Karl,
Yeah, I'm serious. Here's the full pantheon of reasons:
1. 'Lighter' files. The computer processes lighter files faster. I model EVERYTHING.. mouldings, plumbing fixtures, framing elements... even outlet plates and electrical boxes. Even for a typical house, my files get very large. The built-in layouting is too much baggage, I tried to do this with two separate files in version 12, but I can't get the layout file to read and display views from the model file. Not sure why.
2. Less 'bugginess'. I've read at least a dozen posts having to do with 'Master layout has disappeared!" or 'Master layout not printing!' or 'Placed view disappeared from layout!'. Plotmaker NEVER does that. It always works perfect. I CAN NOT have any bugginess AT ALL. Risk is too high. My claim to fame is hitting insane deadlines - I need the software to be 100% rock solid.
3. A big one - I want all editing commands on the first pane of the pet pallette. I don't use hotkeys - I'm a 'mouser'. Version 12 forces me to punch through to a second pet pallette for the basic editing commands. I never got used to it. I'm an old man... I don't like it when my tools are changed and I can't put them back to the way I'm used to.
4. Schedule windows are slow and always seem on the verge of crashing. Also, I don't like how the version 12 schedules appear on screen when in editing mode (they're sort of a WYSIWYG appearance). The version 9 schedule preview presents the data in a fixed, easy-to-read size on screen when I'm in editing mode.
5. The version 12 window library never worked right. The windows are about the only thing I haven't written custom GDL's for... yet.
6. General complexity. For me, 12 is TOO complex. I don't miss custom profiles or anything like that... I'd written GDL's years ago to handle those situations. It's pretty much the same process, too.. Make a fill of the desired shape and drag it into my custom shape object. Couple of keystrokes later, I've got what I need.
7. The version 12 publishing function is bizarre. I never got used to it. I never know if I'm going to get what I want out of it. In Plotmaker, I just highlight the layouts I want to print, hit the button, tell it what I want the file name to be, and it writes it. Badda boom badda bing. No goofy presets, 'publisher sets' or any of that crap.
My observation of conversations on the forum is that many of the version upgrades have been very small steps in functionality, with certain versions making bigger leaps. I don't fault GS for that... it's true with most software packages. I completely skipped even looking at versions 10 and 11. I did get 12 to work on a couple of projects with one of my regular clients, but had all the problems listed above. It was a pain in the butt dealing with those problems and caused delays. I Can't have that.
Maybe it's me. I don't like modern 'computerized' cars, either. If my car breaks, I want to SEE what broke.... not have a chip give me some nebulous message or screw up the fuel-air mixture because the chip shorted out. I guess I'm a bit of a Luddite. I'm not slow either... My clients are amazed at what I'm able to produce for the time spent / fees charged. That's the only real test. I have no interest in 'keeping up with the latest' when it comes to software. If the tool I have is my best means to an end, I don't re-tool it. That's where I sit presently.
Go take a look at some of my CD's on my website. They're top quality, all done in version 9. All my clients want is a tight set of docs with complete details and specs. Version 9 does that more than adequately.
I don't go around advocating using older versions here in the forum unless I'm asked about it. In this case I was, so I bore my soul.
I've got lots of work in house, I meet my deadlines and contractors love my drawings. No need to pile on the headaches of hammering the latest whiz-bang version into an image I can actually use and worry about it behaving strangely every time I turn around.
You're probably saying, "This guy must think it's hell living in the Modern World." Yes, I must admit... it is. This whole discussion carries over into many aspects of my life. Ideally, I'll be dead before it spins completely out of control. People don't realize how tenuous civilization has become; Largely due to creeping complexity. I highly recommend all curious souls read Joseph Tainter's 'Collapse of Complex Societies'. It'll be an eye opener for the un-initiated. I feel our entire world is running up against the paradox of diminishing returns to increased complexity... AC is just one small example of that. The financial / monetary systems are an example writ large. you think that's working 'properly'? I think not.
My two cents in change.
The people at GS are geniuses. AC is an amazing software package, and I really love it. BUT... version 9 is the shoe that fits me best, and is the one I can walk around in all day long without getting sore feet. That's just me... your mileage may vary.
Yeah, I'm serious. Here's the full pantheon of reasons:
1. 'Lighter' files. The computer processes lighter files faster. I model EVERYTHING.. mouldings, plumbing fixtures, framing elements... even outlet plates and electrical boxes. Even for a typical house, my files get very large. The built-in layouting is too much baggage, I tried to do this with two separate files in version 12, but I can't get the layout file to read and display views from the model file. Not sure why.
2. Less 'bugginess'. I've read at least a dozen posts having to do with 'Master layout has disappeared!" or 'Master layout not printing!' or 'Placed view disappeared from layout!'. Plotmaker NEVER does that. It always works perfect. I CAN NOT have any bugginess AT ALL. Risk is too high. My claim to fame is hitting insane deadlines - I need the software to be 100% rock solid.
3. A big one - I want all editing commands on the first pane of the pet pallette. I don't use hotkeys - I'm a 'mouser'. Version 12 forces me to punch through to a second pet pallette for the basic editing commands. I never got used to it. I'm an old man... I don't like it when my tools are changed and I can't put them back to the way I'm used to.
4. Schedule windows are slow and always seem on the verge of crashing. Also, I don't like how the version 12 schedules appear on screen when in editing mode (they're sort of a WYSIWYG appearance). The version 9 schedule preview presents the data in a fixed, easy-to-read size on screen when I'm in editing mode.
5. The version 12 window library never worked right. The windows are about the only thing I haven't written custom GDL's for... yet.
6. General complexity. For me, 12 is TOO complex. I don't miss custom profiles or anything like that... I'd written GDL's years ago to handle those situations. It's pretty much the same process, too.. Make a fill of the desired shape and drag it into my custom shape object. Couple of keystrokes later, I've got what I need.
7. The version 12 publishing function is bizarre. I never got used to it. I never know if I'm going to get what I want out of it. In Plotmaker, I just highlight the layouts I want to print, hit the button, tell it what I want the file name to be, and it writes it. Badda boom badda bing. No goofy presets, 'publisher sets' or any of that crap.
My observation of conversations on the forum is that many of the version upgrades have been very small steps in functionality, with certain versions making bigger leaps. I don't fault GS for that... it's true with most software packages. I completely skipped even looking at versions 10 and 11. I did get 12 to work on a couple of projects with one of my regular clients, but had all the problems listed above. It was a pain in the butt dealing with those problems and caused delays. I Can't have that.
Maybe it's me. I don't like modern 'computerized' cars, either. If my car breaks, I want to SEE what broke.... not have a chip give me some nebulous message or screw up the fuel-air mixture because the chip shorted out. I guess I'm a bit of a Luddite. I'm not slow either... My clients are amazed at what I'm able to produce for the time spent / fees charged. That's the only real test. I have no interest in 'keeping up with the latest' when it comes to software. If the tool I have is my best means to an end, I don't re-tool it. That's where I sit presently.
Go take a look at some of my CD's on my website. They're top quality, all done in version 9. All my clients want is a tight set of docs with complete details and specs. Version 9 does that more than adequately.
I don't go around advocating using older versions here in the forum unless I'm asked about it. In this case I was, so I bore my soul.
I've got lots of work in house, I meet my deadlines and contractors love my drawings. No need to pile on the headaches of hammering the latest whiz-bang version into an image I can actually use and worry about it behaving strangely every time I turn around.
You're probably saying, "This guy must think it's hell living in the Modern World." Yes, I must admit... it is. This whole discussion carries over into many aspects of my life. Ideally, I'll be dead before it spins completely out of control. People don't realize how tenuous civilization has become; Largely due to creeping complexity. I highly recommend all curious souls read Joseph Tainter's 'Collapse of Complex Societies'. It'll be an eye opener for the un-initiated. I feel our entire world is running up against the paradox of diminishing returns to increased complexity... AC is just one small example of that. The financial / monetary systems are an example writ large. you think that's working 'properly'? I think not.
My two cents in change.
The people at GS are geniuses. AC is an amazing software package, and I really love it. BUT... version 9 is the shoe that fits me best, and is the one I can walk around in all day long without getting sore feet. That's just me... your mileage may vary.
Karl,
My pleasure - thanks for listening to the rantings of the 'Office Codger'!
But you're right - I'm probably not unique. Sometimes, a body just wants a little stability. I'm good with change and all, but am reluctant to be on the 'bleeding edge' when what I'm trying to accomplish is ordinary work-a-day stuff. When a real quantum leap occurs, I'll upgrade in a big gulp. That would be one of two (or both) scenarios in the case of AC:
1. Some sort of easy-to-intuit organic modeling function... which I might not use to make 'blobitechture', but rather to make toilets, plumbing fixtures, etc. Dwight always rails against the 'blobitechture' thing, which is perfectly reasonable from a practical standpoint, but blobs are useful for many things besides goofy buildings.
2. A holographic interface and documentation system. THAT could be WAY in the future. As was discussed in another thread, I'd like to hand the contractor my MODEL... not just a set of 2D documents. I'm already taking the 'Virtual Building' thesis / theology very seriously. I try to model with as high a 'granularity' as the software and hardware systems can achieve with reasonable processing times and data management methods. In my view, that will be the next step for us as designers / production people.
Good old Version 9 does quite a bit without bogging down the machine... So I've got no pressing reason to change at this point.
Also, all our systems in this world... whether it's CAD, politics, monetary theory, corporate governance, etc.... Need to be DECENTRALIZED and HUMANIZED. I'm really beginning to have trouble seeing the dividing line between the machines serving us, or us serving the machines. I think the machine, and rigid centralized systems in general, are really beginning to infringe on the best aspects of the human species' nature... like originality, creativity and individualism. It bothers me a lot.
Anyhow... sorry to digress. Just wanted to add some flesh since you were kind enough to not just throw me in the bin because I'm not always 'progressive'. Sincere thanks to you Karl... You're a kind man.
My pleasure - thanks for listening to the rantings of the 'Office Codger'!
But you're right - I'm probably not unique. Sometimes, a body just wants a little stability. I'm good with change and all, but am reluctant to be on the 'bleeding edge' when what I'm trying to accomplish is ordinary work-a-day stuff. When a real quantum leap occurs, I'll upgrade in a big gulp. That would be one of two (or both) scenarios in the case of AC:
1. Some sort of easy-to-intuit organic modeling function... which I might not use to make 'blobitechture', but rather to make toilets, plumbing fixtures, etc. Dwight always rails against the 'blobitechture' thing, which is perfectly reasonable from a practical standpoint, but blobs are useful for many things besides goofy buildings.
2. A holographic interface and documentation system. THAT could be WAY in the future. As was discussed in another thread, I'd like to hand the contractor my MODEL... not just a set of 2D documents. I'm already taking the 'Virtual Building' thesis / theology very seriously. I try to model with as high a 'granularity' as the software and hardware systems can achieve with reasonable processing times and data management methods. In my view, that will be the next step for us as designers / production people.
Good old Version 9 does quite a bit without bogging down the machine... So I've got no pressing reason to change at this point.
Also, all our systems in this world... whether it's CAD, politics, monetary theory, corporate governance, etc.... Need to be DECENTRALIZED and HUMANIZED. I'm really beginning to have trouble seeing the dividing line between the machines serving us, or us serving the machines. I think the machine, and rigid centralized systems in general, are really beginning to infringe on the best aspects of the human species' nature... like originality, creativity and individualism. It bothers me a lot.
Anyhow... sorry to digress. Just wanted to add some flesh since you were kind enough to not just throw me in the bin because I'm not always 'progressive'. Sincere thanks to you Karl... You're a kind man.
Still looking?
