2024 Technology Preview Program:
Master powerful new features and shape the latest BIM-enabled innovations
2004-09-01 03:06 PM
2004-09-08 06:42 AM
2004-09-08 03:47 PM
oreopoulos wrote:I'm shocked that GS has not turned its attention to copying the Revit approach. It has to sooner or later and I think it would be better to do it sooner. It is insane that software of AC's maturity still has such an embryonic approach to things like dependency and parametrics. Roofs that don't know to to move when their supporting walls move, walls that don't know to move when their floors do, etc, etc. Absurd. Does anyone really not think this is the future? Of course it is and Autodesk knows it.
THE ONLY HOPE is that competition (revit) will press GS, because i have a feeling that they are counting only on new customers, and not pleasing old ones.
2004-09-08 07:00 PM
2004-09-09 12:52 AM
Joseph wrote:To be fair to Graphisoft though, even as we speak, even Revit does not have a great handle on some of the complaints being mentioned here Particularly in the case of the free-form modeller-like capabilities {double-curving planes, NURBs-like manipulation of elements (i.e. curved roofs)} and greater layer-Storey-ghost-storey management- to pick a few examples from the wishlist. And for years ArchiCAD was able to get away with these defeciencies and keep a lead over Revit thanks to a combination of GDL-scripting, API- plugins ( Cigraph, Archiforma etc.) and a much looser parametric engine allowing for flexibility and ingenuous work-arounds. However, it was always the expectation of most users that following the debacle that was version 8.0, GS would look to the release of version 9 not just as an opportunity for redemption, by releasing a cleaner more mature version but also a chance to re-establish themselves as fore-runners in the Virtual Building field, by further bridging the gap or at least allowing Architects and designers to bridge the gap between reality and their imagination; vis-a-vis through the incorporation of more powerful modelling tools whilst simultaneously tightening and cleaning up the documentatiion capacity and general user interface. From early signs it seems like they were only able to achieve the latter, possibly out of a fear of repeating the same mistakes from version 8.0
Hi,
As a relatively new user I was very happy with ArchiCad (coming from Microstation) until I started reading these comments. Now my eyes are wondering in direction of Revit...
Would it not be wiser and appropriate to wait till we test drive AC9 and another 6 month to see if any changes are in store of GS.
Thanks,
Joseph Harouni
2004-09-09 02:03 PM
Joseph Harouni wrote:Joseph,
Hi,
As a relatively new user I was very happy with ArchiCad (coming from Microstation)
2004-09-09 06:16 PM
stefan wrote:The other day I met an Emarati architect, graduate from Americal University of Sharjah that is teaching ArchiCAD (PowerCADD and FormZ are also on the menu - yes, the whole uni is on Macs) and the main ADVANTAGE of ArchiCAD for him was that it did not allow him to do anything that cannot be built.
ArchiCAD is still not a freeform modeller and it never will be. But does it have to? GDL is almost unlimited in it's form creations.
2004-09-09 06:26 PM
Bricklyne wrote:Personally, I never saw a problem or had one (and yes, double curves and tents are quite normal stuff around here) using either GDL Toolbox or ArchiForma. Yes, I also knew GDL, but it rusted quite a bit ...
In ArchiCAD, convential solutions normally consist of either 'faking' it, or exporting the model and getting your free-form done in an alternative bona-fide free-form modeller ( 3DS Max, Rhino, Maya, Cinema 4D), while expending sheets and sheets of CDs to ensure that the design is properly understood by the Engineers.
Bricklyne wrote:Aversion is more like it; as is aversion in general to any change. While the imagination might be soaring, the MEANS of doing your (mine?) work are so primitive; drawings? Please ...
Or at least, most architects' aversion or inability to learn a programming language as opposed to an entirely knew 3D-modelling software.
Bricklyne wrote:I have noticed that most people are talking about two years. Just as a reminder - 8.1 came out about this time LAST year. It was free because of the 8.0 disaster, not because it was not a full fledged upgrade (just check the list on the GS Web site). So, it can be safely stated that the upgrade cycle is olready 12 months as opposed to the "usual" 18 ...
which I fear we shall slowly begin to observe creeping into other BIM solutions ( Revit 7,8..., Microstation 15,20?) while ArchiCAD goes into hiatus for 2 years before releasing version 9.1 circa 2006 to fix the bugs from version 9 and forcing us to fork out another mortgage for that "upgrade".
2004-09-10 02:03 AM
Djordje wrote:I suppose that whether or not one has a problem with GDL modelling, really depends, in large part, on their familiarity and fluency in GDL scripting in the first place. Which is where the crux of the problem lies for me; in that, traditionally Graphisoft has had the luxury of being able to refer ArchiCAD users to GDL scripting ( or APIs; more on that shortly) to achieve what wasn't doable within and directly from AC's main user interface. At least for a long time ArchiCAD users have had no other option ( outside the GDL route) short of using third party modellers to resolve this issues as other BIM solutions similarly have suffered from the same shortcomings. But the problem is, for how long is this an effective marketing strategy or even operating protocol whereby you make your customers have to resort to acquiring an additional set of skills and expertise ( having to learn GDL and be good at it) to overcome your product's defeciencies. An analogous scenario, would be like Rolls-Royce requiring their clientele to have to learn the intricacies of automative fluid injection adn dynamics details, just to be able to deal with an everyday oil transmission flaw in the engine of their car. ( Yes, I do consider ArchiCAD to be the Rolls-Royce of the Virtual Building field,
Personally, I never saw a problem or had one (and yes, double curves and tents are quite normal stuff around here) using either GDL Toolbox or ArchiForma. Yes, I also knew GDL, but it rusted quite a bit ...
I also don't see a problem in freeform modeling being offered in a form of a cheap API. Except for NURBS, everything else can be easily done with any of the mentioned. It is all about us, in the end.
Djordje wrote:As for APIs (yes, 'cheap' is definitely the right description), try to create a curved profile in Archiforma or better yet Profiler, with a radius of 5m or greater (either in elevation or plan it doesn't matter) and let me know how the curve resolution looks like up close, or if (without the help of GDL,) you can adjust said curve to look more smoother than it currently looks. Whereas you say that you don't see the problem, I believe that the main problem lies in the fact that GS is basically lobbing off the responsibilty for redressing these problems onto API programmers who may not be able to do as effective a job or produce as precise a tool as would otherwise be written into the AC engine, such that the troubles I encounter as mentioned above basically become Cigraph's problem and no longer Graphisoft's problem. Once again I believe that this is a seriously and erroneously unsound (if not smug) disposition for Graphisoft to assume regarding the handling of these issues. It's basically the same way they ignored the rendering engine for the longest period of time leaving users (in fact encouraging them, in the case of Abvent ) to seek their rendering solutions elsewhere (Artlantis anyone?) before finally deciding to upgrade it in version 9. Nine versions to upgrade the internal renderer??? How long should we wait for the modelling tools upgrade?
I also don't see a problem in freeform modeling being offered in a form of a cheap API. Except for NURBS, everything else can be easily done with any of the mentioned. It is all about us, in the end.
Djordje wrote:The aversion I was referring to was more so towards stagnation, than it is to change, as you imply. In my personal opinion, there is nothing progressive about GDL scripting, or at least the methodology of it, as a means of creating and modifying 3D models and objects. Sure, it's almost limitless and is quite powerful in the hands of an expert user; as is C++, or Fortran, or COBOL, Turbo Pascal (.... get my drift? ) But in light of the fact that most ArchiCAD users are trained primarily to draw, design and create first and foremostly through graphic visualization as opposed to, say, verbal Coding; wouldn't it make more sense to devise a means with which they can overcome this creatvity barrier in the Virtual Building universe, and which is congenitally attuned to their naturally honed technical and perceptive skills. Is it therefore any surprise that a program such as Sketchup is rapidly gaining in popularity with it's intuitive user interface that is not only easy to learn but more effectively capacitates architects and designers to articulate their ideas in a manner more congruent with the skills they were taught and that they daily use to develop professions and practices? I believe, that for all its power and potential, GDL scripting is nonetheless, simply outdated or is slowly becoming so, as programmers in other fields attempt to abridge the gap between casual user and highly technical and creative tasks. Its the new user-friendly world. In all other aspects ArchiCAD wins in this respect hands down.
Aversion is more like it; as is aversion in general to any change. While the imagination might be soaring, the MEANS of doing your (mine?) work are so primitive; drawings? Please ...
2004-09-10 02:59 AM
Sure, it's almost limitless and is quite powerful in the hands of an expert user; as is C++, or Fortran, or COBOL, Turbo Pascal (.... get my drift? ) But in light of the fact that most ArchiCAD users are trained primarily to draw, design and create first and foremostly through graphic visualization as opposed to, say, verbal Coding; wouldn't it make more sense to devise a means with which they can overcome this creatvity barrier in the Virtual Building universe, and which is congenitally attuned to their naturally honed technical and perceptive skillsI absolutely agree with you even though it is not a problem to programme any script in GDL for me at all. I see your point and you are definitely right. I suppose that an architect or designer are not programmers and when using software for architectural design they want to use 'language' of their own profession. I have learnt GDL purely from curiosity reasons which then eventually helped me with some model handling problems in AC. BUT again, I would expect propagation of whole GDL potential throughout the native GUI. Some simple tools perhaps for tweaking ALL geometric settings and possibilities as they could be done in GDL. Passing the bug to 3rd party developers is an easy option but they can not exploit the code (from apparent reasons) to the degree that could be done by GS.
2004-09-10 05:40 AM
Bricklyne wrote:Bricklyne, your not even close to being alone in your thought despite what the handful of GDL evangelists will try to persuade you to believe.
I suppose that whether or not one has a problem with GDL modeling, really depends, in large part, on their familiarity and fluency in GDL scripting in the first place. Which is where the crux of the problem lies for me;
Bricklyne wrote:Excellent analogy!!!!!!!, but it will probably be falling on deaf ears.
An analogous scenario, would be like Rolls-Royce requiring their clientele to have to learn the intricacies of automative fluid injection adn dynamics details, just to be able to deal with an everyday oil transmission flaw in the engine of their car. ( Yes, I do consider ArchiCAD to be the Rolls-Royce of the Virtual Building field,, despite it's shortcomings, and yes, I do consider the omission of these basic modeling methodologies, such as extrusion along curved paths, to be serious enough flaws if not shortcomings in the program's engine, particularly in this 21st Century, just as an oil transmission defect is in a car engine).
Bricklyne wrote:Until Revit or some new kid on the block, like Sketchup hands GS there lunch.
How long should we wait for the modeling tools upgrade?
Bricklyne wrote:You actually would prefer to use your time more productively, what are you thinking?
Of course therere are always work-arounds ( as I gave my own example of the double curving roof in a previous posting) which is one of the great things about ArchiCAD; it's flexibility. But they rarely ever are, 'easily done', as you describe them. ( the Mesh-tool solution in the aforementioned example took up to 10-15 times longer than profiler would have taken had it been working well; and it wasn't even that accurate, when all was said and done)
Bricklyne wrote:Bricklyne, the GDL evangelists will never "get your drift" on this issue. What nerve you have expecting to spend your time creatively designing, presenting, and documenting your architectural projects. How dare you expect to be a "good architect" without being a GDL technician. Don't you know that I.M. Pei, Frank Gehry, Richard Meyer, Norman Foster are all GDL experts? Buck up and learn the montra, I MUST LEARN GDL!!!!!
The aversion I was referring to was more so towards stagnation, than it is to change, as you imply. In my personal opinion, there is nothing progressive about GDL scripting, or at least the methodology of it, as a means of creating and modifying 3D models and objects. Sure, it's almost limitless and is quite powerful in the hands of an expert user; as is C++, or Fortran, or COBOL, Turbo Pascal (.... get my drift? )
Bricklyne wrote:Again with the logic, this one is SMART!
But in light of the fact that most ArchiCAD users are trained primarily to draw, design and create first and foremostly through graphic visualization as opposed to, say, verbal Coding; wouldn't it make more sense to devise a means with which they can overcome this creatvity barrier in the Virtual Building universe, and which is congenitally attuned to their naturally honed technical and perceptive skills.
Bricklyne wrote:
(sorry for going on too long. but I reallly feel quite strongly about this!)