Hello Bricklyne Clarence, sorry but I couldn't grasp the pattern behind your reasoning, for the algorithmic design, Graphisoft is wrong to rely on the best software in circulation(Grasshopper) that need a supplementary fee instead of having an internal(but extremely limited) solution as Dynamo, and on the contrary about rendering aspect, Graphisoft should be blamed because offer a free and really good render engine(and I want to underline that cinerender is miles far than Revit internal render engine), instead of developing a bridge to V-Ray, that anyway costs about 500 Euros(and in addition of this, I think that only ChaosGroup could decide to develop V-Ray for archicad…..I can't find how could Graphisoft enter in this decision…)…... 
……..honestly seems to me, from your argument, that whatever Graphisoft chooses is wrong!...eheheheheh
I'm just kidding, and probaly you know more about me about version 22, anyway your vision seems to me too pessimisthic, completely agree about the need of scripting….or some other way to bypass gdl for the simple task that imply some sort of "parametricity", and also more care for Windows based users, as you said better multimonitor support, or better scaling with high dpi monitor(on this side it's hard to digest that Blender scale perfectly, or that all the news input peripherals, as pen or surface dialare not considered at all, and on the contrary support for mac touch bar came out 5 minute after presentation of the new macbbok!!!
)
On the other aspect as I said, I think that is really preferable to have even greater integration with Grasshopper, than trying to reinvent the wheel, as for Dynamo(or worst Vectorworks Marionette!), and on the rendering side, to reach higher level of realism, before of thinking about V-Ray, or Corona Render, I think that Graphisoft should work on the possibility to enlarge mapping capability(ad example map each face of the elements, split the face into several material, UVW mapping or some possibility to move texture as for morph...ecc), and to permit the use of proxies to increment the polygonal count.
Francesco
……..honestly seems to me, from your argument, that whatever Graphisoft chooses is wrong!...eheheheheh
I'm just kidding, and probaly you know more about me about version 22, anyway your vision seems to me too pessimisthic, completely agree about the need of scripting….or some other way to bypass gdl for the simple task that imply some sort of "parametricity", and also more care for Windows based users, as you said better multimonitor support, or better scaling with high dpi monitor(on this side it's hard to digest that Blender scale perfectly, or that all the news input peripherals, as pen or surface dialare not considered at all, and on the contrary support for mac touch bar came out 5 minute after presentation of the new macbbok!!!
)On the other aspect as I said, I think that is really preferable to have even greater integration with Grasshopper, than trying to reinvent the wheel, as for Dynamo(or worst Vectorworks Marionette!), and on the rendering side, to reach higher level of realism, before of thinking about V-Ray, or Corona Render, I think that Graphisoft should work on the possibility to enlarge mapping capability(ad example map each face of the elements, split the face into several material, UVW mapping or some possibility to move texture as for morph...ecc), and to permit the use of proxies to increment the polygonal count.
Francesco
You tube makes entertaining viewing just now... 
From what I'm seeing I think GS have made some significant improvements and if that includes bug fixes to solidify the core program I'm happy. Eradicating bugs and smoothing the workflow will have greater productivity gains than any bells & whistles new feature in my little world.
From what I'm seeing I think GS have made some significant improvements and if that includes bug fixes to solidify the core program I'm happy. Eradicating bugs and smoothing the workflow will have greater productivity gains than any bells & whistles new feature in my little world.
strangeday wrote:
Hello Bricklyne Clarence, sorry but I couldn't grasp the pattern behind your reasoning, for the algorithmic design, Graphisoft is wrong to rely on the best software in circulation(Grasshopper) that need a supplementary fee instead of having an internal(but extremely limited) solution as Dynamo,....
My argument regarding the Grasshopper versus Dynamo situation is simply this.
Graphisoft are not the ones who develop Grasshopper. McNeel are.
And the only way to access it is through their software Rhino, which is what actually hosts Grasshopper (a plugin for Rhino, that's now integrated fully into Rhino as per version 6).
So as an ArchiCAD user, in order to take advantage of, or use Grasshopper, you not only have to learn Grasshopper, but also Rhino as well since there's no way you're going to be able to navigate anything in Grasshopper without being familiar with (at least the basics of) how Rhino works.
So really you have to learn two whole other programs aside from ArchiCAD.
Compared with Dynamo which already works inside Revit and which means they only have to learn Dynamo which works inside an environment they're already familiar with.
Now I get why they decided to do it this way. I also get the whole argument of not trying to re-invent the wheel when someone else has done it better.
I get all that.
Furthermore, as someone who's used Rhino for almost as long as I've used ArchiCAD and who's used Grasshopper from almost when it was developed including for my Thesis project in grad school, none of this affects me in the least bit.
But knowing how long it took me to learn and master those two outside of ArchiCAD and the effort involved, I'm pretty certain that it's likely to be an impediment to anyone wanting to learn or use the Grasshopper-Rhino-ArchiCAD bridge but who doesn't know anything about them.
Just as an aside, almost 15 years ago on THIS very same forum, I actually suggested or requested they develop a bridge or a plugin that allows ArchiCAD to read Rhino geometry or at least import and export for efficiently , and that was well over a decade before they actually did it and at a time when I was being dismissed for saying so as it was deemed unnecessary since "most architects don't use that."
Look where we are now.
If you don't make an effort to keep pace with (or stay ahead of) circumstances on the ground, sometimes the catch up with you and leave you behind.
strangeday wrote:Again, I'm not slamming them for the decision to go with Cinerender since it was already available as a Maxon render engine and they both fall under the Nemetschek banner, but facts are what they are.
..... and on the contrary about rendering aspect, Graphisoft should be blamed because offer a free and really good render engine(and I want to underline that cinerender is miles far than Revit internal render engine), instead of developing a bridge to V-Ray, that anyway costs about 500 Euros(and in addition of this, I think that only ChaosGroup could decide to develop V-Ray for archicad…..I can't find how could Graphisoft enter in this decision…)…...
Vray is a vastly superior engine to Cinerender.
So is, REvit's de facto internal engine which is actually Mentalray. ALSO superior to Cinerender.
strangeday wrote:Take a look at my comments from last year regarding their decision to upgrade the stair tool.
……..honestly seems to me, from your argument, that whatever Graphisoft chooses is wrong!...eheheheheh
I give them credit when it's deserved but I also hold them to account when I feel they're falling behind.
strangeday wrote:I don't know any more than you do about Version 22.
I'm just kidding, and probaly you know more about me about version 22, anyway your vision seems to me too pessimisthic, completely agree about the need of scripting….or some other way to bypass gdl for the simple task that imply some sort of "parametricity", and also more care for Windows based users, as you said better multimonitor support, or better scaling with high dpi monitor(on this side it's hard to digest that Blender scale perfectly, or that all the news input peripherals, as pen or surface dialare not considered at all, and on the contrary support for mac touch bar came out 5 minute after presentation of the new macbbok!!!
On the other aspect as I said, I think that is really preferable to have even greater integration with Grasshopper, than trying to reinvent the wheel, as for Dynamo(or worst Vectorworks Marionette!), and on the rendering side, to reach higher level of realism, before of thinking about V-Ray, or Corona Render, I think that Graphisoft should work on the possibility to enlarge mapping capability(ad example map each face of the elements, split the face into several material, UVW mapping or some possibility to move texture as for morph...ecc), and to permit the use of proxies to increment the polygonal count.
Francesco
But my opinion was based on what I saw on those cached pages and that was what had me concerned.
Also, I've been using this program for long enough to know that for the most part, my comments or criticism (however harsh or negative you deem them to be) at the end of the day essentially don't really matter.
They do what they want to do anyway and regardless of what users say or request.
This is just an avenue and opportunity for me to vent, that's all.
Just to clarify that GS
We might not always get what we want when we want it but they try to grant our wishes as fast as they can.
If you want your opinions to have more weight, instead of complaining once a year that they don't listen or that they are falling behind then you can participate in the Beta by signing up for it (benefit of using the next release early and get some hints of what might come in the future) and there you can sign on to GDC by asking (or getting invited) or you can be the last in line and just post here.
Do not assume that writing wishes and complaining in ACTalk is not worth it but it is not the same as having an argument with one of the developers.
They also listen to individual users and not only to big companies since I as a sole practitioner have gotten the devs to implement or change direction on a "feature" on more than one occasion.
Wanted to get this out of the way since it looks like we have started on the yearly "
We might not always get what we want when we want it but they try to grant our wishes as fast as they can.
If you want your opinions to have more weight, instead of complaining once a year that they don't listen or that they are falling behind then you can participate in the Beta by signing up for it (benefit of using the next release early and get some hints of what might come in the future) and there you can sign on to GDC by asking (or getting invited) or you can be the last in line and just post here.
Do not assume that writing wishes and complaining in ACTalk is not worth it but it is not the same as having an argument with one of the developers.
They also listen to individual users and not only to big companies since I as a sole practitioner have gotten the devs to implement or change direction on a "feature" on more than one occasion.
Wanted to get this out of the way since it looks like we have started on the yearly "
ejrolon wrote:You know (and I recognise this pushback was coming ever since I typed that comment), I was just in the Wishlist section not that long ago, in a different thread from one that I had started (Requesting full Multi-monitor capability, for PC users just like Mac users have had for a few versions now) and it came to light that an issue that someone had made a wish for (i.e. for the walking line direction on the Stair Tool to be storey-sensitive) had actually been brought up during the beta-testing phase, and that those concerns were brushed away by developers who insisted that based on their knowledge most users were accustomed to the Walking line pointing in one direction (lower floor to higher floor) regardless of which storey you were on relative to the stair.
Just to clarify that GSdoes listento its customers here, in the Beta Site and in GDC (Graphisoft Development Consultation Program) but there are some limitations and time frames that we as users cannot change or that we don't know about. For example the Stair tool was announced 3 years ago in GDC, was released a year ago, and was updated this year and we could add a minimum of a year of work before GDC for a total of 5 years dev which in computer terms is an eternity.
We might not always get what we want when we want it but they try to grant our wishes as fast as they can.
If you want your opinions to have more weight, instead of complaining once a year that they don't listen or that they are falling behind then you can participate in the Beta by signing up for it (benefit of using the next release early and get some hints of what might come in the future) and there you can sign on to GDC by asking (or getting invited) or you can be the last in line and just post here.
Do not assume that writing wishes and complaining in ACTalk is not worth it but it is not the same as having an argument with one of the developers.
They also listen to individual users and not only to big companies since I as a sole practitioner have gotten the devs to implement or change direction on a "feature" on more than one occasion.
Just wanted to get this out of the way since it looks like we have started on the yearly "GS Bashing Since They Didn't Do What I Wanted So They Will Go Out Of Business" (GBSTDDWIWSTWGOOB for short) phase of the release cycle.
Which was news to me at least, (and the people "complaining",... as you would probably put it, ...in that thread) based on my experience in different markets I've worked in and also just based on old-fashioned logic with how we read drawings and organize information.
Maybe I'm wrong and its just a North American thing, but nowhere can I ever recall seeing a representation of a stair on a second or third floor for example with the arrow pointing towards you, while the lettering indicates "DN".
It just makes no sense. I personally thought it was a bug, until I stumbled onto that thread to learn that it was intentional to do it that way. Blew my mind away.
It's a silly and possibly inconsequential example but one that nonetheless seems to unintentionally highlight the perception that even being a beta-tester doesn't exactly help in getting your views or concerns pushed through or heard (or acted upon) by the developers.
At least until they release the version and then get different feedback from a wider audience.
So maybe they've resolved this one issue in the upcoming version 22 - we'll see in some weeks, I guess - but do you see where I'm coming from?
There was an issue. They raised it. It was ignored and the developers did their own thing anyway.
And those were beta-testers.
And as for the "complaining", as I pointed out to someone else, please take a moment to take a look at my comments regarding version 21 when it was announced and released. Particularly regarding the stair tool.
I mean if you're going to ignore the times I actually give them credit and praise them when they get things right and only focus on the negative criticism, then what's the point of all this at all?
Because it just indicates that we should only speak up only when we have positive things to say, otherwise either just shut up or join the beta-testing group where our "complaints" will be ignored in even greater resolution.
Help me out here.
What am I supposed to do?
Just shut up and only sing praises?
I've used this program for almost 2 decades now going all the way to version 8/8.1.
So clearly I appreciate its positive aspects and strengths.
Yes, I complain a lot and I raise a lot of issue - particularly during release time.
It may just be the perception that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, or maybe it's just that I just want this program to be better because I actually do enjoy using it and appreciate the benefit it brings to my work.
I've been using it long enough to remember a time when developers actually used to chime in, in discussions on these forums from time to time (early-to-mid aughts), and when they stopped.
It's encouragin to see that they're starting to get back and at least answer queries here and there.
But the point here is, if people get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you're not listening or they're not being heard, most people will simply stop communicating their concerns to you.
That's just human nature. Nobody likes talking to a brick wall.
Anyway, I've said enough.
I don't think I'll say anything more including regarding this new version even when its released, because doing so seems to upset people rather then raise concerns or generate any useful discussions that can be overall beneficial for everyone.
Still looking?
