New parasol training video? come GS

[rob2218]

come on GS, please....when are you going to make some good stairs.
How often do we need a "parasol object" video?
we need better stairs that are easy to work with.
we need better control of lineweights and pens.
we need composite materials settings where you can change the shape of the different materials within a composites.
we need better roof objects.
we need to be able to do custom GDL better.
we need better/easier customizable object creation.....

we DONT need to know how to work the "parasol object"....

sorry but it's stuff like this that really set me off like John Wick. We need better day to day components, not better obscure library objects.

[Eduardo Rolon]

ArchiFM still exist http://www.archifm.net and it is in the cloud and it connects to BimX. Look at the video from KCC posted earlier this week the demo was from Gabor at the end.

Was going to write a rant about the parasol object, stair et al, but decided it as not worth it.
TL:DR or (W)rite

2 options about the stair tool: One is that GS is not working on a revamped Stair tool the other is that they are working on it and it is not ready yet.

2 options about parasol: One is that they decided not to work on the Stair Tool and work on this. The other is that they worked on this because of a specific client need (they were "forced" to do it) and they got permission to share it as part of the release. And the video is part of all of the stuff they need to do as part of the marketing for 20 (and to make that particular client happy that GS is willing to go the extra mile for them). Or it was made as an internal project with some interns and they wanted to reward them for all of their effort and give them something to put in their CV's.

----
I know which options I choose to believe but maybe I am wrong and GS is withholding work on the Stair tool so that I stop using AC.

[sinceV6]

ejrolon wrote:
....
2 options about the stair tool: One is that GS is not working on a revamped Stair tool the other is that they are working on it and it is not ready yet.
...

I'd say that those apply to practically every tool.

The sad truth is that there are a lot of things that need updating and currently feel unfinished. The properties and global overrides are indeed great new features. They say this release tackles the "i" in BIM, so I hope that AC21 takes on the B and the M. That's another year gone at least. I'm afraid that by the time things really really evolve I'll be retiring.

Best regards.

[Anonymous]

ejrolon wrote:
they worked on this because of a specific client need (they were "forced" to do it) and they got permission to share it as part of the release. And the video is part of all of the stuff they need to do as part of the marketing for 20 (and to make that particular client happy that GS is willing to go the extra mile for them)

This bothers me a bit as a bystander, Eduardo.
It seems to be the business model nowadays. I am sure GS has reasons... "change management" for one client... "grasshopper connection" for another.... "parasol" for the third one.... all important clients happy, but difficulty for the company as a whole.

Maybe it is worth looking for a more generic, world-wide approach that I outlined in my previous post than chasing a few select firms. We will see how it will turn out.

ejrolon wrote:
I'm afraid that by the time things really really evolve I'll be retiring.

My thoughts exactly. I took a long sabbatical moving from architecture to do software development, but architecture does not seem to be evolving as fast as I, personally, would like it to, so I figured I'd come out and play.

[Eduardo Rolon]

Anton wrote:
… I am sure GS has reasons... change management for one client... grasshopper connection for another.... parasol for the third one.... all important clients happy, but difficulty for the company as a whole…

Forgetting Morph and Renovation. Every single item you have listed, obviously not the parasol object, has benefited me in lots of ways and I am a single practitioner. So I have no problem waiting until things are cooked.

What is the actual price for a truly bi-directional connection between Grasshopper and AC that no other BIM package has and we got for free?

sinceV6 wrote:
…

I'd say that those apply to practically every tool.

The sad truth is that there are a lot of things that need updating and currently feel unfinished. The properties and global overrides are indeed great new features. They say this release tackles the "i" in BIM, so I hope that AC21 takes on the B and the M. That's another year gone at least. I'm afraid that by the time things really really evolve I'll be retiring.

Best regards.

So GS gets slammed for releasing an idea that is not finished yet (Properties, Curtain Wall Tool with reason) and it also gets slammed for not releasing until it is done (Stair Tool, possibly) plus they get slammed for working slow.

----
-----
For the record I am writing about complaining about "wasting" time doing the Parasol object and video. We can critique the implementation of all the new tools as much as we want, GOs, Curtain Wall, AC Properties , New Tabs, Interface, etc. But give the guys at GS some credit that they are doing all they can to fulfill our needs. We can argue about priorities but we don't know how their teams are setup, how they evaluate their priorities, how they classify the amount of effort needed to update such an old tool as the Stair.

So what we should sacrifice for the stair tool? Shell, Morphs, Interface, GO's, IFC, PlotMaker, Schedules, Revision Tool, Teamwork, BimX, CineRender?

For me the answer is none since I have been able to model all my stairs since AC8.0 with the existing tools thus having an improved Stair Tool is not so high in my list of priorities.
If I cannot achieve a Stairs with the existing tool then I would be looking at modeling them using Rhino->GH->AC since with that combo I can coordinate multiple items in a single click, matching a specific form and linking it to the particular code that I need. This can be done now though only in PC.

[Anonymous]

ejrolon wrote:
So I have no problem waiting until things are cooked.

Unfortunately, at times — they don't. And they don't because, for one reason or another, GS has difficulty gathering and organizing resources for new development.

I can care less about wrong pens, missing markers or stairs, as all those issues are easily overcome with existing tools and on-site knowledge of ARCHICAD, but what I do care about, as a full-stack developer, is that there is a very loose structure to marketing and rather patchy and swinging new development roadmap.
This does affect the bottom line, GS makes less money and has less resources to do new development. It is an endless circle and they need to break out of it.

If I where to run a project similar to this, I would first establish a few strategic goals along the lines of where the entire world will look at in a few years, then rework the tools the company already has to get a shiny new thing with minimal effort. This new thing can be pushed to new users expanding the user base and affecting company cashflow... AC20 is unlikely to fill the shoes. It will be an awesome release for people that understand and cherish the concept of Information Modeling (few people do), but short of a new interface there are no standing out features to bring new, uninitiated client base. It basically means that ARCHICAD is very good as it is, but it can be so much better with a bit of out-of-the-box, asymmetrical thinking.

[Anonymous]

I understand their are complaints about what isn't included in AC at every release; but at the same time, this software is really freaking flexible and dynamic. There is not a lot that can not be modeled and documented easily in ARCHICAD.

I think there are two issues with these kind of complaints. 1) Working under the assumption that each tool only does one thing, or that the only way to model anything is with the tool of that name. 2) Lack of a proper template.

So in reading this thread so far (and hundreds of threads before this), the 2 tools that generate the most complaints are Doors/Windows and Stairs.

Doors and Windows, specifically pertaining to their line weights and attributes can and should be mitigated by the use of favorites. Favorites and a quality template are essential- never assume you can just open AC out of the box and have everything exactly how you want it. As Ransom pointed out, there is no way for Graphisoft to meet everyone's graphic needs and expectations for every region/project type/level of anal retention.

The stair tool is another issue. This is an insanely complicated tool that basically writes a gdl script for you. It is pretty freaking amazing that it works at all, yet less gets you the results you need. Is it user friendly? no. Can it be used in most cases of custom designed stairs? no. This is why I don't use it. I design and model stairs with a combination of Walls, Slabs, Beams, Columns, Roofs, Shells, and Objects. Expecting a single tool to design and represent an entire complex building component like a stair is a stretch. Some third party products may get closer than ARCHICAD's built in tool, but they are still not good enough for anything other than fire stairs or that schematic design model that you only need something and don't care what it is.

So rather than rag on what AC can't do, use the tools given. Give constructive & specific feedback, maybe we will eventually get some components that will do some design work for you... but I don't know that I want that anyway.

Learn how to build objects from different elements, save as objects, or script objects from scratch. Its a lot to ask, and can seem overwhelming, but its such a versatile and powerful option.

Most importantly, get a template that streamlines the settings and use of all of ARCHICAD's tools that you use.

[Anonymous]

Ok, one last thing... given the example of schedules for ribbon windows not doing what you need... This is a perfect example of not exploring all the options fully.
You can easily model each window independently with correct "mulling" dimensions in the settings. This gives you a unique marker for each. Then use a label to show your "W Marker" at the central panel. If the window needs to schedule as the full dimension, you could also have non-scheduling windows for the individual windows and an empty opening for the full mulled unit.
I do this frequently for sliding door units with varied leaf widths.

If it seems like you should be able to do something in ARCHICAD, you most likely can. It normally just takes a small amount of out of the box thinking.


Anyway, thats the end of my rant...

[sinceV6]

ejrolon wrote:
...

So GS gets slammed for releasing an idea that is not finished yet (Properties, Curtain Wall Tool with reason) and it also gets slammed for not releasing until it is done (Stair Tool, possibly) plus they get slammed for working slow.
...

I'm not saying things to slam anyone. Even less at GS. I have always praised the deep analysis they put with new tools. Sometimes it works, sometimes it needs to be addressed (i.e. orange orb and current snap guides). And I have always said that the strong part of AC is its workflow paradigm.

I'm not talking about a single tool. Fixing the stair tool would solve only one thing. I'm talking about the general concept here, where that small gap to get that feeling of things working as they should would make a world of difference. Every new release brings new things. New great things that benefit most of AC users. I guess the general discomfort lies in the sense that there are things that could have been addressed or finished in any of those releases but just weren't. Examples?

Building materials.- AWESOME new feature. Shifted workflows entirely. But priority based connections work automatically with some elements, others need to be connected manually, others just don't use them (mesh). Why not implement them entirely? Why are they not available to GDL? I know there will be reasons as to why they weren't done for every tool the first time, but they could have improved over time.
Solid Element Operations.- I dare to say AC's booleans are some of the cleanest operations I've seen. But as handy as they are, they weren't done for floorplans. Oh, but some tools now show them you might say. Great! Why not every tool or every element displays them yet?
Profile manager.- Be careful with curvy elements. Although the intrinsic nature of GDL won't allow for smooth curves, it is something that could have started to be addressed since the introduction of shells, when GS realized that AC needed more modeling freedom.
GDL itself and libraries.- AMAZING things can be done with it. It is fast and efficient. It is old. It is holding AC back. It takes a lot of development time. Building good and great parametric library parts takes a lot of time, trial and error. I remember GS developers saying they used the same development environment and suffered with the rest of the users. It's crazy that even today, when you know that you can use any tool for a purpose other than intended, you can't use them in the GDL development environment to model directly in it -instead of scripting- and connect its creation parameters. This is also why companies prefer to model their products in other platforms.

Is that small gap to close the circle that rises the frustation bar. And there are many other small things that could have been improved -the forums are plagued with those-, but resources are targeted to key targets. No wonder it is called KCC: Key Client Conference. May be related, maybe not.

I know things need time to develop. Remember when profiles couldn't be applied to curved elements? Got fixed for the next release. I also remember the proof of concept I did in GDL for connected floor to floor height for walls in V13 when a Revit user asked if it could be done in AC. This arrived in V18 with natural constraints.

Many years ago the parametricity offered was ok because it didn't play a big role as it does now. Isolated parametric objects were great, but today standards have different demands. A lot will be solved with the Rhino connection, but a lot will not.

I hope this clarifies a little what I'm talking about. I'm not saying things just to say, or flame anything or anyone. I also understand that GS has priorities and a development roadmap, and that when a new feature is not ready, it is just not ready. The frustrating part is that sometimes it feels like things will remain as they are for who knows how long.

Best regards.

[Eduardo Rolon]

I do agree with you sinceV6 and I don't know if you are in the Beta group, if not then you have no idea the arguments that go on in that one between users and the different teams.

The problem is when post like this and a couple of others start assuming that "if GS had not done this then I would have gotten what I want…" or "Why they keep wasting resources?".

If you look at the previous releases you can define what the strategy and changes are going forward. Basically there will be an overall coordinating concept, something New introduced (I don't need this/ this is marketing), something old updated (Finally!!/productivity), some basic new stuff updated or created for the release and some WTFs. Everything aligned to avoid AC running slower than before and that it works with TW.

So join the Beta when it comes around…

[Bricklyne Clarence]

ejrolon wrote:
....
Forgetting Morph and Renovation. Every single item you have listed, obviously not the parasol object, has benefited me in lots of ways and I am a single practitioner. So I have no problem waiting until things are cooked.

Not everyone has that luxury, though.

What is the actual price for a truly bi-directional connection between Grasshopper and AC that no other BIM package has and we got for free?

Two problems I see with this.
With the first, being the obvious that people who don't know how to use Rhino (or worse, Grasshopper) have to learn how to use them to get the benefit of this connection.
Otherwise it's a wasted development effort for the 80-90% of architects who don't use Rhino or Grasshopper


Full disclosure, I DO use both and have used them since Grad school - certainly Rhino.
And my assessment is that while it does show great promise, it's still not where it needs to be to be a truly useful connection that really leverages the strengths of Rhino/Grasshopper in an ArchiCAD environment.
And unfortunately a lot of its limitations at the moment result largely from ArchiCAD's own limitations and shortcomings since it can only translate geometry and information based on ArchiCAD's tool template. For example, if I build an envelop for a surface in Rhino and wish to transfer it to ARchiCAD and have it read as a proper curtain wall object (for quantification purposes), I can only do so much since frames in the ArchiCAD tool for example can't twist or rotate to any angle on all three axes as you would need to translate some forms, and even the Curtain wall itself can't be double-curved. (obviously), panels can't be twisted - all of which essentially forces you to translate all that information into morphs.
I don't need to point out the obvious problem with doing it this way, in light of what I'm seeking to do in documentation terms.

That's the second problem which I don't believe is that critical - obviously depending on how much more maturity the connection itself can undergo and how much farther GS are willing to keep developing it.
And in light of their history with releasing ground-breaking tools in recent versions (**ahem**Curtain wall tool**cough**), can anyone really have any assurance that they will continue supporting and improving this connection as it needs to be, in order for it to be useful?

I really hope they're taking notes in seeing how McNeel helped nurture Grasshopper's development - which was a ground-up, community-based effort.

There's a third problem which you yourself actually point out (inadvertently) later on in your post.

ejrolon wrote:
So GS gets slammed for releasing an idea that is not finished yet (Properties, Curtain Wall Tool with reason) and it also gets slammed for not releasing until it is done (Stair Tool, possibly) plus they get slammed for working slow.

Does it really have to be an either/or type situation, though?


Getting slammed for releasing an idea that's not finished yet, is a justifiable consequence of forcing your paying customers to have to use half-finished goods that they are paying for.

How would a client of yours like it if you designed a house in which they'd have to cover up some holes in the walls where windows are supposed to be because you didn't finish designing the windows in time?
Chances are this would never happen because no architect (or contractor) could survive such a business model.

And yet we're supposed to be understanding when it comes to a product and tool we're paying for.
Does that make sense to you?

And they get slammed not for not releasing a tool until it is done (stair tool) but rather that it takes them an inconceivable and incomprehensible amount of time (over 15 years that people have been clamoring for improvements to it by my count) to even acknowledge at all (they never really have) that it needs work and improvement, much less even put it on their priority list of things to be improved.
As for getting slammed for "working slow" isn't that at odds with their own self-chosen yearly update schedule? (which most of us pointed out was probably a bad idea in the first place, and which also results in them releasing half-finished tools that they then never finish or make improvements to)?

They chose that schedule. Not us.

I understand the reasons for why they would want to and why they did (revenue-stream based), but with every decision there are clear consequences.

Besides, it doesn't really help their argument, or rather this line of argument, when they then go and spend whatever little time they have (or might claim they have) for development, working on such "revolutionary tools" like a parasol object, or a playground object.

Just saying....

ejrolon wrote:
----
-----
For the record I am writing about complaining about "wasting" time doing the Parasol object and video. We can critique the implementation of all the new tools as much as we want, GOs, Curtain Wall, AC Properties , New Tabs, Interface, etc. But give the guys at GS some credit that they are doing all they can to fulfill our needs. We can argue about priorities but we don't know how their teams are setup, how they evaluate their priorities, how they classify the amount of effort needed to update such an old tool as the Stair.

So what we should sacrifice for the stair tool? Shell, Morphs, Interface, GO's, IFC, PlotMaker, Schedules, Revision Tool, Teamwork, BimX, CineRender?

I would sacrifice all of them (save for maybe the Plotmaker, which they absolutely had do to, and perhaps IFC and maybe Teamwork). That's just how important and fundamental I believe stairs are in a project.


But again, here we fall into the trap of the "Either/Or"

It's not like their options are to either do the stair tool and sacrifice one or all of those tools at the same time.
Why not prioritize?
We all have to do it.
And if stairs are so low on your list of priorities (and at odds with how high it is on your customers list of priorities) then something is seriously askew and generally wrong with your outlook.

You can't really argue that from a utilitarian perspective, that BimX or Cinerender - for as important as they are - are really that much more important and useful than stairs in a building, can you?
Most people were already outsourcing their primary rendering needs before they upgraded from Lightworks to Cinerender and we went for an entire year when more than half the user-base couldn't even benefit from BimX since it was Mac-only initially.

But I understand why they did both first.
Marketing.
I get it.
Graphisoft have to be in the public consciousness as part of their ability to survive in the competitive BIM world, and part of doing that is having revolutionary tools like BIMx and a kick-as.s. out-of-the-box renderer like Cinerender.
I get it.

But still....

ejrolon wrote:
For me the answer is none since I have been able to model all my stairs since AC8.0 with the existing tools thus having an improved Stair Tool is not so high in my list of priorities.

But it is for many...
Yes, we can work around the problems and shortcomings, currently. But workarounds only take you so far most of the time before you begin losing on your return-on-investment and time spent.

Incidentally this is a recurring theme on most of the problems and shortcomings with all their other tools, as well.

ejrolon wrote:
If I cannot achieve a Stairs with the existing tool then I would be looking at modeling them using Rhino->GH->AC since with that combo I can coordinate multiple items in a single click, matching a specific form and linking it to the particular code that I need. This can be done now though only in PC.

And therein lies problem #3 (for Mac people, at least. The reverse of what we had when BimX was released).


Not to mention a return to problem #2 and #1 with the having to force people to learn yet ANOTHER program (AND have to PAY for it) just to deal with a situation that your primary program can't (but should, given it's primary function).

A lot of Graphisoft's problems (to us, anyway) seem self-inflicted.

And a lot of the solutions they come up with to deal with these problems seem to spawn even more problems.

But then again maybe they don't view them as problems.
Which in turn becomes a bigger problem for us.