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.

[Jeff Kogut]

One thing in GS's defense - I hope the AC/Rhino/GH trifecta is aimed at getting university students using them.

(Making swoopy, expensive, unbuildable buildings aside!)

[Eduardo Rolon]

BC, first of all my whole point here was that either you trust that GS will eventually get there or you don't. You might disagree with them as we all do but using the Parasol object as an example of everything that is wrong with GS Team is kind of a bad argument.

By some reason somebody created it and they decided to include it. I am 100% percent sure that the reasoning was not

"Lets take this 20 guys from the work on the Stair Tool and make them spend the next 2 years building the Parasol and Playground objects because they are more important.

Bricklyne wrote:
…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…

My answer is that you need to be willing to learn how to do stuff in the same way that they had to learn how to use the Morph Tool, Change Manager and even AC and the original Stair Tool. Or the way that the RVT guys need/can to learn Dynamo and the VW guys Marionette. Right now we have multiple options on how to model our projects.
Though Dynamo and Marionette are "free" and Rhino is not I think GS solution is better since they are not wasting resources in copying but were efficiently used in connecting the Standard with the plugin free of charge. The ones that do not see the benefits of the connection do not have to pay nor do they can complain that the only benefit of ARCHICAD 20 is for something that they will never use. We also got NURBs as part of GDL now as a result of this and this opens another can of worms, hopefully in a good way.

Bricklyne wrote:
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?

It does not and it was not inadvertently I was just trying to clarify the point that most of the complaints can be placed in those types of situations at the same time and there is no way that anybody can "win" under those circumstances.

Bricklyne wrote:
… 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.
…

That is the whole point, this will never happen, if it does that means that there was an unforeseen reason for it. There will be other type of mistakes during the construction. This is not a valid argument since I expect/guess that the reason we don't have the stair tool is not lack of manpower because that is an easy solution to fix. Therefore I would guess there might be other items in the list that are modifying the release date.
But in the case of the Stair tool everybody knows that it is because GS does not know how to produce architectural software and they keep doing Parasol Objects. So we get back to why should we keep using AC since we already know that they are incompetent.

Bricklyne wrote:
…
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.
…

The point about this is that we all have different priorities and I don't expect that GS can match every single client at the same time. Also that GS works on stuff that I might not consider important but that eventually simplifies my workflow.
Of course that stairs as an architectural element are important in a project. It is just that since version 8 I have been able to design, model and document every type of stair I have needed in my projects. For me it is more important to be able to model something with generic tools than having a single dedicated tool for that purpose.

In my opinion Single use/specific tools simplify workflows by either making it easier for new users and additionally making it faster for existing ones.

Bricklyne wrote:
…
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.
…

Not necessarily it might just be that it takes more time or there are other considerations that we don't know about. Can it be that Stairs are not low on the list they are very high but what they want to do with them needs to take more time? Can it be that they needed to develop and release BMats, Morphs, New Labels before they could finish the stairs since those items are needed to create a Better Stair Tool?
Then we come around to the argument that either there is a reason (or multiple ones) for the delay in giving us the New Stair Tool, GS priorities do not align with mine or that GS are not able to prioritize and execute correctly.

Bricklyne wrote:
…
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.
…

That is why I wrote what I thought are the way they prioritize their items. There has always been an item that is based on Marketing only, though sometimes we get one that do more than that and are good for Production like TW02 and the Delta Server, Change Manager, IFC.

About CR there were always a lot of complaints about the Lightworks implementation (with reason) and we did get some that can match what we are getting for the stair tool. And for CR was integrated in 18 and updated in 20. I understand that doing renderings is not as important as building your stairs in your project.

The LW comments http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=879&start=0 mostly were that GS should fix/finish the implementation and GS at the end it took more time that everyone wanted or expected and but they switched engines and we finally were able to check off those items from our wish list.

What could be the reasons that GS used to prioritize CR over a New Stair Tool?
•01• They are stupid and don't know how to prioritize?
•02• Marketing drive priorities?
•03• It was easier?
•04• The licensing contract was going to expire by 2014 and they did not want to renew it?
•05• They don't care about their users?
•06• They don't have the resources?
•07• Resource allocation is determined by Marketing?
•08• The stair tool team's roadmap need more items to be finished before they can finish the tool?

I don't know but I am willing to think that there is a reason why the Stair Tool is not finished yet and it is not that it is not high on their Priorities list.

Bricklyne wrote:
…
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.
…

If this is the case then my recommendation is switching to another program to produce your projects since AC is not aligned with your workflows. The deliverable is what is important not the tool used. The client does not care what software was used for his project and if you are losing money using AC then it is definitively the wrong tool.

See:
http://blog.graphisoftus.com/archicad-user/powerhouse-brazil-firm-chooses-archicad-over-revit

The reason they switched was that they could be more productive using AC than Revit and they could deliver the same amount of projects with almost half the personel and 2/3's less modeling errors. Maybe some need to switch to another platform.

Bricklyne wrote:
…

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).
…

The Mac version of Grasshopper is already in beta and as I wrote in another post the GH-AC connection for Mac will be a Beta release at the end of the month hopefully. In addition you can export to Rhino and back using 20 with much better results than with the SketchUp plugin.

http://discourse.mcneel.com/t/rhino-for-mac-work-in-progress-rhinowip/28040

About learning and paying for another program I already gave my opinion.

[SARCASM] GS has forced me to pay and learn Word, Excel, Acrobat, Photoshop, Illustrator, MasterSpec, VRay, C4D, when will they stop forcing me use other tools to do my job? I already know all I am willing to learn and my brain cannot fit another workflow! They also forced me to buy a computer and get rid of my pencils and straight edge.[SARCASM]

Bricklyne wrote:
…
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.
…

Here we get to the half-full half-empty part of the argument.

If the opinion of GS is that one then I cannot see why you keep using AC. As with every new release we get into the priorities argument. This is not about wanting a new stair tool this is about guessing about GS priorities and resources. From one point of view GS is not working on or capable of developing the tools needed in the appropriate time frame. This forces us into workarounds or learning new software which for some is not an option. And they keep wasting time doing other things or following the instructions from the Marketing department. I have been reading this type of comment since AC09 which was my first upgrade though I don't remember if I got what I wanted or not. For these people it is almost obvious that AC should not be the tool to use.

I don't think that doing the Parasol object and video took time away from stair development.

I don't think that GS is stupid in assigning priorities or resources. Nor do I expect them to be perfect (Curtain Wall) or to be blind to the professions.

When will get an Updated Stair Tool I have no idea but I can bet that they are working on it and they will release it as soon as they can.

This does not mean that I don't get on GS case whenever I can either here, GDCP, in the Beta or with direct messages nor that we should not point out when they make mistakes.

This means that I am still willing (based on my experience) to trust GS to do right by my professional needs rather than Autodesk, Bentley, VectorWorks et al.

The Stair Tool is not a deal breaker for my deliverables but that might not be the case for some. For those that are not willing to wait or use a workaround there is not much I can do to help. For the ones that are willing to give GS the benefit of the doubt that we will get a new tool at some point I don't mind helping to figure out the workarounds for their particular problems.

-PS-
The next set of argument for this will be when they finally release the New Stair and then the complains will be that it does not work like they want or that it is 80% complete or that they should have waited before releasing it since I need it to do this type of stair and GS does not know anything about architecture. That GS priorities are screwed up. That now I have to learn how to use a new tool…
and WHY did they do a BEACH CHAIR object and Video instead of fixing the Curtain Wall tool?

-PPS-
Sorry for the long rant

[Anonymous]

Hello, I'm going to say my opinion and experience about the most wished tool in AC "the stair tool".

Fist of all I don't complain saying why did they wasted time on this or that, because even if is something not useful or priority for me, it could be for someone else. And I really like Archicad and the way you work on it, I think AC is a very good product, and really appreciate the improvements in each versions, actually Graphics Overrride was something I was wishing for a long time and it makes me very happy having it now. But the point here is that stairs are something very basic and fundamental in the architectural world, just like any other construction element. I know that GS as a company has a lot of things to deal with and has a road map. but sometimes I think (how I see things from my point of view, I don't say I am right) this road map change with the new technologies, and the priorities with them. For example, when having algorithmic design became a priority in AC? but from when have a good stair tool been a priority for AC? But now we have a great effort in having algorithmic design integrated to AC, which I appreciate (and I just start learning how to use it), but this does not take away the need of a good stair tool, cause after all AC is about Architecture not? Neither the GO, that I like a lot, takes away the need of a good stair tool.

I am not a programmer, I tried to learn GDL to develop some object but I did not have time to get into it. So I really don't know how much effort things take to be done right (probably that is why I'm saying this), and also know that a stair is probably the more complex structure in a construction for a software, because of the amount of elements and variation between one stair and the other, but I think there are enough complaints out there about the stair tool for enough time already so that GS make the stair tool a priority for today. And as any other great tool of AC, which you can do a lot more than just what the title of the tool can do, I see the new stair tool as a tool that will not only be able to do stairs, but that will be helpful to do a lot of things.

We that use AC understand that we can use different tools to make complex stairs, I have done it myself a lot of times, but someone that is not an AC user can see the lack of a good stair tool like a problem to jump into AC, knowing that in their projects, stairs are important (this I say for experience), and I can't tell them that they can do an algorithmic stair using grasshopper, that just does not work for a future new user, for me yes, but not for them.

Now, this is more personal thinking here. I think GS should work on making the GDL scripting easy for every user with access to make parts for different tools like the curtain wall, doors, windows, stair, etc., this will solve most of the complain on the tools, imaging making your own doors and windows totally parametric from scratch, doing cabinet doors that will stretch accordingly, doing what I call helper tools, like the ceiling editor, imaging yourself able to create all this objects you need in a effective way, imaging the amount of object we could have right now in Bimcomponents.com, with this the users will have the power to create a lot of things, and make AC even more ours, and we will probably have a lot more real products available for AC. And if in GDL is too difficult to make this, then (but I don't know how can this impact in how AC works) they should change or add another scripting language to AC.

But again this is a personal opinion, I know there are different approach to solve these things and probably mine is not the best one, and I'm aware of it.

[Eduardo Rolon]

arqrivas wrote:
… For example, when having algorithmic design became a priority in AC?…

Guessing when BIG decided to switch from Revit to AC.

http://www.big.dk

And since Grashopper started to become "important" as a design tool.

arqrivas wrote:
… but from when have a good stair tool been a priority for AC?…

AFAIK since forever but I think that since it was "good enough at the time" then they placed it to be fixed after the introduction of some other stuff in the roadmap. I am guessing that they chose or wanted to implement BMats before finishing it and if that was the case then at a minimum 4 years.

[Anonymous]

arqrivas wrote:

For example, when having algorithmic design became a priority in AC? but from when have a good stair tool been a priority for AC?

I'm sorry I think I did not explain my point with these questions.
What I want to point out is that, algorithmic design is something new compare to the need of a good stair tool. I think algorithmic design is very important nowadays, and a priority, and I know users will find endless uses for it (me, myself, I'm learning and already have a few ideas how to get advantage of it, like a simple grid to distribute elements in a space by rules, like chairs or desks in a office), but what I say is that they did it, and did not take them so long to find a solution. Probably the stair tool is too difficult?
But anyway, I'm sure of something, that when GS release a new stair tool, it will be a good one and very flexible, I know they have the philosophy of making things user friendly (that is what I like the most in AC), graphical, and flexible. I'm waiting for that new stair tool, and hope that is not going to take much longer.

[sinceV6]

ejrolon wrote:
...
The next set of argument for this will be when they finally release the New Stair and then the complains will be that it does not work like they want or that it is 80% complete or that they should have waited before releasing it since I need it to do this type of stair and GS does not know anything about architecture. That GS priorities are screwed up. That now I have to learn how to use a new tool…
and WHY did they do a BEACH CHAIR object and Video instead of fixing the Curtain Wall tool?...

Nailed it.

ejrolon wrote:
...
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....

I can only imagine. I'm currently not using AC as much as I did up to last year so don't think I could be participating actively. Moved a bit to overlooking a few of projects being developed by third parties. Imagine this: they model the concept in sketchup (a very detailed model) and then draft everything in autoCAD for documentation purposes. Don't ask me about changes and the time they take to do them or coordination errors. It is a complete nightmare.

But, their argument is that they can do almost anything they need in sketchup. Dumb geometry, yes; but the simplicity in modeling and the ecosystem around sketchup is what makes it a fantastic tool to have around. Need a specific furniture? Probably already modeled in the warehouse. Cabinets? Build them (at least the volume so you can see the design and how they look).

This got me thinking and realizing (in a different way, because I already knew) that sketchup doesn't ship with libraries... so a stupid question came up: What if GS did not include any object libraries? Imagine you have to build your custom parametric library starting in AC21. What do you think you would need/want so that you can do it yourself? I know some might say "you can do it already... the tools are there, you have modeling tools and GDL". Yeah. I know. How fast do you think you could be able to build the object library with the parametric options you use most? How would you go about building your doors and windows? How about stairs? (thinking forward and that you'll use them a lot)

I deeply think that solving this would need a lot of time and a good rewrite of AC, but would improve things beyond imagination. And this lets you have a different view at the simple and efficient ways of GDL, where they have become unnatural and overly complex (I mean... just look at the doors/windows code)

The ecosystem that GS is building around AC by integrating other tools like Rhino is really a step forward. Turning AC into a central information hub is great. I just hope they keep improving things that now feel left unfinished.

Best regards.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

ejrolon wrote:
BC, first of all my whole point here was that either you trust that GS will eventually get there or you don't. You might disagree with them as we all do but using the Parasol object as an example of everything that is wrong with GS Team is kind of a bad argument.

Good thing then, that that's not what I was doing.
This thread was started by someone questioning the wisdom of promoting this object as one of the new (key?) features of the new version of ArchiCAD 20.

That's a fair question to ask since the perception they are conveying with such a video (and the playground object from last year) is that THIS is what they spend development resources on instead of what users clamor and ask for year after year - fair or not.

You could say it's a question of judgment or the prudence of deciding to including it at all, especially if, as you postulated, it was something that may have been done for a specific client, as you do below.....

ejrolon wrote:
By some reason somebody created it and they decided to include it. I am 100% percent sure that the reasoning was not

"Lets take this 20 guys from the work on the Stair Tool and make them spend the next 2 years building the Parasol and Playground objects because they are more important.

Fair enough, but if that's the case then you (or rather, they) would have to be prepared for the inevitable questions that will arise from showing that object that the vast majority of your users are probably neither going to use, nor even requested to have improved.

As well as the fact that it makes users question your priorities as a developer and lessens any trust that you keep mentioning we should have, that they'll get there eventually.

ejrolon wrote:
My answer is that you need to be willing to learn how to do stuff in the same way that they had to learn how to use the Morph Tool, Change Manager and even AC and the original Stair Tool. Or the way that the RVT guys need/can to learn Dynamo and the VW guys Marionette. Right now we have multiple options on how to model our projects.
Though Dynamo and Marionette are "free" and Rhino is not I think GS solution is better since they are not wasting resources in copying but were efficiently used in connecting the Standard with the plugin free of charge. The ones that do not see the benefits of the connection do not have to pay nor do they can complain that the only benefit of ARCHICAD 20 is for something that they will never use.

That's a totally different (and in many ways invalid) comparison and analogy.

When Graphisoft introduce a new tool into ArchiCAD like the ones you are pointing out in Morph Tool or the Change Manager - these are tools WITHIN and inside the program and which exist within the program's interface and workflow environment.
It's absolutely nothing like learning a tool that's in an entirely separate program where you would have get familiar with the workspace and interface first of all, and then learn this whole other plugin that operates somewhat differently from the host program.

Even the examples with Marionnette and Dynamo still don't fit.
Those two solutions were developed WITHIN their respective host programs as part of the environment their users are already used to.

I'm not against learning Grasshopper or Rhino (I know how to use both) as new tools that help me get more done.
But if I'm an ArchiCAD user unfamiliar with both those programs/plugins, needing to get something done and then being told "well you can do it easily in Grasshopper. All you have to do is learn it",.. that's an entirely different proposition than telling someone they can get something done if they learn how to use the new Morph Tool in ArchiCAD.

Plus, as much as you're arguing that if someone doesn't want to learn it or doesn't see the benefit of using it, they shouldn't worry about it - you also did suggest that one of the ways you get around the shortcomings of the tools in ArchiCAD that we're discussing, is that you basically just get the job done in Rhino or ArchiCAD.

So someone who isn't familiar with Rhino/Grasshopper and doesn't want to learn (or doesn't have the resources or time to spend doing so) has to suffer the same shortcomings in ArchiCAD, just because?
It doesn't add up.

It's either a solution (to ArchiCAD's shortcomings) or it isn't.
And if it is, then one can rightly ask, why the extra cost on top of what I'm already paying for? (which is a lot)

ejrolon wrote:
We also got NURBs as part of GDL now as a result of this and this opens another can of worms, hopefully in a good way.

Yeah, but they were forced into that.
There's no way you create a bridge or a connection to Rhino/Grasshopper unless your program can handle or efficiently read and translate NURBS geometry.
And yet users have been asking for some kind of NURBS capability in ArchiCAD for the longest time I can remember.
I literally created a post something like 10 or 12 years or so ago, even predating the existence of Grasshopper, wherein I suggested creating some sort of a bridge between ArchiCAD and Rhino that allows back and forth import of geometry into the program since at the time we really didn't have that many options at all for freeform model and geomotry creation (this was the pre-Maxonform days).
As with most things, nothing ever came of it.

And it's only when BIG comes into the picture and they begin working on the Grasshopper bridge, do they finally consider it important.

So what happens with the rest of us who don't have the clout of a BIG or a Helen and Hard or a Woods Bagot?
Does this mean that we have to wait until one of those Big-name Architects and Starchitects start clamoring for a better stair tool (or better windows or doors), before they begin to take it seriously or treat it with an elevated sense of urgency?

Chances are most of them can hire a dedicated GDL coder to build them custom library objects or anything they want.
The rest of us can't.

ejrolon wrote:
That is the whole point, this will never happen, if it does that means that there was an unforeseen reason for it. There will be other type of mistakes during the construction. This is not a valid argument since I expect/guess that the reason we don't have the stair tool is not lack of manpower because that is an easy solution to fix. Therefore I would guess there might be other items in the list that are modifying the release date.
But in the case of the Stair tool everybody knows that it is because GS does not know how to produce architectural software and they keep doing Parasol Objects. So we get back to why should we keep using AC since we already know that they are incompetent.

You're completely twisting my argument and my point.

The example of you or I as an architect failing to deliver what our clients would expect in the form of a fully functioning building or building design, was to point out the fact that part of the reason we would never get away with delivering half-assed work is because at the end of the day it would not just harm our bottom line, but our ability to practice at all.
Consequences.
They exist for the rest of us.

If Graphisoft deliver a half-finished tool in the particular version, the only recourse for the user is either to not use it at all, or to find some other solution as you have, while the only consequence they suffer is bad press and a couple of ranting threads by disgruntled users like this one.
The following year they'll still get their usual number of users upgrading thanks to the subscription model, or even just those same disgruntled users hoping that they fix what wasn't right in the first place, in the new version.

Whether that's incompetence on their part or cynicism regarding their users' limited options, I don't know.
I can only speak from the perspective of someone as this end of things and from how we see them.

ejrolon wrote:
The point about this is that we all have different priorities and I don't expect that GS can match every single client at the same time. Also that GS works on stuff that I might not consider important but that eventually simplifies my workflow.
Of course that stairs as an architectural element are important in a project. It is just that since version 8 I have been able to design, model and document every type of stair I have needed in my projects. For me it is more important to be able to model something with generic tools than having a single dedicated tool for that purpose.

And honestly, I'm happy for you that you're able to do that, just as I'm happy to be using a program that allows for multiple solutions and workarounds if you're not able to get the job done with the existing tools.
Except you're using the example of YOU and what you're able to do and what works for YOU.
Which isn't always the case for a majority of users.

But having workarounds (and conversely, having to rely on them) is only as useful up until the point they begin to undercut the entire point of the program or notion of BIM ( parametric model that consistently updates information with every change and which maintains logical relationships between the various (intelligent and/or "smart") elements that define your design in a way that enhances your whole process. At least that's my defintion of it).
Having a "dumb" stair made from native construction elements that's neither parametric, nor "smart" nor has any "I" (in the BIM sense) that would be useful for documentation and changes downstream in the design process, and which pretty much reduces you to the AutoCAD drafting days, is pretty much the text-book case of where this point gets crossed. IMO.

ejrolon wrote:
…

That is why I wrote what I thought are the way they prioritize their items. There has always been an item that is based on Marketing only, though sometimes we get one that do more than that and are good for Production like TW02 and the Delta Server, Change Manager, IFC.

About CR there were always a lot of complaints about the Lightworks implementation (with reason) and we did get some that can match what we are getting for the stair tool. And for CR was integrated in 18 and updated in 20. I understand that doing renderings is not as important as building your stairs in your project.

For most people it's not.
The rendering may help you win the project, but the meat of your fees will come from a correct and efficient execution and delivery of it.

And the problem with the LW and CR examples is that they are not developed by Graphisoft itself.
LW was licensed and it's the fact that Graphisoft licensed a crippled version of it (with no radiosity and limited material manipulation option) that got on people's nerves.
CR likewise isn't developed by them but rather by their "sister" company Maxon. But it's more mature (even while we're a version behind the actual Cinema4D engine).
But we've been down this road before, of them outsourcing functions to other third-parties (remember MaxonForm? I do.).
And that's a similar peril that exists even with the Rhino/Grasshoppeer bridge (to a lesser extent).

I'm not saying that they should spend development resources developing a new render engine or anything like that, and you could even argue that in cases like this, this route is actually the best solution since it presumably or supposedly (one would think) frees them up to work on core features of the program themselves.
But using these as examples of times they responded to users request to improve a particular tool when they tool they introduced wasn't really developed by them, is a bit skewed and misleading IMHO.

ejrolon wrote:
If this is the case then my recommendation is switching to another program to produce your projects since AC is not aligned with your workflows.

This really isn't a great argument to make to people expressing dissatisfaction or highlighting issues with the program.
That basically, "if you don't like what they're offering, ggo find some other place to get your solution and see if anything better exists".

I've used Revit; I used Vectorworks (and still have to from time to time); I've even dabbled with Microstation.

I CHOOSE to use ArchiCAD because it works best for me.
Does that mean that I should then shut up about any issues I have with the program and just be happy with my decision since I made it and can always just go off to some other program if I'm not happy?

Maybe the reason, myself as well as others raise these complaints and issues (rather than just walk away) is that we like the program well enough (something I've personally stated on many many occasions) that we care to see it improved in a way that it will be even more useful for us.
What's the point of the wishlist section, then if that's the attitude being espoused? OR even this whole Talk forum altogether?

ejrolon wrote:
The deliverable is what is important not the tool used.

If you really believe that, when why do you use ArchiCAD.
Why do any of us use ArchiCAD?
Especially for those of us in Revit-heavy markets.

ejrolon wrote:
The client does not care what software was used for his project and if you are losing money using AC then it is definitively the wrong tool.

One can enjoy using a program and still lose money using it.
Which isn't to say that there are any other better alternatives out there for them to switch to.

ejrolon wrote:
See:
http://blog.graphisoftus.com/archicad-user/powerhouse-brazil-firm-chooses-archicad-over-revit

The reason they switched was that they could be more productive using AC than Revit and they could deliver the same amount of projects with almost half the personel and 2/3's less modeling errors. Maybe some need to switch to another platform.

**sigh**

ejrolon wrote:
Here we get to the half-full half-empty part of the argument.

If the opinion of GS is that one then I cannot see why you keep using AC. As with every new release we get into the priorities argument. This is not about wanting a new stair tool this is about guessing about GS priorities and resources. From one point of view GS is not working on or capable of developing the tools needed in the appropriate time frame. This forces us into workarounds or learning new software which for some is not an option. And they keep wasting time doing other things or following the instructions from the Marketing department. I have been reading this type of comment since AC09 which was my first upgrade though I don't remember if I got what I wanted or not. For these people it is almost obvious that AC should not be the tool to use.

I don't think that doing the Parasol object and video took time away from stair development.

I don't think that GS is stupid in assigning priorities or resources. Nor do I expect them to be perfect (Curtain Wall) or to be blind to the professions.

When will get an Updated Stair Tool I have no idea but I can bet that they are working on it and they will release it as soon as they can.

This does not mean that I don't get on GS case whenever I can either here, GDCP, in the Beta or with direct messages nor that we should not point out when they make mistakes.

This means that I am still willing (based on my experience) to trust GS to do right by my professional needs rather than Autodesk, Bentley, VectorWorks et al.

The Stair Tool is not a deal breaker for my deliverables but that might not be the case for some. For those that are not willing to wait or use a workaround there is not much I can do to help. For the ones that are willing to give GS the benefit of the doubt that we will get a new tool at some point I don't mind helping to figure out the workarounds for their particular problems.

This almost sounds like, "If you're not happy with what you're getting, then go find it somewhere else, or shut up about it."
I've already expressed my opinion about this argument or line of reasoning, but I'll say that I don't think you're doing Graphisoft's marketing department a whole set of favors using it.

ejrolon wrote:
-PS-
The next set of argument for this will be when they finally release the New Stair and then the complains will be that it does not work like they want or that it is 80% complete or that they should have waited before releasing it since I need it to do this type of stair and GS does not know anything about architecture.

Yeah, bu at least we'd actually have SOMETHING to complain about.
Which is a whole lot more than we have now.
I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe they'll knock it out of the park on the first try when they release a version with a new stair tool.

I can pretty much guarantee based on their history with new features, that, however good it is, it will have a ton of bugs galore, and that it probably probably a couple of hotfixes in, if not a few versions out, before it's usable, problem-free.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about expectations, as far as what we should expect and whether people will complain (they will).
GS have conditioned us over the years to have lowered expectations where these things are concerned

[Eduardo Rolon]

BC to try and sum up my opinions since I think we are splitting hairs and doing circular arguments and then I am moving on:

•00• I am not saying that nobody can complain or ask for better tools or held GS feet to the fire.

•01• Having a new Parasol object and training video is not a waste of resources and I agree that promoting it as they did is not doing them any favors.

•02• I cannot control what people know or what they are willing to learn but I DO spend the time trying to teach them and sharing what I know and trying to figure out what is the easiest solution that might help them within AC and with other tools. That is why I spend time here, in the Beta, and in GDCP. I help users for free and I give advice to GS also for free. Maybe I should have ignored the original comment but I thought the argument needed a reply and then it got out of proportion.

•03• My recommendation to switch to another program is valid. An architect does not get paid for the tool he uses and if using a specific tool causes that office to loose money then they should look for another one. If the office goes broke you cannot blame GS for it or the lack of knowledge or the inability to find a workaround. If AC does not work then switching to another tool is a valid option. I know offices that still work by hand and they are doing ok.

This is not dealing with dissatisfaction by making users go away nor do I want to silence criticism or avoid highlighting issues within the program. If anyone sincerely believes that GS cannot prioritize, fix or produce the tools that are needed because somebody did a Parasol Object with its Video and they promoted it and on top of that this is the reason we did not get a new Stair Tool there is not much I or anybody else can do about it but IMO opinion valid criticism it is not.

•04•

Bricklyne wrote:

ejrolon wrote:
The deliverable is what is important not the tool used.

If you really believe that, when why do you use ArchiCAD.
Why do any of us use ArchiCAD?
Especially for those of us in Revit-heavy markets.

I have done Construction Documents by hand, autocad, microstation, and Revit. I have played with Rhinceros when it was a plugin for Autocad and as a standalone app also with Vectorworks and FormZ. Obviously SketchUp 3D Studio, Cinema4D and Maya also. I have been teaching computer courses, design studios and construction documents at the University level for the last 18 years plus giving courses in BIM, rendering and digital workflows to the local AIA (CAAPPR) chapter.

I use AC because it lets me produce my deliverables in a consistent, organized, efficient, coordinated, easy, fast, flexible, effortless and entertaining way. Complying with different codes and letting me switch from work in PR, to work in FL to work in China without any major problems or complications. It lets me collaborate with multiple people in different places and it has one of the better communities, support staff and development teams out of all of the software companies I have had to deal with. It is so efficient that it lets me spend time answering this post without worrying about the time I am not applying to finish another project since I finished all of the work between my rant this morning and this one.

[irony] Sadly it does not have a Brand New Stair Tool (yet) but considering all of the above I am willing to forgive them that they spent time doing the Parasol and Playground objects and the videos and they listed them as key features [/irony]

--PS--
Bricklyne this is not personal (if it sounds like it I apologize) as I see it we disagree on the way to criticize and in our expectations from GS. Would like to see your input in the next Beta since I have never seen you participate there. When you get 20 then we can get in heavy criticizing of GO's,Tabs, Interface and the New Properties.

[Anonymous]

Eduardo, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments!

BC, first of all my whole point here was that either you trust that GS will eventually get there or you don't...

I have been a user since 4.5 and when the day comes I no longer trust GS I will simply use something else.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Don wrote:
Eduardo, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments!

I have been a user since 4.5 and when the day comes I no longer trust GS I will simply use something else.

Word of Advice Don,

Next time you decide to talk cr@p about someone on the Forum behind their back in a private message to someone else, be sure you address it to the correct person and not the person you're actually slandering:

To wit:

You sent me this today which I can only assume you meant to send to Robby in the other thread.

Don wrote:
Hi Robby:

From your number of posts am I right that you maybe fairly new to the forum?

Anyway, Bricklyne has a long history of complaining about GS. It's not that his comments are technically wrong, but that he attributes GS's "shortcomings" to the fact that they don't listen to their users, are arrogant and trying to rip us all off.

How long have you used AC and how do you like it?

thanks

Don

Sorry to embarrass you and out you so publicly like this ( I had no intention of addressing you directly either here or in any other thread, since I have nothing to discuss with you), but what you were doing is obviously less than respectful and I suppose it's only poetic justice and bad karma for you that the message itself ended up in my PM box.

Have a nice day.

(....and watch out for that tricky "Reply all" button )