AC15 / Modelling

[Anonymous]

So now we know ArchiCAD 15 and 16 are to do with modelling, similar to the way 13 and 14 were centred around teamwork.

This will be interesting to watch, as the implementation will affect whether solo users see this as “yet another update for the big end of town”, or whether it has a general benefit to the usability of the program, and therefore is beneficial to all users.

I’ve long held the view that the 3D engine in ArchiCAD is archaic and in need of urgent overhaul. Not only is it slow, but the ability to create complex objects is limited to GDL scripting, and then there is the whole disconnect between the 3d model and 2d view. Specific complaints might include:
• Single threaded processing (AC needs to maximise use of mainstream multicore CPUs)
• Main accessibility via GDL scripting irrelevant to majority of users (AC needs a good GUI for modelling - urgently).
• Buggy SEOs that magically affect a 3D view without modifying the 2D view. (AC needs a robust modelling toolbox including nurb type shapes, with reliable transformations, that are graphically apparent in the final object).
• Complex model elements do not relate to the ArchiCAD toolset. (Creating complex walls etc still need to behave as walls and be able to receive doors and windows etc - think complex profiles on steroids. One of significant flaws in GS last attempt, the Maxonform add-on, was the way “intelligent’ objects lost their properties and became part of a dumb amorphous mass – and so could not be scheduled, dimensioned etc.).
• Inability to set up relationships between objects

Observations of the pace of development and resources available at GS suggest that they are struggling to keep up with the competition. Two years of AC updates were consumed implementing and fixing Teamwork, and we understand at least 3-4 years development preceded that. Other parts of the program have slipped into irrelevancy (e.g. Lightworks– though fortunately one can get around that with a plethora of capable renderers).

Nemescheck as a group has committed to IFCs for interoperability and so we see both GS and Vectorworks (VW) committing to that standard. Returning to the topic of modelling, VW have embraced Siemens Parametric technology going forward. In an ideal world I would hope GS could also embrace such – not only offering a terrific boost to AC, but also strengthening the Nemescheck group through a far more powerful interoperability than IFCs offer. We shall wait and see what unfolds next year….
Interested to hear what other users have to say on the topic....

[Bricklyne Clarence]

kiwicodes wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
... and stripped away all the unnecessary (for conceptual design) bloat, and then used the remaining framework or chasis to add on to it new Conceptual massing and free-form modeling tools which Revit proper does not have.

I'm not sure how well you know Revit but Revit already has all those Conceptual Massing and free form modeling tools now along with the Energy tools. Actually they were introduced in Revit 2010, so that is not new.

I know Revit well enough to point out that the Concept Massing tools are only available in the Concept design environment (CDE - introduced in Revit 2010), but they have not made their way to the Project environment.

Meaning that while you could create Conceptual masses and studies in the CDE your ability to manipulate and edit them or even create new ones in the Project environment was/is limited.

Vasari seems to be an attempt by them to eliminate this Concept Design/Project Environment bifurcation and to consolidate the tools with teh work environment.

Now when I said that it seems to be "built on top of Revit" (whether you call that "a stripped down" version of full Revit or not) what I meant was in line with what they describe here in the description web-page for Vasari :

" Project Vasari is an easy to use standalone application built on the same technology as the Autodesk Revit platform."

Again, I don't understand where you have a problem with my definition of it or how that differs from how you described it, or with what's written on their own project page.

Digital Project by Gehry Technologies is built on top of CATIA (Dassault) which means it uses the same Engine and interface mostly, and while it is indeed a stripped down version of CATIA, it also has certain architectural modules that CATIA does not have.

Virtual Constructor (VICO) is (or rather was, while they still had a modeling component) built on top of ArchiCAD's modeling Engine while also sharing aspects of its interface. And while it was in some respects a stripped version of ArchiCAD, it nonetheless has additional program elements that ArchiCAD lacks (MEP, Structural etc).

Ditto Maxonform (when it existed) in reference to Cinema 4D.

Et cetera, Et cetera.......

[Anonymous]

A few responses:
- I hope it is more than just blobitecture (or whatever). Proper modelling tools should benefit all users... There is stuff I want to do that is downright painful at the moment. GDL toolbox offerred some functionality till it was pulled. And even if general modelling can be done without resorting to GDL scripting it would be a huge boost. I concur with Clarence we are architects not programmers
- I hope it is properly integrated into the BIM model - an overlay only available in certain phases would be a sad joke - back to the future with Maxxonform - if they did.

[Anonymous]

In Archicad are intelligent entities like wall , slab ,... accessories objects and dull objects like chairs . A modeling revolution is (in my opinion ) developing more intelligent , communicative entities wich can be detailed documented without effort . Logical , easy to put dimensioning and modify , clean sections on models . I think archicad have not a proper library yet , a weak database of construction elements or quantity lists for different standards. Harmonize with different standards , complex libraries and list is a easy way to increase productivity . Graphisoft put the community to do this job and i think is wrong. We need a department of Graphisoft to make gdl to become a real power , well documented - many useful libraries , list , routines .

[Anonymous]

Don wrote:

Richard wrote:
Great. Now I will be able to do blob-itecture. Why is this useful?

I would be far happier with an interior elevation tool that actually worked properly. Or integrated framing that worked properly in accordance with U.S. framing standards. Or a calculate menu that was useful and understandable. Or...

I don't need to (or actually want to) do blobitecture either, but it would be nice to have modeling tools that at the very least were consistent from plan to elevation to section and perspective.

Does anyone know what was actually discussed?

Don

I'm still curious- what was actually said?

[Anonymous]

I am also interested what may have been said.

AC really needs some improvement. GDL, stairmaker, and easy z-axis rotation are just a few of the places I need Archicad to be MUCH better in.

My office doesn't use Teamwork so we've seen little improvement over the last couple of iterations. Mind you, there have been some nice minor improvements. (Such as the selection box being tinted yellow instead of merely outlined. I wish that had been done a long time ago.)

But what I really want is the slow-down issues of AC14 updating to be addressed. I have to shut down now about every four to six hours and restart my computer otherwise AC will crawl along. Imagine clicking on something and waiting on average 10-40 seconds for the tool to load into the INFO BOX. AC 11-13 didn't do this. And I've tested it out on a couple of different machines and on fresh installs of windows and it's a problem regardless.

[muril00ng]

I will pray every day that this evolution occurs from version 15.
Especially on the stairmaker...

[TMA_80]

And in the meantime, Autodesk has released an independant"freeform" parametric modeling application called Vasari (in project phase ), actually it is the massing part of Revit.

the link :
http://labs.blogs.com/its_alive_in_the_lab/2010/11/project-vasari-technology-preview-now-available.h...

[Anonymous]

The whole modelling thing has totally run away from GS. I fear that we might get too little too late - but am always hopeful for a surprise.

IMHO we have to have something better than modelling tools for massing - they have to be able to be accessible in all the tools.

If we end up with a maxonform add-on type situation it will reflect on how far behind AC has slipped....
there is actually a lot riding on this particular 'update'....

[Anonymous]

rwallis wrote:
...there is actually a lot riding on this particular 'update'....

Man, you can say again.

But for me it would be, as mentioned before in this thread:
1. A framing tool based on U.S. framing practices. A WOW-er for sure!

Plus:
2. And a respectable stair tool with controllable structural aspects.
Read; especially winders.
3. More complex profile advancements.
For my two cents, the rest would be candy,(but nice).

[Anonymous]

Has anyone actually reported what has been said yet??
... lots of speculation.

Yes, modeling tools need work. To an extent I take it for granted because I use various cadimage add-ons (which are great).
There seem to be 2 currents in this thread - one re free-form modeling and the other on more practical modeling like stairs and framing.
Together they are a v tall order for GS but I would think that the practical ones are no-brainers and would be way more valuable for architects. The thing that irritates me a little is that they already exist - produced by cadimage, cigraph, encina and others ... which is why I have previously advocated acquisition as a shortcut for some features. Yes it takes cash, borrowed or otherwise but just think of the loss of mindshare, perceptions of falling behind and actual losses of sales and upgrades - not only among existing customers but to those who choose to go elsewhere.

I would be very disappointed if GS came up with a bunch of great but late tools that just catch up with third party offerings.
I would love to see them upgrade to a modern modeling kernel like parasolid. Even though I personally have little use for fancy free-form tools there is an argument to be made for them for some roofs, facades etc (that actually get built).
So judging by what I understand about GS's split development teams we should know one way or another by AC16.

In the mean time we have to get back to work!