It took me four monthes of using AC 8.x to realize that BGAC was a second copy of AC.
While I had been using AC 6.5 on Mac in OS9, I had adjusted the version number of AC to get a second copy open on the same machine. I found this to be the only way to work on section elevations and detailling while not getting into the whole process of opening and closing of AC files just to do a copy and paste between two files. I realize this was not what GS would have liked, but I was still using the same license on the same machine.
When I found I could do the same with BGAC on Mac in OSX 10.3 I was really happy.
.
I have often in the past used PM to layout work from other applications and so would not like to see it as part of AC and require the key to work.
I would really like the engineers to make the key commands be the same between AC and PM for a change. I cannot understand how dam hard this would be to orchastrate.
While I had been using AC 6.5 on Mac in OS9, I had adjusted the version number of AC to get a second copy open on the same machine. I found this to be the only way to work on section elevations and detailling while not getting into the whole process of opening and closing of AC files just to do a copy and paste between two files. I realize this was not what GS would have liked, but I was still using the same license on the same machine.
When I found I could do the same with BGAC on Mac in OSX 10.3 I was really happy.
.I have often in the past used PM to layout work from other applications and so would not like to see it as part of AC and require the key to work.
I would really like the engineers to make the key commands be the same between AC and PM for a change. I cannot understand how dam hard this would be to orchastrate.
While I had been using AC 6.5 on Mac in OS9, I had adjusted the version number of AC to get a second copy open on the same machine. I found this to be the only way to work on section elevations and detailling while not getting into the whole process of opening and closing of AC files just to do a copy and paste between two files. I realize this was not what GS would have liked, but I was still using the same license on the same machine.Of course they do!
When I found I could do the same with BGAC on Mac in OSX 10.3 I was really happy. .
You do know that you can (and always have been able to) duplicate the ArchiCAD folder to run simultaneous copies of ArchiCAD? You don't strictly need to copy the *whole* folder, but it is often easier to. Heck you can make multiple copies if you really want to live life on the edge.You're not the only one who wishes they would align PM & AC functionality either! How hard can it be? Can't they just copy and paste some of the code?
Cheers,
Link.
Naftali wrote:
Now if only Graphisoft would just combine the two programs into one to avoid the merry-go-round entirely .....
Millard wrote:ah. the great plotmaker/archiCAD shall they/shan't they debate!
I'm going to weigh in on this one. I agree on keeping plotmaker and archicad separate if for no other reason than plotmaker doesn't require a key to open and work on a file. There are several times that drawings need to be updated or just printed and these can be done from any station in the office.
i've been swinging backwards and forwards on this one for some time, however a discussion at the winter school back in january got me to thinking. as with most of my ideas(?), it's kinda half baked and not quite as well thought out as mr lohden et al. just never seem to have the time . . .
. . . but anyways:
i am in agreement with the worth of plotmaker as a standalone page layout programme, albeit with a lot of work still to be done on the usage and archiCAD consistency front. it would also be great, as geoff suggests, to be able to extend its capabilities to a viewer.
what i imagine is extended functionality of the navigator/viewset/publisher in archiCAD: it would become a document management facility saved as a module in the archiCAD file
- it would enable a rough outline of the document structure to be produced before even opening plotmaker.
- plotmaker would use this information to construct the document and only be used itself for page layouting. it's own functions would extend to something akin to DTP combined with the information extraction of BGarchiCAD - geoff's viewer . . . ?
- any changes then made to the management of the documents in plotmaker get saved back into the module and therefore updated for information in archiCAD.
- it would keep track of versioning. how? don't know yet, but this versioning would be available to the person(s) working on the project
in archiCAD. - it would solve the issue of whether individual views have been updated/are OK/are not yet read as opposed to the current all or nothing situation.
- plotmaker could then be used on its own as a simple(?) DTP package, requiring the archiCAD file and relevant document management module to be present in order to gain it's full functionality.
- more?
~/archiben
Karl wrote:Hardware locks are hardly the way to keep hackers from hacking software. From what I've seen they've had 7.0 and 8.0 hacked for some time, and they both of those versions had the hardware lock. I even used the hacked 7.0 version for evaluation purposes
Currently BGAC is basically the real AC, so making it keyless invites hackers to easily create free licenses ... but I can certainly see your wish for a "new" form of BGAC (basically it would be the guts of AC but with all user interface removed ... so that all it could do is update drawings). Would be handy.
But I HAVE since purchased a fully licensed version so I'm all legal now (it WAS all it was cracked up to be - the full version).But the keyless viewer, now that would be nice for the same reasons as already stated. Especially if you don't have a network key and you need to work temporarily on a computer which does not have the key (as happened to me not too long ago due to some other software acting up). Switching constantly becomes a... "slight" inconvenience.
Still looking?
