For this reason we are mostly keeping 2D on a separate worksheet and it makes a LOT of time to create either separate schedules for each item or you need to publish schedules in undesirable formats (items laid next to each other on huge sheets instead of keeping the sheet size in A4 or A3 which is easy to handle for people even on site.
Scheduling in AC is in the stone age whereas software pricing is getting close to paying for rocket science – it is annoyingly getting out of proportions. I know you are not the right person to target this (@Fabian Keller), but maybe the development resources assigned to things like AI visualiser and similar out of reality projects (SAM is on a very similar level in my eyes) should be invested in fixing this behaviour – threads were opened in 2011 regarding this very same problem.
This problem makes the creation of professional schedules with Archicad impossible: you need a lot of information and often a level of detail (think about historic renovations) that the model is not capable to handle and it is not worth modelling – 2D annotations and extensions are needed, preferably as an overlay on model views. If these extensions might disappear without any sign, I will not subject myself to it, an equivalent inacceptable behaviour would be my invoicing software altering or deleting portions of the documents without warning me – not acceptable under any circumstances, and the failure of GS addressing this within ~15 years makes me question how long I should still be invested in this software. I suspect it would mean rewriting a significant portion of Archicad at this point, I can see no other plausible reason why such a task would be put off.
I know how to alter registry and plists, but many of my colleagues and collaborators don't and will never bother with it – this is an insufficient workaround.
On a related note, the lack of instance or type-level properties make keeping schedules in order a nightmare - you always have to go through the whole list to check whether the same IDs do not have duplicates as a result of mismatched specifications. In the case of GDL objects you could create the necessary parameters within the object (and it can work for certain construction elements like doors or windows), but in reality the average user is incapable of handling this, especially with a dedicated shift towards the Excel interoperable Properties. As a result, keeping 2D worksheets aligned with the automatically generated sheet layouts is very cumbersome. Another problem is the lack of indication of adjoining structures – walls, slabs, roofs, etc.
The most efficient way to create the intended looking schedules with the appropriate metadata and drawings is to assemble them in a publishing software (InDesign or Affinity Publisher). A coincidence, but Affinity Designer just got DWG I/O (not recommended for roundtrip communication at the moment), and BlenderBIM had a very promising webinar yesterday.
odv.hu | actively using: AC25-27 INT | Rhino6-8 | macOS @ apple silicon / win10 x64
