Mats_Knutsson wrote:metanoia wrote:
whose offering is more complete...
I'd like to say whose offer is more suited for the purpose. Many people mistake complete for features.
IMHO AC lacks some cool features (right now that is) but more than makes up for it with excellent workflow. All small things that the AC user takes for given...all those small things together that makes your process efficient are worth their weight in gold...it's the overall workflow.
Workflow can't be bought.
/Mats
Like how Archicad handles Demolition and Alterations, what workflow?certainly not worth their weight in gold in this aspect. How long has this program been around again? Take your blinkers off Mats
Brett wrote:With an hybrid methodology you can "create"your own workflow for Demolitions, Renovations and Options, but you really need to know how to handle the Mark Up tool, Layer Combinations, Layer Priorities, and other features. In "other" software all this is a single button "click" to have different option, or "click" to demolish.Mats_Knutsson wrote:metanoia wrote:
whose offering is more complete...
I'd like to say whose offer is more suited for the purpose. Many people mistake complete for features.
IMHO AC lacks some cool features (right now that is) but more than makes up for it with excellent workflow. All small things that the AC user takes for given...all those small things together that makes your process efficient are worth their weight in gold...it's the overall workflow.
Workflow can't be bought.
/Mats
Like how Archicad handles Demolition and Alterations, what workflow?certainly not worth their weight in gold in this aspect. How long has this program been around again? Take your blinkers off Mats
The difference lies on
I found the second approach much more practical for the beginner and the average user, the fist one more useful for advanced users.
I like the idea o pre-set solutions, and background freedom of the script.
Regards
I reckon what you need is an simple single non-adjustable dimensionally accurate GDL object of every component from every manufacturer that could be used on or in a building. It needs to be pre-programmed with all the relevant data to make it intelligent, like product codes, electrical usage, connection positions and sizes, flow rates, available colours, current guide price, contact details for ordering, and so on.this is all nice but in reality this approach has failed miserably in the past. The major reason was and still is a huge overhead for maintenance and updating. The market competition forces manufacturers reinvent their product portfolio so quickly (often in a half year cycle) that the updating and most importantly delivering those library parts to architects and designers makes it almost impossible. Also, locked lib part material attributes create an absolute mess in the project attributes which was one of the main reasons we stopped using predefined library parts.
I think there is a good reason for sticking with the old way and that is an use of symbolic representations on plans/elevations and further specification in a schedule. At the moment this is not possible in AC as it would require another abstraction layer between the placed lib part instance and the schedule itself. A sort of dynamic favourites - in other words several instances of one library part could be linked to different favourite templates in the schedule view....
e.g.:
we could place four toilets on a plan using just one library part however we could attach different data to each instance in the schedule view. That would actually dramatically reduce a need for manufacturer/type-customised library parts.
Another reason would be revision tracking. In some countries it is required to keep all issued items in a schedule. So if you delete an item or D/W from the project and this item was at least once issued to e.g. the builder it has to be shown as 'deleted' and kept as such in the schedule till the project is completed. So the builder would clearly see that the item is not used anymore (various reasons - using old plans or just negligence of comparing superseded and new schedules) thus avoiding a dispute with an architect about who is responsible for ordering (and therefore paying for) redundant items. And trust me that the argument itself is not really enjoyable (based on my previous experience).
This would be actually the main reason we cannot use AC schedules in current format.... but anyway I have drifted a bit sidewise from the original topic so excuse moi
Still looking?
