and useful "Converting non AC Objects..." off on a tangent, I thought I'd start another thread here to gently respond to rm's anti-GDL rant. "

David you started out fine, but why do you think I am anti-GDL? I think GDL is great, and if you produce an object that is worth buying for my projects, I WILL buy it and use it. Because, now listen closely, I choose to expend my time in buidling design as opposed to building library parts, which is where my God given skills are best used doesn't mean I'm anti-GDL.

This may come to some surprise to many of the authors to this thread......but I actually do, and often, what Duane describes in the quote below. Man, I must be bi-polar about GDL!

Duane Wrote
'Hmmm.... I would also like to add that I am currently creating MANY one-off objects using slabs and other elements saved as a GDL object. I am sure everyone KNOWs that this can be done and it is getting not only easier but allows for much greater flexibility and creativity than before. "

This thread started out with a simple question by me about converting .dwg or .3ds parts with selectable parameters, and if GS was creating an easy way to do so that didn't require knowledge of GDL. A simple NO would have done.

Instead, many of you chose to lecture me about my misplaced priorties in not chosing to learn GDL (scripting) . I asked for help, not backhanded "advice" about running a my office.

I could go on for weeks about how so many architects today give away services, and how many architects are hacks and don't understand the principals of scale, massing, proportion, volume, or have the ability to run a viable profitable practice.......but darn they can design a good GDL library part.

My point, to those interested, keep making parts as good as those by Alfaville (no I don't have any affiliation, but yes they have my money).... and I keep buying them.

If, and only if, the market for good parts expands, we can all go on hopefully making money with the use of this software......

Rember Sony Betamax, superior to VHS, but couldn't keep market share and DIED! Try to look at the big picture, SOM, Perkins & Will, HOK, are large firms that use the other guys software. Part of the reason, they can buy add-ons, and virtually any 3D library part that they want, without investing in employees that have to design the objects for them! Thats reality.......the market makes the rules, not small boutique vertical business models.

Think what you will, but you can bank on this, NEVER will learning GDL scripting become part of what the vast majority of firms using AC will employ in their daily operations. Heck, look at how few of firms using AC actually model their entire buildings in 3D........and you know (Evangelist) how EASY it is to model a building in AC.
So drink a cup of reality.......and start making realistic objects that your willing to sell, send me a jpeg, if I think I can use it, I promise I will buy it.

......ok, I'm out of breath for now!
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.

RM

Re: GDL by any other name

Djordje — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:28:12 GMT

Robert,

rm wrote:
This thread started out with a simple question by me about converting .dwg or .3ds parts with selectable parameters, and if GS was creating an easy way to do so that didn't require knowledge of GDL. A simple NO would have done.

NO

You of course know why - the surface model as such MAYBE has layers or different pen colors for parts, and yes, it would be nice for the GDL translator to automatically convert these, if found, to Material 1, Material 2, etc ...

Then, you will anyway HAVE TO know how to analyze the script in order to sort out the unavoidable mistakes.

My point was - using such objects uses as much of your time as does learning how to script them (OK, maybe not cars), especially in regeneration times, and they are mostly useless in hidden line views.

Instead, many of you chose to lecture me about my misplaced priorties in not chosing to learn GDL (scripting) . I asked for help, not backhanded "advice" about running a my office.

I am sure no offense was intended; your initial question sparked IMHO a very valuable discussion. And I would not put advice under quotation marks?

Think what you will, but you can bank on this, NEVER will learning GDL scripting become part of what the vast majority of firms using AC will employ in their daily operations. Heck, look at how few of firms using AC actually model their entire buildings in 3D........and you know (Evangelist) how EASY it is to model a building in AC.

Some would call this a business opportunity? The GDL is easier than. say, LISP - and I do know for a fact that quite a bit of large firms do employ people who work as LISP writers. Big firms also employ people to work as visualizers. Once upon a time, I knew quite a few people making good living doing watercolor perspectives. As you said, it is the demand of the market - if, I say IF, GDL becomes the standard 3D language, than this will happen.

At present, I have a feeling that the GDL Adapter efforts might come to fruition IF Revit gets an API and a version is made; the BigA itself is pushing AutoCAD and ADT down the ladder ...

As for the rest - the lack of model based approach in the profession - that will either change, or the whole 3D information based method of work will stay a niche market in electronic drafting universe. Let's work for that not to happen.

So drink a cup of reality.......and start making realistic objects that your willing to sell, send me a jpeg, if I think I can use it, I promise I will buy it.

The reality check is usually the most painful thing one can do to oneself - or one's practice or outlook. It is also very healthy ...