Does Anyone Use Library Part Maker?

[Jeff Galbraith]

I've posted a few questions on this forum related to Library Part Maker, and by the lack of solutions offered by the forum, and even the lack of comments I get the impression that very few people us it, and that even fewer people really understand how to use it at a high level.  We met with four Graphisoft programmers from Hungary in our office last month who asked for our input on the software.  We expressed the need for a powerful tool like the Family Editor for Revit, and their response was 'Have you used Library Part Maker'?  So we've been trying to us it, but we keep running into limitations and issues we can't find answers to.  

PARAM-O was advertised as the next big thing, but it doesn't appear to be getting much investment from Graphisoft in recent versions. 

I'd love to hear how (or if) others are using Library Part Maker and if there are other resources out there for getting the most out of it.  The pdf manual is a good introduction, but it's limited.

[thesleepofreason]

Unfortunately, I think your pursuit of esoteric object making knowledge is in vain - there simply isn't much more to LPM and PARAM-O than meets the eye. Quite strange for a modern CAD application so the feeling that you are missing something is understandable. Instead of developing a unified approach to object creation GS seem content with having actually useful bits and pieces spread across LPM, PARAM-O, GDL and even profile manager.

Below is my comment to the recent object making webinar:

I don't think anyone expected a presentation of new features. Still it's quite a disheartening experience as you realise that there will be very little to no development regarding dynamic modelling in the coming year. That LPM, PARAM-O, and GDL have different pros/cons and are suited for different cases is a convenient explanation as to why there isn't a unified approach in place when the reality seem to be that this is something that simply isn't prioritised.

PARAM-O was basically noted to still be a experimental feature not suited for rational workflows and yet you encourage users to invest time in it just to realise and be frustrated by it's obviously stalled development. That you don't even make the simplest default library objects such as basic shapes with PARAM-O is quite telling - why should users have any faith that it will be properly developed anytime soon?

Visual scripted dynamic/parametric modelling is becoming a dominant modality - it is frustrating to see that the application you have invested time and money in doesn't seem to prioritise it.

---

[Jeff Galbraith]

...bummer.

It seems odd that Graphisoft doesn't see the value of investing in the development of something that has already proven to be so pivotal to the workflow of such a significant segment of the BIM market as the Family Editor.  There is clearly room for Archicad to catch up to Revit in this regard, as well as potential ways they could innovate to create new value propositions for people to use their product.  

[fabioferrini]

I’ve tried the new LPM AC 26 Mac Intel version for a couple of hours, It was a great disappointment because it has too many bugs for my opinion. Especially in the management of objects at various ovm design. AC 26 MAC version has a lot of bugs too. I'm sorry to be polemical, I love this software that I use since version 4, with great enthusiasm!. Users must be respected and must have tools that work from the first hour. We are not beta testers but paying users. Fabio

[Marc H]

Hi Jeff,

My short answer is 'no', I have not yet used the new LPM. 

My work needs specialty equipment, which is scarce in the download sites, and when available, not parametric.  I tried GDL scripting a few times over my early AC years, but never had the time budget for it given my workload.  The RVT/RFA converter helped, but the resulting equipment gsm poly counts are often prohibitive (even at low setting) and the converter does not provide dimensional sizing parameters.  

PARAMO gave me the ability to create parametrically sizing objects using a visual GUI, but node selections are very limited (as noted by others as well) and I found I still needed the GDL scripting windows to refine them and add non-PARAMO provided parameters.  

With that and a bit more time to invest, I've started learning GDL (and finding it fairly enjoyable if you like that sort of thing), but starting out to grasp it took some effort (and help from others).  The help guides are fairly lean; often with no examples.  

I agree with those here in the forum that the BIM object creation GUI should be much more intuitive and fluid so we can focus on our projects, not so much time creating the custom objects we need to carry them forward.

Note:  I watched a CONTRABIM video wherein they create a barn light fixture in the LPM. Comprehensive in process, but alas, I recall the object size is fixed.

[ryejuan]

I agree with you on this one.

For me I have used LPM for mainly doing custom doors and windows that I want to be included in my door and window schedule, like @Marc H said yes the objects there are fixed size and not interactive as what we usually use in the default libraries in Archicad so you need to save the file where you have created the object and label them properly so you won't get lost when you want to modify or edit the object.

For the PARAM-O I used it created a simple objects with it but it still requires a lot of time and attention especially to us users that are not really good or familiar how its logic works. 😅

If you plan to use GDL i think it might end up consuming the whole day just to generate an object.

Profile Manager is by far the most useful tool for me in my opinion.

[Algimantas Kuprenas]

Used once with LPM (made object, was not fun). Tried to Learn GLD several times (failed) - too much time consuming, PYTHON is much easier and valuable coding language. Not sure why everyone is telling that GDL is fun, for me its not fun at all 😞 (something is wrong with me).

At the moment doing old style "Save selection as object" way. Stupid one way creation of objects, but works (not thinking much about future of these objects just making to meet todays standard)

If you wish to make perfect tool you will find 100 ways of doing that, if you don't want to make perfect object creation/editing tool you will find 100 ways not to do it.       2nd one is correct here ;). Don't worry, use tools you were using and forget about something else, otherwise you will be very disappointed.

[thesleepofreason]

I often feel that GS and a lot of AC users are or at least for long have been blinded by the power of GDL which makes it hard to see and acknowledge the need for new approaches.

[DGSketcher]

LPM is useful but a bit limited. If you are organised enough I can see it helping a lot of offices building a component library.

Param-O is so far behind Grasshopper it should never have been released. Not sure if GS were desperate for release features at the time or they thought they could out do McNeel's Rhino, either way it is in my book a waste of resources and best forgotten. 

I keep looking at Python and not seeing any reason to learn it; its applications in AC seem restrictive? But as with anything GS the problem usually comes down to the absence of a good manual. If you want people to use something make it simple to learn. The same goes for GDL, DNC's Cookbook 3, was / is a brilliant resource for learning, it's a shame it hasn't been updated over the years. Once you get the hang of GDL it isn't that difficult to use, but it does need some committed time to learn.

I still think Instancing (In place hotlinks) are the missing link to modelling 3D components. Unfortunately GS don't appear to understand their importance, despite the process being a fundamental building block of computer coding. They should work exactly the same as Hotlinks, but simply bypass the need to export a module file and you can edit them in place. No, they wouldn't be parametric or work as native doors etc, but they would offer a way to create adaptable complex 3D objects without coding.  

[thesleepofreason]

---

@DGSketcher wrote:

I still think Instancing (In place hotlinks) are the missing link to modelling 3D components. Unfortunately GS don't appear to understand their importance, despite the process being a fundamental building block of computer coding. They should work exactly the same as Hotlinks, but simply bypass the need to export a module file and you can edit them in place. No, they wouldn't be parametric or work as native doors etc, but they would offer a way to create adaptable complex 3D objects without coding.  

---

Yes, this kind of thinking is what is needed for taking AC forward and it is a shame that GS is unwilling or unable to apply it. A proper "container" entity around geometric elements would not only be a link to easy creation of components but also a link to a new approach to modelling in general where information entities are separated from their shape representations. The benefits of such an approach compared to the current are obvious.