Become a registered object developer

[Anonymous]

This is a spin off of the topic Custom GDL objects for FREE.

ztaskai wrote:

Master wrote:

Zsolt: no problem, I think it is better that GS takes care of its own library, than there is more time for developing ArchiCAD. I do think though, that a little more stimulation for independent object developers would be good for ArchiCAD. You need to understand that objects and GDL are one of the most powerful assets of ArchiCAD. There are a lot of topics on this forum, demanding more action on the GDL front, like this one on Updating the Object Depository.
Maybe this might be a good idea: A reward for the best object uploaded to the Object depository each month (picked at random or by vote), it could fill up the depository rapidly. Or the possibility to become a registered object developer (I know you can become a registered API developer), would make it saver for ArchiCAD users to approach developers.

I like your ideas a lot. Renewing Object Depository into something more social is one of my favorite topics. Unfortunately, I don't have the momentum to set up such a multidisciplinary project like that - yet. I will try harder next year.

Then is a good time to discuss what we can do about it. Updating the Object Depository discussion here.
I have got some more ideas. When you make object developers register, GS can enforce rules about how to set up objects. For instance every object must have Parameters for Listing, or a detail level. It can give more constency to objects.

But are object developers interested in becoming registered?

[owen]

GDL is broken. I'm pretty handy with it myself but my god it is painful and 99% of architects rightly would want nothing to do with it.

Graphisoft would be much better off putting whatever resources they can into completely overhauling ArchiCAD's scripting interface - something along the lines of Grasshopper is where they should be looking. Again and again, until they get it.

Here are some quick videos illustrating how easy it is and how applicable it is to real-world architecture (not just that 1% like Zaha):


Figuring out the triangulation on a complex 3D curved roof

Parametrically defining the storey spacing and rotation of tower floorplates

[Anonymous]

Hi Owen,

You are missing the point here. Although Grasshopper looks impressive and I agree GDL can have a overhaul, I don't see architects doing any of this, not in Grasshopper, not in ArchiCAD.

An object is a small piece in a large building. As an architect you do not want to spend your time reading through manuals and fiddling around for days. Making an parametric object for each of the infinite amount of elements in architecture. An architect wants to create buildings. The software is just a necessary tool.
That where the parametric and visual qualities of GDL come into play. An architect just has to open an object, put in his values (preferably in an nice UserInterface) and done.
Now these objects can be made by object developers. I feel that architects are reluctant to buy objects from developers and I want to make it easier and saver for architects to call in their help. That why I see a necessity for registering ArchiCAD object developer.
Ofcourse when making objects is easier, prices can be lowered.

[owen]

Master wrote:
That where the parametric and visual qualities of GDL come into play. An architect just has to open an object, put in his values (preferably in an nice UserInterface) and done.
Now these objects can be made by object developers. I feel that architects are reluctant to buy objects from developers and I want to make it easier and saver for architects to call in their help. That why I see a necessity for registering ArchiCAD object developer.

I wasn't missing your point ... i just chose to address what i think is the bigger problem with GDL and that is its user-friendliness.

I do support what you are trying to do - increase the number of quality GDL objects out there, and provide a central point of availability - but the sticking point is 'Registered Developer' with Graphisoft. This just sounds like another revenue stream for Graphisoft that will not necessarily have many real benefits - e.g there would need to be a major improvement in the tools, training and documentation for GDL. Just look at the Graphisoft Registered Consultants program .. not exactly a shining beacon of success and for good reason - no value for money.

Master wrote:
Ofcourse when making objects is easier, prices can be lowered.

This is what i was getting at. Graphisoft needs to make object creation more accessible, i.e easier. Doing so will massively widen the pool of people able to and interested in creating objects. Document some robust object creation standards (Graphisofts Lib Dev guide is lacking) and decent training material for different levels of user.

Once this happens you can then worry about enacting some sort of quality control on a central object repository. Until then i think you are just further reducing the developer pool - it is already small enough.

Graphisoft doesn't seem to understand that custom objects (and better parametrics at all project scales) are of major importance to ArchiCAD's future. They do not have the resources to create everything anyone could ever need and so they need to provide the easy-to-use tools to open it up to the wider community.

One last thing, slightly OT but related to ease-of-use - the thing i like about Grasshopper is its drag 'n drop modular nature. All those functions you can string together are available in the text-based RhinoScript (GDL) but with Grasshopper they are self contained packages of working code. You do not need to type out several lines and make sure the formatting, punctuation, etc are all correct. No stupid typos or formatting errors will bring your entire GDL script to a standstill. You simply plug in your input values and they work. No input and they just sit there and let the rest of the working script function (unlike GDL where you have to comment them out or it breaks your script).


cheers,

os

[Anonymous]

owen wrote:
increase the number of quality GDL objects out there, and provide a central point of availability

That is exactly my main objective.

owen wrote:
Document some robust object creation standards (Graphisofts Lib Dev guide is lacking) and decent training material for different levels of user.

True, GS documentation skills are inadequate.

owen wrote:
Once this happens you can then worry about enacting some sort of quality control on a central object repository. Until then i think you are just further reducing the developer pool - it is already small enough.

Another good point, but I am trying to make the best of it right nów. I am sure GS does acknowledge the necessity of improving GDL, but I do not want to wait on that.

owen wrote:
They do not have the resources to create everything anyone could ever need and so they need to provide the easy-to-use tools to open it up to the wider community.

That is why we need to make creating objects popular.

[owen]

Master wrote:

owen wrote:
Once this happens you can then worry about enacting some sort of quality control on a central object repository. Until then i think you are just further reducing the developer pool - it is already small enough.

Another good point, but I am trying to make the best of it right nów. I am sure GS does acknowledge the necessity of improving GDL, but I do not want to wait on that.

Fair enough ... we have already been waiting a long time, and quite some more to do yet i fear

Master wrote:

owen wrote:
They do not have the resources to create everything anyone could ever need and so they need to provide the easy-to-use tools to open it up to the wider community.

That is why we need to make creating objects popular.

Which also unfortunately means returning to point 1 - making it accessible, perhaps 'fun' even .. not like current state of extracting teeth without the anaesthetic.

Who knows, maybe if they did have a registered GDL developer program they could use the fees to fund resourcing the overhaul of the scripting interface? I would sign-up in a minute if i knew this would get it delivered in the next 18-24 months (and be part of a testing program of course )

[Anonymous]

Hi Folks,

All these matters have been fully discussed many times in the near past...

I guess that we can all assume that a Graphical GDL Editor is essential for the future of the GDL itself...

Grasshopper seems to point to a good direction, and I'm pretty sure that GS is aware of that.

From what I've seen from GS products (TW2, MEP, VBE, etc...), I refuse to think that at this right moment, at GS headquarters, there is no task force group trying to achieve this.

Right now... All we (community) can do is promote what we have, which is a not-perfect but effective 2d/3d parametric language...
and as Master Script think and act, we don't have the luxury of just sit, wait and complain...
We have to promote what we have now... If not, even a hypothetical up coming graphical GDL editor would not live to see its release.

My 2cents.

[owen]

Braza

You're right ... this subject has been done to death. I just can't help biting everytime it is thrown out there though

Anyway i agree we have to make do with what we have today and not keep holding out for the next version ... and so i support any activities to improve the amount (and standard) of GDL content out there.

They must not however distract Graphisoft from the pressing need for a better GDL editor - that is the only real thing that will make any big difference to the application of GDL in the community.

Braza wrote:
From what I've seen from GS products (TW2, MEP, VBE, etc...), I refuse to think that at this right moment, at GS headquarters, there is no task force group trying to achieve this.

Unfortunately i think the opposite .. they are spread very thin at the moment with all these new tools (which noone was really asking for BTW). There are no resources left for the not-insignificant task of overhauling GDL. All their new tools appear to be bypassing GDL entirely (Curtain Wall, Complex Profiles, etc). Not encouraging really

[Anonymous]

owen wrote:
All their new tools appear to be bypassing GDL entirely (Curtain Wall, Complex Profiles, etc).

Exactly!... If you look through a different perspective... Perhaps this is a good sign.

[owen]

Braza wrote:

owen wrote:
All their new tools appear to be bypassing GDL entirely (Curtain Wall, Complex Profiles, etc).

Exactly!... If you look through a different perspective... Perhaps this is a good sign.

not really if it means relying even more on what tools Graphisoft choose to develop. A better scripting language that can hook into any tool or geometrical function in ArchiCAD will allow users to create parametric tools when they find something is not there or not working in what Graphisoft provides.

The way they are headed seems more a case of providing easy-to-use but really 'dumb' interfaces like the Profile Manager (non-parametric fills) and then relying on programmers to build complex functions as AddOns via the API. If GDL is bad enough C/C++ is not stepping in the right direction to encourage content creation!

Anyway .. OT again and i agree this has been done to death many times before so I will finish by saying the current state of affairs is not at all encouraging to prospective developers who can see GDL seems to be dying on the vine due to lack of development from GS (and no sign of change). Why invest time (i.e money) in a stagnant system whose support seems to be dying in even on its home turf.

Having a 'Registered Developer Program' will (IMO) mean absolutely nothing if it does not coincide with some real concrete signs from Graphisoft that scripting for ArchiCAD (not via the API) is going to be made much, much easier and provide the ability to really extend what people can do in the program. It will just be preaching to the converted otherwise.

I do not think there is a lack of trust in the abilities of object developers out there. There is however a lack of understanding of what GDL can actually provide due to its opaqueness, a lack of 'wow look what it can do' examples and the fact that it really is lagging years behind where it should be - leading to a lack of trust in Graphisofts continuing support and development.