Back to basics...?

[March_ Bruce]

Reiterating & clarifying an earlier post, and to suggest improvements in what seems the most simple, basic functionality in what has become a now very complex application:

1.) Logical default pen weights accessible from the info box for every tool & that have some comprehensive rationale - we do produce drawings after all & archicad has great graphic potential that has seemingly been crippled by illogical, limited & obfuscated pen setup especially with library parts. There are only 3 pen weights in the first 10 pens & the majority of library parts. (Doh!)

I used to set up pens 1-10 as black from 0mm to 2.0mm weighting which offered WYSIWYG onscreen, numeric correllation to weight & scalability for small page output but the inefficiency of having to adjust every library part's penweights wore me out. Global resetting & referencing might assist yet every library upgrade or replacement might face similar issues.

That being said v9 did make some progress with the remaining pen allocations, whic show some sense of graphical order beyond what I assume is the modulo 8 pen plotter & autocad legacy.

2.) Slab edge material editing: I don't know of a building that doesn't have a hole cut in a slab somewhere - this is a most basic operation - usually for stairs - yet the material inside the cut remains as the exterior edge, for example if the exterior edge is brick - this wishlist item is so obvious it was emphatically communicated back when I was using 4.1, and is manifest in the beam tool so 'it is possible' but to no avail...

3.) Slab trimming to roof: Another most basic operation when doing an overhanging roof against the edge of a ceiling slab, sections could actually render with clean lines allowing detailing & prevent slabs from 'piercing' roofs - again very basic operation asked for in the early days (doh!)

4.) Functional stairs that actually work & are legal (ie meet codes) & have some precedent in the real world - honestly don't know how one could even walk up some of what stairmaker produces, especially winders... Simple stairs that don't need 45 parameters set up would be helpful...

5.) Windows: Limit faulty parameter settings (SE edition that give errors) as well as with a shallow arch window header & concrete/stone sills as are found in so many residences around the world - workaround for sills is 0" mortar but clumsy.

6.) Legacy Libraries: I find myself going back to v6.5 for things as basic as a wooden dining room table - why some parts are 'discontinued' I know not why - but library part management is for me one of the great liabilities of ArchiCAD...

Architects have enough to worry about without spending increasingly non-billable hours on this kind of tedious overhead... Reuse of past work is one of the essential rationalizations of the investment in CAD in the forst place...

7.) Mesh data import: While the mesh tools is a welcome improvement it would seem obvious that it should import xyz text survey data (station points) rather than users doing this manually. Offering 3d building modelling without easy 3d site modelling has always seemed somewhat ironic as a site is usually a component of a building (Doh! again)...

8.) Material selection: Basic if 3D rendering is a core activity, referencing materials by numbers that are hidden in the selection pop-up seems to increase selection difficulty - I don't know enough about limitations to suggest a fix, yet I know I am constantly seemingly battling material selection, legacy material management & custom surface mapping - and BTW what do C01-C14 represent?

9.) Legacy support: Constantly I find numerous flaws (bugs aren't usually that obvious) are never fixed, while Graphisoft pushes ahead with the 'next new version' I assume to generate upgrade cashflow - this trend seemed to increase with PC development & has inspired me to skip update cycles - this time v9 mac users will apparently get no Rosetta or Wintel support - I assume to encourage us to upgrade yet again while so many of basics per the above remain unresolved.

Two profitable colleagues I know who are still using ArchiCAD are on v6.5 & v7 in Mac OS-9 and the former with numerous keys is planning to move to AutoCAD as existing stations require replacement...

In summary I find some of the most basic construction tools & functions still have major flaws or room for improvement. Many of the above suggestions are longstanding concerns & leave me frustrated & scratching my head at many of the 'high end' archicad features (some of which I love) when I can't even easily put together a basic building model or adjust pen weights 'on the fly'...

As an early ArchiCAD user the question I keep asking is where is 'ease of use' now in Graphisoft's priority list...?

[Anonymous]

archibeam.
You’re full of it and just sucking up to GS.

YES WE NEED CODES IMPLEMENTED

REVIT is implementing the code – just for an example in the Structural module you have all the possible codes with all the possible options.

[TomWaltz]

Adalbert wrote:
archibeam.
You’re full of it and just sucking up to GS.

YES WE NEED CODES IMPLEMENTED

REVIT is implementing the code – just for an example in the Structural module you have all the possible codes with all the possible options.

If you cannot show a little courtesy, then be quiet. Just because Ben has a different opinion gives you no right to insult him.

[__archiben]

Adalbert wrote:
archibeam.
You’re full of it and just sucking up to GS.

i'm sure there are a few people who might disagree . . .

anyway. i'm sorry. "the culture of litigation" is something that gets me really irate (even more so than graphisoft). when i hear such a weak-minded excuse for an arguement i see red.

code checking is important, granted. but maybe not on a global level: your codified parameters may be my design restrictions. or vice versa. if code-compliance is something that you look for in your objects i believe that you should be lobbying your reseller/distributor as those responsible for localisation in your area.

however, that being said, i can still see things of far greater priority that need addressing before any time is wasted on building restrictions into objects.

couple more questions too, (i notice you didn't answer any of the first lot either)....

• who becomes responsible for the maintenance of that code-compliannt code? do graphisoft need to be aware of all government building and construction regulation in all 43+ countries where archiCAD is sold and be able to update libraries if any changes to that legislation are made? or maybe they should just do that for the US? hmmm . . .

looking forward to just who you think is responsible for code compliance . . .

~/archibeam

[Rakela Raul]

i think there is room for a new addon or for objects on line new objects

[March_ Bruce]

The main subject does seem to be getting re-directed from fixing or improving the basics...

On that front winder stairs qualify as a basic construction element. The default winders look like nothing I've ever seen nor seem to be navigable by a human being on what would seem a common sense basis. According to GS support many have tried but these stairs are not configurable in a way that conforms to a routine winder stair (or code) that is found across North America...

Shipping basic objects that can't even be made code compliance in major marketing areas is both a technical & liability problem as well as symptomatic of the larger issue (why is anyone defending GS in this regard ? - the winder stair seems whacked!)

This thread was started to suggest that things as simple as even the pens weights defaults could be improved especially as they relate to objects & the graphic potential of the software...

Improving the known & very real construction issues encountered when making simple buildings (slabs, roofs, stairs, pens, materials, etc) would seem to need addressing before trying to sell us more high end features...

[Djordje]

Adalbert wrote:
You’re full of it and just sucking up to GS.

Both of the statements not true ... but, it is easier to unload here than to visit a professional?

Adalbert wrote:
YES WE NEED CODES IMPLEMENTED

Which codes?

US, BS, Euro? Something else?

Please advise who is going to implement it, how, and who is going to do the quality assurtance and testing? Who is paying for it? You are talking legal liability and cost here.

Adalbert wrote:
REVIT is implementing the code – just for an example in the Structural module you have all the possible codes with all the possible options.

WHICH codes? If only US, sorry, not enough for the rest of the world.

A person of your experience and professional stature should think before making broad brush strokes.

[Djordje]

March, wrote:
The main subject does seem to be getting re-directed from fixing or improving the basics...
///
Improving the known & very real construction issues encountered when making simple buildings (slabs, roofs, stairs, pens, materials, etc) would seem to need addressing before trying to sell us more high end features...

Could not agree more ...

Tell me - how much an average Talker is willing to donate hers/his own, unbillable time to the process? If nothing else, listing the stuff that never worked as it was supposed to, or that worked partially?

Graphisoft can't do everyhting by themselves, and above anything else, we who are daily using ArchiCAD have to give them comprehensive, detailed and to the point reports. They make the software, we use it. There should be a fine line.

Whining that "Revit has it" and being blinkered into your own line of work does not help the bigger picture, development, or our own satisfaction.

Maybe another topic for ArchiCADwiki once it is fully up and running?

[KeesW]

I agree with much that is being said - especially about the appalling defaults that Graphisoft has chosen to build into its product. For example:

* Winder type stairs are unusable and don't comply with codes in Australia either. Do they comply with any European (or Hungarian ) Codes? If they don't, why choose such a default?

* Line types and thicknesses. Someone once said that Archicad used pen no 4 as the default for library parts. Is this true (and was it ever so?). Changing library line types is a real pain.

I thinks that Graphisoft's defence of its templates is valid. Templates are personal and the default supplied (at least in Aus) works reasonably well.

The reference to Revit is valid. It's the new kid on the block and it is disappointing that it surpasses Archicad in some basic areas of useability. Even more concerning is that Graphisoft is too snobbish and superior to acknowledge this - and doesn't take action to remedy its deficiencies.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

KeesW wrote:
the appalling defaults […]I thinks that Graphisoft's defence of its templates is valid.

One concept Graphisoft should be able to make straight away from their setup is that nobody should be dealing with the object defaults, but extracting the objects from modules where everything (line types, pen weights, materials, 2D and 3D looks, layer, listing data) is set up to match the template (and schedules, and etc.).

So the PLN and LBK templates, or whatever that becomes in the future, should come along with several packages of mutually compatible sets of titleblocks, annotation modules, kitchen furnishing modules, door modules, window modules, wall type modules, etc. It's not that much of a deal, and it would have huge returns in terms of out-of-the-box usability. Of course it won't be 100% ready, and you will need to tweak it --but that's the point, you need to tweak it and not set it up from scratch, and you are getting a sense of how the whole works from the start.

[March_ Bruce]

Please vote if you think it's important...
Squeeky wheels will get the oil...
;-)