Interactive Schedule: Worked in AC10, doesn't in AC11

[Laura Yanoviak]

Our Door Schedule and Window Schedule IS's from AC10 work fine in AC11, but I cannot get our Area Schedule and Finish Schedule to cooperate! I ran into similar problems when migrating from AC9 to AC10, but they were remedied by recreating the IS.

Now, I can't get anything to work. I've recreated the IS's, I've tried taking the "Additional Parameters" from the extracted library instead of the LCF, I've tried taking one of the working IS's and editing -- nothing. These are just (custom) listing parameters! All the values remain blank (---) and locked! Why is this happening, and why are our other two schedules working just fine?

Any thoughts?

[Laura Yanoviak]

Karl wrote:
The door swing always seems to show the proper 'from' zone for me ... just that, as you say, if the 'from' is the outside, then that is (correctly IMHO) blank. If you want to have a notion of 'outside', either put a footnote that blank means 'from the outside', or create a fake zone around the building for no purpose other than filling in the contents of that field?

So, I guess I'm not seeing any problems with how the schedule is behaving.

If your philosophy is that the door should be numbered according to the 'from' side, than there is no problem because that is the way AC behaves; HOWEVER, if you want to comply with the National CAD Standard and have the door numbered according to the secure side of the door (which has nothing to do with door swing), then you have to manually number (NOT BIM) your doors to get them to schedule correctly.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Laura wrote:
If your philosophy is that the door should be numbered according to the 'from' side, than there is no problem because that is the way AC behaves; HOWEVER, if you want to comply with the National CAD Standard and have the door numbered according to the secure side of the door (which has nothing to do with door swing), then you have to manually number (NOT BIM) your doors to get them to schedule correctly.

Well, I guess I'm saying that ArchiCAD does what it is documented and designed to do.

ArchiCAD does not have a concept of a 'secure side' for a door. Perhaps you could fomulate this as a wish (poll) that is very precise in the desired behavior so that GS could use it as an implementation roadmap? I assume that a variant of the NCS marker which changes its ID based on which 'room' it is in is not good enough? Please explain in detail in your poll - since this is definitely a wish for new functionality. (I think?)

Regards,
karl

[Laura Yanoviak]

Duane had a good idea.:

vfrontiers wrote:
On that note, then I propose a wish for a MOVEABLE HOTSPOT that associated the door with the room (I am thinking of something like the little cross for a ZONE)...

The key being that the user chooses which room the door is associated with (it is not an assumption made by AC). Moving the identifier into the desired Zone got us half-way there, but the fact that the IS scheduled the door according to swing (not identifier) regardless was just plain wrong. I will post a wish...

[vfrontiers]

Karl wrote:
Hey Duane,
....
The door swing always seems to show the proper 'from' zone for me ... just that, as you say, if the 'from' is the outside, then that is (correctly IMHO) blank. If you want to have a notion of 'outside', either put a footnote that blank means 'from the outside', or create a fake zone around the building for no purpose other than filling in the contents of that field?

So, I guess I'm not seeing any problems with how the schedule is behaving.

Karl

The problem is (as Laura describes elsewhere) that there should be a ROOM that is related to the door but it isn't always the TO or the FROM... for example, in schools ALL CLASSROOM doors must swing into the hall, so if you used the TO room it all would read HALL. Yet janitor and other minor rooms would likely swing into their respective rooms.

It is just silly to put both rooms on the schedule. And, I don't think we should be forced to place the marker on the correct side. Too often, it just doesn't graphically work out correct.

It just seems like that reference technology is already there, we just can't use it in the schedule.

My first preference would be to have a MOVEABLE HOTSPOT as an identifier. Another option might be to have an internal parameter that lets you choose either TO ROOM or FROM ROOM as your "LOCATION". But this would mean much backtracking thru old doors and updating their GDL.

My $.03!

[Laura Yanoviak]

Wish posted: archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=21118

[Laura Yanoviak]

ALL -- I just heard back from GS (again, via Karl) that the issue was a bit of bad code in the Zone Stamp's master script (which is really odd since the stamp worked in AC10). I'm very happy to report that my schedules are now working -- LJY.

[vfrontiers]

Laura wrote:
ALL -- I just heard back from GS (again, via Karl) that the issue was a bit of bad code in the Zone Stamp's master script (which is really odd since the stamp worked in AC10). I'm very happy to report that my schedules are now working -- LJY.

Can you elaborate? Working with a fix from Karl? or just in the recent HOTFIX?

Also, I presume the link to the zone is not updated per our requests, and that it uses the swing to determine the zone affiliation?

[Laura Yanoviak]

vfrontiers wrote:
Can you elaborate? Working with a fix from Karl? or just in the recent HOTFIX?

A fix in the Zone Stamp GDL script as provided by GS (a misplaced command after a THEN statement, without the successive ENDIF -- if you must know). Karl was just the intermediary in my contact with GS.

vfrontiers wrote:
Also, I presume the link to the zone is not updated per our requests, and that it uses the swing to determine the zone affiliation?

Yep -- nothing has changed there -- all we can do for the time being is vote for the wish.

[vfrontiers]

Laura wrote:

A fix in the Zone Stamp GDL script as provided by GS (a misplaced command after a THEN statement, without the successive ENDIF -- if you must know). Karl was just the intermediary in my contact with GS.

Can you post the stamp here?

[Richard Morrison]

Laura/Karl:
Is there any way you could let the rest of us know the specific fix? Thanks.