A R C H I C A D 1 5 - it's gotta be asked.

[rob2218]

Ok, it's gotta be asked unless it's already been asked.
When? this year?
What can we speculate (wikileaks) the improvements would be to?

[Anonymous]

Yes well we've ended up buying door and window builder from Cadimage because of that....

[Anonymous]

rwallis wrote:
Back in '08 this damning slide was issued, and since then it has always been a reminder of how backward ArchiCAD is.

Dense old me! Could you walk us through the "damning" part? What is the significance of the "*" in the matrix? Considering it's a Nemetschek slide, I am curious whether this was the last one in a sequence, a middle one, etc. What was the context? How do you want us to interpret whatever damnation you identify in the slide? (beyond being a bad thing, of course).

[Anonymous]

Praise the lard.
Oh for gods sake, STAIRS!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

lec1212 wrote:
Praise the lard.
Oh for gods sake, STAIRS!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't see STAIRS in the slide.

[Anonymous]

didrik wrote:

lec1212 wrote:
Praise the lard.
Oh for gods sake, STAIRS!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't see STAIRS in the slide.

It's a cry (pleading).

[Anonymous]

didrik wrote:

rwallis wrote:
Back in '08 this damning slide was issued, and since then it has always been a reminder of how backward ArchiCAD is.

Dense old me! Could you walk us through the "damning" part? What is the significance of the "*" in the matrix? Considering it's a Nemetschek slide, I am curious whether this was the last one in a sequence, a middle one, etc. What was the context? How do you want us to interpret whatever damnation you identify in the slide? (beyond being a bad thing, of course).

What I don't see is how they can say ArchiCAD lacks parametrics and solid modeling. These have been there since v3.43 when I started.

[Jere]

Sightline wrote:
What about improving windows and doors? These are the tools that really slow down my production timeline.
Many times that I try to find the right window or door, I end up building custom components. And I am talking about well known US brands.
They also need an improved graphic interface for these two. That you can tweak its parts in 3D or elevation instead going trough endless written parameters inside the window dialog box.

Sadly, I have been really disappointed of the latest two realizes. My hope is that ArchiCAD improves in relation to its huge competition, not just having solutions for big companies, but showing exciting features that fit everyone's needs.

Diego

I'm not sure if you're alluding to Teamwork 2 with your last statement, but I'm in a small firm (only three licenses) and the new Teamwork is a godsend. It is very, very good and has really made things easier for us on a mid-size project we're working on.

[TMA_80]

Hi!

Matthew wrote:
What I don't see is how they can say ArchiCAD lacks parametrics and solid modeling. These have been there since v3.43 when I started.

I think what they meant by parametric is about linking construction entities not only parametric objects ( as even sketchup could make parametric objects from v7)

As for solid modeling, I always thought ArchiCAD was a surface modeler and it was making sort of cap to fake a solid object...was i wrong ?


PS: I'm also starving for more AC15 news...not that vital though

[Anonymous]

TMA_80 wrote:
As for solid modeling, I always thought ArchiCAD was a surface modeler and it was making sort of cap to fake a solid object...was i wrong ?

Yes, I think so. What would you count as a non-fake solid object? A fake one? Two examples would be helpful.

[Nando Mogollon]

TMA_80 wrote:
Hi!

Matthew wrote:
What I don't see is how they can say ArchiCAD lacks parametrics and solid modeling. These have been there since v3.43 when I started.

I think what they meant by parametric is about linking construction entities not only parametric objects ( as even sketchup could make parametric objects from v7)

As for solid modeling, I always thought ArchiCAD was a surface modeler and it was making sort of cap to fake a solid object...was i wrong ?

Hi All

Regarding the "Solid" subject: I'm not an expert but I understand that the only pure solid engine in the market is Siemmens ParaSolid. All the rest are mimics of a solid. Nevertheless In Archicad here are both extrusions or hollow 3D geometries, and Solid 3D geometries. I don't think it makes any difference for us to claim that our model is not Solid Enough.
I guess the question for an expert would be: Why do I need real solids?

On the Parametric subject: There is one basic feature of Revit modelling engine: The relative position of the elements on space is parametric.
Let me explain, a Wall in both ArchiCAD and Revit can have parametric width/composite, Height, Cutfill, Materials, and others. Only Revit recognizes the length of the wall as a parameter as well as its xyz position in space and/or relative to other elements. This is the reason why you can change the dimensions linked to an object/wall/slab/beam/etc... and you can change its parameters. You can also write formulas on the parameters in order to create proportional changes: height of a beam relative to its span for example.
This argument is used by a lot of badly informed Revit users to affirm that ArchiCAD lacks parametric capabilities.
I think I can say that ArchiCAD's parametric capabilities have a different approach. The GDL open code is what makes parametric objects in ArchiCAD powerful but hard to use at the same time. GDL is by no means Architect Friendly.
GDL is a deadly machine gun: very useful when pointed in the right direction. Terrible as friendly fire.

Regards