GS clearly does not take the residential architect seriously

[rm]

This is going to be a RANT. So if you are a full time GS apologist, you might want to move on.

This week I upgraded one of my dongles to AC 12, only one! For the majority of my last 15 years of using AC, I have used it on upper bracket residential projects. During that time I have purchased numerous 3rd party libraries for windows, doors, and furniture....because the AC library has had the same pieces of _ _ _ _ for the last 2000 years!!!

This while applications for significantly less money, mostly on the PC side - darn-it, have had features like cabinets that heal themselves when arranged in the plan, windows that actually don't have trim problems and are based on real US manufacturers, doors that don't have trim problems and are based on real US manufacturers, furniture that doesn't look like a kid with a crayon drew them, extrusions, lathes, and sweeps that can be rotated and adjust in 3D, like Objective can do. Obviously the objects should be location friendly, I don't mean to suggest every country should adopt the US objects as standard.....OK, done being politically correct.

I have personally been told by the GS CEO when v9 was out, that by issuance of v11 there would be a "new" and well sorted out library that would be "thoroughly" tested. BS.....I have v12, and I found problems with the windows after working with them less than 5 minutes.....see the attached image, so you know I'm not blowing smoke.

What the heck does it take for GS to build a decent library? Let me tell you, I will have to go kicking and screaming to Revit, but if thats what it takes to access a decent library, I will consider it. Currently you can't access anything on the Google 3D warehouse directly into AC12, and there is NO indication from GS when we will see the plug-in again, if at all. And if your on the Mac side, forget it, you don't have a prayer as the plug-in only worked on the Windows side of AC.

Obviously, if I have stuck with this program since v4.1 I think it is reasonably good. What I find inexcusable is GS willingness to keep putting out lousy standard library sets. In the world of BIM and Photorealistic renderings, GS should be providing a solid realistic library set.....they are not even close!!!!!

I have forwarded the bug to GS through tech support. I am shocked I found the bugs with the windows in less than 5 minutes of using the AC12. God knows what I will find when I dig in further with the doors.

For what I just spent on an upgrade, I am absolutely torqued at how lacking this library still is. The truth is, even 3rd party libraries are very limited - they hardly exist. Clearly GS has not been successful in getting buy-in from US manufacturers to create libraries the way AutoDesk has with Revit. While there are some very generous users out there that give away some very good objects ( THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU ) the majority of GDL objects available just are not realistic looking or don't stay current with AC.

I have suggested this before, and I will say it again. GS there are some really smart, good GDL gurus out there. Get off your wallet and hire these people to ONLY design objects or work with manufacturers of real Plumbing Fixtures, Light Fixtures, Doors, Windows, Furniture, etc....and pay them to test the objects thoroughly. I'm guessing a 1 million dollar investment in the libraries would yield something far superior to what you provide now....I guess 50 dollars might do that as well

.....hey Mr. Gallello - you getting any of this?

[Rick Thompson]

The yearly upgrades bothers me the most too. It think it forces errors to be released, and gets resentful to the many trying to keep up. Seems about money I think. Think about how much better the releases could be if they were ever few years apart. Oh, I forgot.. less money (for GS and the end user).

[owen]

Pete wrote:

Rob wrote:
You can not possibly beat CW functionality by GDL.

Ask Erika how that CW functionality is working for her.
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=28012

Anyway, I appreciate your knowledge of the technical aspects, and discussing the "how" can be interesting, however the "what" or lack thereof is causing the frustration that Robert and others have been voicing. I think others have proven that a decent set of windows/doors can be produced using GDL, but I don't care if they use GDL or CW as long as they fix it in some fashion, SOON!

I do not care whether or not GDL is the solution either ... but if GS is determined to go down this 'System Technology' route they had damn well better make sure it is flexible ... really really flexible so users can use it to create basically anything they need to. It might be painful but at least now with GDL you can build pretty much any assembly you need to. My fear is that GS gives up on GDL and the tools to replace it are not flexible enough. This 'System Technology' may have tools such as the Curtain Wall built on it but there really needs to be an accessible way for the user to create custom assemblies.

Sounds a bit like the graphical GDL editor i like to go on about, but it doesn't have to be based on GDL.

Pete wrote:
I've been training others in the use of this great software and it is embarrassing when they ask for help with doors and windows. They shell out big bucks for ArchiCAD and I have to tell them to buy an outside library to get decent windows & doors. Makes no sense!

and then there are the expensive 3rd party Add-Ons

[Rob]

well do not get me wrong here. GDL is still a revolutionary thing however it can not fully substitute system resources that are necessary for D/W tools. Historically it was understandable that GS used GDL for openings as the detail level was really low (due to a computational limitation) and GDL flexibility was relatively high.

Since then user expectations have grown really high in regards to D/W detail but the ultimate dilemma lingers: upgrading and servicing D/W in GDL means looking after GDL as whole programming interface as opposed to developing a special tool (with system resources freedom) with GDL servicing just the most customisation-exposed areas. That is what CW does in essence.

Ask Erika how that CW functionality is working for her.

To defend GS here (and believe me GS was made aware of current CW shortcomings prior to AC12 release):
It is the very first attempt to address an 'assembly' tool without going directly to GDL and I believe it is still work in progress. It's complex as hell but it can serve as a template for future solutions (once it is nailed down properly). However because of the complexity its development is complicated time/money wise.

really really flexible so users can use it to create basically anything they need to.

mate I agree but imagine yourself writing a specification for this - a tool that can do anything.... it is not an easy task and definitely not possible in GDL.

[owen]

Rob wrote:

really really flexible so users can use it to create basically anything they need to.

mate I agree but imagine yourself writing a specification for this - a tool that can do anything.... it is not an easy task and definitely not possible in GDL.

Yeah bit of a stupid overstatement i admit

What i am getting at is the end result of this new development should not result in a 'dumbing down' of what it is possible to create parametrically in AC now using GDL (as painful as GDL might be for the average user). Take the CW tool ... in theory you could create those constructions using GDL, its just the interface makes it impossible unless you are a programming whiz. I'm all for these new tools if they are as easy to access as CW is compared to GDL, but i think they need to have some opportunity to get under the hood to do things that the tools may not do out of the box (like you can now with GDL objects). Graphisoft cannot foresee all the possibilities...

Its a tough one though and i do not underestimate the difficulties GS must be facing.