Archicad 10 is announced

[Greg Kmethy]

Dear Talkers,

You can read Graphisoft's announcement on Archicad 10 here:
http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/ac10/

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:

To illustrate what I mean by clunky;

Suppose I create a Tube, Revolve or Ruled geometry or object in ArchiForma, in lieu of a curved wall with the profiler tool, will I be able to effectively add windows, Doors or openings onto that object the same way I would to a regular wall (i.e based on height from wall-base and centred off the wall axis at a specific distance)? Furthermore will I be able to resize or move those windows, doors and opening the way I would with a regular wall.....................

That's what I mean by clunky.

So it has nothing to do with add-on. Any object you create, by GDL coding or directly from your plan is clunky for you because it does not behave like a wall.
In fact, any object from the library is clunky, because it does not behave like a wall.
Such a lot of clunky stuff, already in AC itself, depressing…
For the simplest things, as you said, regular curved walls are ok for me, whatever window I add.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Philippe wrote:
So it has nothing to do with add-on. Any object you create, by GDL coding or directly from your plan is clunky for you because it does not behave like a wall.
In fact, any object from the library is clunky, because it does not behave like a wall.
Such a lot of clunky stuff, already in AC itself, depressing…
For the simplest things, as you said, regular curved walls are ok for me, whatever window I add.

I can understand your need to want to support Add-ons you clearly love so much as well as your workflow which you're no doubt well accustomed to as it seems to be perfectly tailored to your specific needs. But that's no reason to over-simplify, misrepresent and essentially denigrate the gist of what I was saying and the point I was driving at.

I gave the Wall and Wall tool and profiler function as an illustrating example, and not necessarily to represent the whole argument; even you know that. Substitute Wall for Beam, Column, Slab, Roof, and the point the remains the exact same. When I resort to creating an object with ArchiForma to take the place of a wall (or roof, or slab, or beam or whatever), because ArchiCAD cannot create it the way my design calls for it to be, that new object is not seen, recognized nor categorized by ArchiCAD as a wall and as such is not subject to the same wall tool modifications, calculations that other walls in my project are. What's so difficult to understand about that? CLUNKY comes in when I have to take ten,15, 20 or more extra steps of modelling and Boolean operations to add in a window into that "wall" object, which only took about 5 mouse-clicks with a regular wall.

The fact that it may or may not be from the library or GDL coding or some third party add-on is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the fact that I should not have to resort to using it to compensate for ArchiCAD modelling tools' shortcomings. Is it any clearer now? I mean, what if I suddenly have to increase all the window heights of my project? How much more time gets wasted adjusted those special cases to match the windows in the regular walls with the additional modelling/importing/booleans or third party operations?

I would not use a chair nor a table nor a lamp from the object library to try and compensate for a wall, but if I did ( or more to the point, a geometry created to proxy for a wall, slab, roof, beam etc etc, as a gdl object) would I then be able to add a window, or door as I would on a regular wall, or would I be able to list this new object in the schedules as a wall with it's included windows, doors, finishes, wall sections and detail? OR would I have to resort to a longer work-around to remedy this?
The profiler improvements were meant to be a huge step in bridging the gap between these work-arounds and pure modelling from within ArchiCAD with AC-only parametric tools. GS only took us halfway there with this Profile manager. And therein lies the beef.


I don't believe I can make it any more clearer than this but I'm pretty certain that if you try hard enough you can find lots and lots of stuff in there to once again over-simplify, and even denigrate or mock, if you please.

[Chadwick]

Bricklyne wrote:
The fact that it may or may not be from the library or GDL coding or some third party add-on is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the fact that I should not have to resort to using it to compensate for ArchiCAD modelling tools' shortcomings.

I agree %100. As strong as ArchiCAD is, I feel this way about many of its tools and objects.

[Thomas Holm]

Bricklyn, just to over-simplify, misrepresent and essentially denigrate the gist of what you were saying:

- You're telling us all that the new software version which you haven't even seen or tested yourself is just a sh*tload of crap and can't do what you want.

OK.

- You also call us that have seen it essentially liars.

That's your priviledge.

But what I don't understand is what you're doing here? Why not go elsewhere and find something that does what you want? Why keep on using this crap? What's the upside, for you?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Thomas wrote:
Bricklyn, just to over-simplify, misrepresent and essentially denigrate the gist of what you were saying:

- You're telling us all that the new software version which you haven't even seen or tested yourself is just a sh*tload of crap and can't do what you want.

OK.

- You also call us that have seen it essentially liars.

That's your priviledge.

But what I don't understand is what you're doing here? Why not go elsewhere and find something that does what you want? Why keep on using this crap? What's the upside, for you?

Is THAT, seriously, the best you can come up with, by way of a wind-up? I mean, seriously? Wow!
C+ for effort.


My first intention was not to reply to this excuse of a post, but I now realize how I erred all along in believing that I was engaged in a discussion with someone interesting in the positive development of this software, much less in control of his cerebral faculties. And as such I have to apologize.
I'm immensely sorry to have grossly over-estimated you.

Point out anywhere, ANYWHERE in my posts where I've called ArchiCAD - a software that I use to make my living and on which I rely on propbably even more than Windows itself - point out where I have called it "a sh*tload of crap" (as opposed to statements that I ACTUALLY made that include "(we) have come to greatly appreciate and heavily rely on ArchiCAD for a lot of our daily work thanks to its amazing abilities" or when I ACTUALLY said " I have to point out that I appreciate a lot of the improvements that they've made to the program; I imagine a lot of them will greatly expand my creative capacity" - these actual cut-and-paste statements from my own posts and you are free to search through them to confirm this) Find me that one post where I called ArhciCAD "a sh*tload of crap", or even a post where any statement I made can REASONABLY be construed to mean the above, and I will not only openly apologize to everyone in the forum, I will even be willing to Paypal you whatever amount you deem fit to satisfy your sense of integrity. feel free to even expand you search to other discussions elsewhere in the Forum not related to ArchiCAD 10.

Better yet, find me a post where I called a beta-tester, ANY beta-tester, a liar, or even implied they were one by statements I made. I mean, for crying out loud, my entire series of posts and arguments are BASED almost entirely on what we've been told about the program by beta-testers, including (among yourself)
Ignacio, and David Pacifico. DON"T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! Especially when those words imply that I insulted or questioned the integrity of other members of this Forum. Your the one who intorduced the term "crap" ( in terms of describing AC) into this discussion; YOUR words, not mine!

You previously talked about "Useless flaming", and then go ahead and post that gem above? Grow up man, I mean, seriously; you are better than that ( or at least should try to be)

If you don't like the fact that I'm raising these questions then say that and leave it at that; others have managed that without much difficulty. Don't try to turn this into some sort of childish squabble, we all professionals here.


Just. Grow. Up!

[TomWaltz]

All right guys, break it up.

[Anonymous]

No. Let them go. This is fun.

[Anonymous]

[Thomas Holm]

All right guys, break it up.

Sorry guys. Couldn't resist it.

[Anonymous]

Ok for the fun, at least to develop my English argot.

Bricklyne wrote:

The fact that it may or may not be from the library or GDL coding or some third party add-on is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the fact that I should not have to resort to using it to compensate for ArchiCAD modelling tools' shortcomings.

I might have over simplified your point but it is exactly what you summarized. What you do not like is the fact that SOMETIMES, AC asks you to use another object (TUBE, EXTRUDE…) than XWALL to draw a…wall (same process for slabs or roofs, TNOS).
So YOU denigrated an add-on for something inherent to AC. SOMETIMES, for more sophisticated forms, AC asks you to substitute GDL special geometries to standard elements. It was always like that and will be for a long time, I suppose. It will always be some complex geometry that does not fulfil limitations of standardized elements like walls, slabs, beams.
I have no Cigraph's stock options. I just found smart to replace coding by graphic method.
You ask for more freedom in wall geometry. Ok, I also will appreciate it. But curved profiled wall is just one more geometry. Take the example of the Maxonform "wall" demonstration you can find in GS website. If you want to achieve that inside AC, you still need to replace XWALL by something else, what ever GDL coding or add-on tool you prefer.
But if you import an external object (Maxonform, Rhino…), it is just good for visualization; it will not produce accurate plan and section representation. This is something (except for pure visualization purpose) I call a clunky solution.
If you use GDL object, it will be fully coherent with the AC model. It can be complex but not clunky.