Karl, oh Karl, where were thou?
Re: the IP address.
I use TOR, so I can't tell which address I am using. It may be hitting Italy for a while, then move to China, and so forth. I am still sitting in ... sipping tea.
I wonder how you managed to read it. Are these messages posted to you via e-mail and headers? Do you also get the edited versions?
>As one of the verbose members here, but one who only sticks his head in from time to time now, let me say that I believe you are getting the response you are receiving - rather than serious discussion of the future of BIM/AC - because you seem to be a bit naive about what is required in a 'typical' architectural workflow, which things are essential for that workflow that are missing in AC now (that are far more basic than what you mention) and, do not seem to have a good sense for where limited dollars should go for the future development of ArchiCAD. Practical, commercial software development is rarely done in a cash-flush environment and so hard choices are part of the evolution of each new version.
It depends on how much work do you have, and how much you are paid for it. When you start having clients that pay 150.000$ for one bathroom, you start seeing things from a new perspective, and the last thing you want is to loose such clients. If they want photorealistic rendering, for example, you want it too. So, I do not know what your "good sense for" "limited dollars" is, but I certainly know my own.
>But, to seriously address a few of your suggestions...
... ok
>Constraints such as those in Revit can be extremely useful for enforcing design or code rules. Personally, I don't need wall-floor joint constraints, but I'd like to have code-enforcement ones, such as enforcing the minimum side-to-side and front clearances for toilets as a small example (since you brought up water closets).
OK. The WC was just a simple example. The gory point is the absence of high-level constraints in the present BIM, contraints that would help a lot. I understand that people may not see it, but I do not feel to apologise for my vision.
>Other constraints that you mention, such as the ones closely related to Feng Shui, the roof alignment (solar) thing, and the auto-foundation don't pass muster with me as design is a lot more than making a box work. For example, the roof alignment idea would force the ridge in one direction (presumably east/west) for solar panels even if the shape of the house made that direction a very peculiar choice? Better that the designer be cognizant of solar concepts when laying out the original footprint isn't it?
The correct roof alignment does help a lot with energy analysis. If the roof faces east-west, but the optimal orientation is south-east, the engineer is not going to be happy and the client will be upset for the extra cash needed to adjust the roof, if possible at all, and the additional panels. I observed that AC10 sets the roof alignment arbitrarily; the user is not queried about possible options. If the direction needs to be perpendicular, then we are talking about a wall, not a roof, isn't it? AC10's BIM aims at energy analysis too, via various add-ons. The roof alignment is not devoid of merit on this problem.
>2 cents for now. Back to work. Do take a look at the dev kits.
OK. Thanks.
Bob
(edited)
