Problem with Railing object

[Gerald Hoffman]

I have placed numerous railing objects in a rectangular form. These were selected from included Favorites railings. When closing the railing on the fourth side the railing ends shoot past each other and won't join properly. See screen shots of plan and 3D view.

 

 

[runxel · Accepted solution]

A well known problem. Nobody thought about that 😄

Official recommendation is to put the end not at a corner, where it would need to miter, but somewhere on a straight, so it's less obvious.

[Gerald Hoffman]

Thanks. I guess that’s a solution but it would be better if they fixed the problem as it indicates an underlying issue which may also show up in other circumstances when least desired.

cheers,

[Potato Farmer]

This was reported during the beta period of the railing tool’s initial launch. It was acknowledged but never addressed, then or since.

[Jim Allen]

I've been using Runxel's solution since I discovered this issue.

There are a number of problems with railings.

There's a discontinuity between the location of the setting-out line in 2d and 3d and there's the weird gooseneck connections that the tool always wants to make at corners.

The bug where curved complex profile rails weren't working when the endpoints did not share the same z axis seems to have been fixed though.

[Gerald Hoffman]

I've been a Archicad fan, promoter in my own circle, and user for going on 30 years now.

There are a few things that bug me about Graphisoft and this is one of them. Given their obvious talents shown in the development of the software they sometimes seem to leave a job 90% done. It points to a problem that is probably partly resource related but also indicates a lack of will to finish the job before getting on to the next shiny object. For the everyday user it is frustrating and time consuming to have to find work-arounds for tools that don't quite do that job as advertised.

Sorry for the rant but when something like this is known and they have the skills to make it right but won't fix it, it bothers me. I wouldn't hire a person that had this propensity in their work ethic.

Cheers,

[Jim Allen]

I agree completely!

There are lots of things that really need incremental improvements.

I've been highlighting the fact that there are some very, very simple issues with the photovoltaic panel component that can be fixed in 30 minutes - but haven't. It doesn't display the panel area, so it means you can't assign a notional w/m2 figure and get an immediate calculation for the total PV output in a schedule.

I fixed this (my modified component allows me to do this) but it would be even better if the component had an option for a 2d label showing the area or output.

There are other issues in components that could similarly be fixed. The parking component doesn't allow gradients in both X and Y axes - which it really ought to have. It doesn't have options for symbols either. What would also be good would be a prefix/suffix for numbering so you could label zonal parking.

My GDL skills are not up to fixing these things, but when (if) they are, I'll post them on BIMComponents.

But GS ought to be doing this.

This is caused I think because of a disconnect with the user base. I would really like GS management to perhaps allocate maybe 10% (or whatever) development time to incremental improvements.