<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Steel Shape Profiles vs. Library Objects in Modeling</title>
    <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52118#M26573</link>
    <description>and objects might also get counted correctly in a material take off.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:45:17 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Dwight</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2006-08-03T21:45:17Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Steel Shape Profiles vs. Library Objects</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52116#M26571</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV class="actalk-migrated-content"&gt;&lt;T&gt;Can anyone tell me a significant advantage of using the new steel shape Profiles over the steel shape Library Objects?  It seems odd to have to create a redundant library of parts (Profiles) for use with the Beam and Column Tools.&lt;/T&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 15:14:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52116#M26571</guid>
      <dc:creator>Laura Yanoviak</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-05-23T15:14:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Steel Shape Profiles vs. Library Objects</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52117#M26572</link>
      <description>There is none. More than anything, there is also no way to organize/sort the profiles into any kind of group or subset, so you would have dozens of profiles to sift through any time you used them.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I would stick with the Library Object, which is already there and works quite well.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:19:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52117#M26572</guid>
      <dc:creator>TomWaltz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-03T21:19:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Steel Shape Profiles vs. Library Objects</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52118#M26573</link>
      <description>and objects might also get counted correctly in a material take off.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:45:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52118#M26573</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dwight</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-03T21:45:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Steel Shape Profiles vs. Library Objects</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52119#M26574</link>
      <description>The profiled beams have the advantage of being freeform and cleaning up to each other, columns, and walls. I agree with Tom and Dwight that for predefined structural steel (W sections etc) the library parts are better.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Steel-Shape-Profiles-vs-Library-Objects/m-p/52119#M26574</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-03T21:54:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

