topic Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects in Modeling

Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Anonymous — Tue, 23 May 2023 15:25:28 GMT

I posed this in a different thread yesterday, but it might as well stand on its own:

With respect to setting up pen weights and colors:

When placing Graphisoft's library objects in my drawings, I frequently find myself resetting several pen weights, often requiring a trip deep to the bottom of some heavily-parametered objects. Too often, I do this over and over, say, when placing a variety of different cabinetry objects.

Is there a logic to Graphisoft's choice of pens in the default settings of library objects?

After...I don't know 8 years of using this program, I would think I would have caught on to such a thing, but you never know. It would be a lovely thing to have most (all!!!) library parts look great "out-of-the-box," assuming this didn't mean trying to adapt to an incoherent pen weight system (or non-system.

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Karl Ottenstein — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:53:58 GMT

Hi Robert,

In the "old" days, the pens used in the lib parts worked with the default pens of the new/reset template. I've been using my own template pens for so long that I don't know if that's the case still.

I agree that it is a pain to change the pens ...for everything basically. Setting up Favorites works when there are only a few parts involved. The other extremely tedious option is to open each object, change things to your defaults, and save into a new folder as your own customized library. This huge amount of work unfortunately would have to be repeated with each new release of the library!

A better solution, that GS could provide us with, is an automated "library generator" script. They now have a new XML based editor available on the developer download site, but which is geared towards developers. If they could provide a tool with a decent user interface that basically let you choose your pens for common functions, then automatically invoked the new XML tool to rebuild the entire library with your pens, then we'd have a good solution I think. A 3rd party could provide such a tool, I suppose...

A middle-of-the-road solution with AC 9 is the new parameter transfer method of the object settings dialog. You could have a template (module) or favorite or an instance in your project of just one cabinet set the way you like in terms of pens and meterials, etc. Alt-click that object and then open the object settings dialog to select the other cabinet that you want and ctrl-click the thumbnail of that other cabinet: this transfers all matching parameters to the other library part. Then, customize it the rest of the way before placing.

Karl

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

__archiben — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:08:18 GMT

karl / all

the ability to build in the ability to modify an entire library's attribute parameters is something that i've been pondering for some time.

when i start to seriously get down to making the 'benfrost archiLibrary' i was thinking that maybe i would define my pen parameters by function/size in all of the object scripts and have one master GDL script/macro/whatever where i define those values to the true pen table. the objects get their pen values from the parameters read from the master script at the beginning of each object's script.

distributing the library to somebody with a different pen set would involve them editing the one master file and hey-presto! all of the objects (or maybe at least 90% of them) would work from 'default'. . .

being still wet behind the ears with GDL, i have no idea whether i'm barking up the wrong tree entirely. knowing a lot more about GDL as you do, could you comment on the feasability of this?

thanks in advance
~/archiben

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:15:06 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
being still wet behind the ears with GDL, i have no idea whether i'm barking up the wrong tree entirely. knowing a lot more about GDL as you do, could you comment on the feasability of this?

thanks in advance
~/archiben

While this is certainly doable it may be a bit kludgy, and risky, in operation. (I am talking about doing this strictly in GDL. Karl or someone more familiar with the API would have to address that angle.)

The process is to set up a MASTER_GDL.gsm which will set global variables to the desired pens. The various library parts can then be scripted to use these settings.

The kludginess may be minimal in this case since the idea is to set it and forget it.

The riskiness may be quite high though since some GDL programmers use the available user globals to pass values between macros, etc. This could result in resetting some of your pen variables. I use a placeholder variable when I use the GLOB_USER variables this way, so I can reset the value at the end of the script, but you can't count on everyone being so considerate.

I think what you have here may be a wish list item. At a very minimal level GS could just add some new dedicated globals for this purpose.

As you know I believe strongly in the value of assigning pens by function and will do what I can to convince GS to provide this function in a more manageable form in the future.

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Aaron Bourgoin — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:57:56 GMT

Here here, Matthew. Well said.

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:20:45 GMT

Yes: what Matthew said.

The method I listed was to deal with today's reality. Ben's wish is what it should be. Unfortunately, GDL is a very primitive language and the globals and master script at present do not offer a protected way of parameterizing an entire library.

GS might respond that there is no need to parameterize a library if there is the XML editing tool. I would counter that Ben's suggests why this is not so: a user should be able to construct parts that refer to the 'master parametric pens' so that those objects can be given to another user and behave consistently.

I feel that dedicated pen globals could be yet another kludge, but could be made a little more secure if the GDL checker and interpretter made these new globals such that they could only be set in a single special master script and could be only referenced everywhere else.

Meta-parametric libraries: a definite wish! 😉

Karl

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

__archiben — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:02:59 GMT

the other aspect of this is restriction. when i went back to my hammock to think over this some more, i realised that in order for it to work all control over pens are taken away from the user: you wouldn't be able to choose a pen in the parameters list because it wouldn't actually be mapped to anything. long, drop-down lists of pen functions/sizes would be needed to give the user any form of flexibility. and this is basically duplicating the pen table anyway . . .

in some situations, and with certain types of object, it may well be desirable to lock-down the pens: a large firm that wants a completely standard drafting style could well place this type of restriction over their library.

i'm still a little unsure about how this would actually work to everybody's benefit . . . perhaps the pen attributes should be given further tags? for example:

pen #1 = <RGB value> = <x>mm thick = "<function name>"

where all of the attributes assigned to pen <n> would be customisable and available in any pen table selection. i still don't kow how the transfer of pen functions throughout an entire library could work easily. everybody would have different pen functions . . . there's no true global variable there to be had is there?

hmm . . .

i'd like to know a little more about the LibDevTool though . . . i was playing around with it last night . . . or at least looking through the documentation. i managed to build the library of examples with the perl script, but have no real idea about what i was doing! one for later i think . . .

~/archiben

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

__archiben — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:06:02 GMT

when i re-read through my posts like the one i've just made above, my mind just screams at me:

i want to be an architect again!

somewhere, somehow, somebody has got to start making GUIs for people who don't want (or need) to delve into realms they don't belong or don't want to belong, but know that somewhere there is an "easier" way.

yesterday morning a pearl was something out of a shellfish (or synthetically farmed somewhere in america). what have i gotten myself into now . . .

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:33:48 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
i realised that in order for it to work all control over pens are taken away from the user..

What we were talking about was only default values as far as I recall (don't have the energy to re-read the thread!) ... nothing more. It would only be the initial value of pens that would be defined in some global way, so that the default pens would be useful for each user's pen set. All library parts would perform just as now in all other respects.

Karl

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

__archiben — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:59:14 GMT

Karl wrote:
What we were talking about was only default values as far as I recall (don't have the energy to re-read the thread!) ... nothing more. It would only be the initial value of pens that would be defined in some global way, so that the default pens would be useful for each user's pen set. All library parts would perform just as now in all other respects.

yes - i was still thinking about the reality of making it work the way i want to in today's current situation with the master gdl file. and then i when off on strange tangents and probably completely muddled myself up in the process. too much sun!

~/archiben

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:38:20 GMT

With respect to setting up pen weights and colors:

When placing Graphisoft's library objects in my drawings, I frequently find myself resetting several pen weights, often requiring a trip deep to the bottom of some heavily-parametered objects. Too often, I do this over and over, say, when placing a variety of different cabinetry objects.

Is there a logic to Graphisoft's choice of pens in the default settings of library objects?

Robert,

I've been using it nearly as long, and just now I have learned there is a some logic, but it need enhancement.
There is even some documentation on it somewher either in the Archihelp or in this forum, though I can't locate the document right now.(typical!)

Basically they are divided by division.
Pens 1-10 are the only ones preset to archicad objects, settings.

Pen 1 is typ for walls and heavy 1.42
Pen 2 is for things other built element, and things that go in walls. and lighter.
Pen 3 is fills, and the glass pen, I think.
Pen 4 Entourage sitework.
Pen 5 I don't know, didn't see it assigned.
Pen 6 is door swings
Pen 7 and 8 are furniture & Equipement, among other things.
Pen 9 is pink.
Pen 10 (here is the mistake) is often electrical, dimensions, some equipment and other random bits.

The logic is to accept that lib objects come in with these pens, and set these pens to what you want the OBJECT to be when it prints in plotmaker.

The key to controling the way your drawings look, as Link in this forum has advocated is to set the pens in plotmaker. For example, the electrical plan reads best when your electrical symbols and switching lines are really strong, and everything else(walls, furniture,millwork, windows) are greyed out/hairlined. This can easily be done in plotmaker if you set your electrical pens to a separate row in the pen chart, such as pens 32 through 40. (this is my gripe with Archicads setting their electrical objects, junky as they are, to pen 10, a pen shared by non-elect. items)

Why take the time to write such a lengthy reply? It helps clarify it for me.
Also check out MaxATS Template guide. He has some good explanation of handling pens in plotmaker, though I don't like his penset for archicad.

In response to Ben, Karl, and Matthew,
While architects may be a finicky bunch and want their own drawings to be individualistic, they really all want the same thing: A Cad product(archicad) to work(looks good) out of the box without having to customize pens and object settings. A user interface that globally changes library part pen settings sounds nifty, but distracts GS from the main issue.
I think it would be more helpful if Archicad gave clearer documentation about their pen colors and logic, they really do have one, convoluted it may be.

I didn't know i was such a soapboxer...

Nathan Brauer

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:21:26 GMT

I have long been a strong advocate of assigning pens by function but I don't think that it is possible to rely on any defaults and therefore don't recommend it (except for pen 91 which, of course, MUST be white).

What I do recommend are pen settings which accommodate some of the more common defaults while not overly compromising usability or company preferences.

I agree absolutely that the program should work easily and efficiently out of the box without requiring a new user to set up a bunch of things they don't yet fully understand. It also needs to maintain (or improve) the ability of advanced users to fine tune the settings for specific purposes.

The problem is that both pens and layers come from an organizational model based on plotting 2D CAD drawings on pen plotters which has been pushed, pulled, added to, and shoehorned to fit the needs of the Virtual Building model. I think both pens and layers are antiquated and need to be replaced with a new system of organizing and representing the building model or we will be severely constrained from moving forward in both the ease of use and the depth and complexity of advanced uses.

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Karl Ottenstein — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:50:47 GMT

Nathan wrote:
Pens 1-10 are the only ones preset to archicad objects, settings.

Good comments, Nathan.

The MSA library pens, discussed in another thread this past week, are part of what I was talking about here. They use pens 1-10 and quite a few more (hard coded inside the GDL) - and look terrible with true weight on. They don't follow any system such as the one you listed.

Karl

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

aahatimo — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:38:20 GMT

Matthew wrote:
I think both pens and layers are antiquated and need to be replaced with a new system of organizing and representing the building model or we will be severely constrained from moving forward in both the ease of use and the depth and complexity of advanced uses.

here, here! soon soon?

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

Vitruvius — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:39:23 GMT

I like Archibens suggestion of having pens preassigned - I especially like the idea of a PEN (RGB) (Weight) function in GDL.

That way you never need to open the object to fiddle pen colours & weights. And even better, you could make the pen weights scaleable just as the symbol is - line weight at 1:100 is PEN AAAA and at 1:50 is PEN BBB.

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

__archiben — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:17:52 GMT

whilst we're talking pens, weights and functions, this is something i'd like to revive to go along with it . . . :

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=941&start=10

~/archiben

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

TomWaltz — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:03:17 GMT

I've been trying to attempt this, but the LP_XMLConverter -l2x only seems to copy a directory recursively without actually converting the GSM files to XML format.

Re: Graphisofts default pen numbers in library objects

TomWaltz — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:30:07 GMT

Interesting that it seems to work with 8 Libraries and 8.1 Libraries, but not with Archicad 9 libraries.