!Restored: Flaw in stair logic

[Anonymous]

The problems with the stair tool stem from a flaw in the logic. The stairs are being defined by where the riser is rather than where the front edge of the stair tread is.

In this post I've attached an image showing a stair that does not have a nosing overhang:
- the 3D matches the 2D; and
- the handrail is the correct height above the nosing of the stair (as stipulated by regulatory requirements).

In the subsequent post I will attach an image of the same stair with a 30 nosing overhang:
- the 3D no longer matches the 2D; and
- the handrail is no longer the correct height above the stair nosing.

These problems occur because the 3D of the stair is being generated by the outside face of the riser rather than the front edge of the tread. The nosing overhang is being added to the front edge of the tread instead of at the back where it should be, with the riser face moving back by the distance of the nosing overhang.

In the real world stairs are set out by their treads, not the risers, and the locations of all of the other elements of the stair is determined relative to where the treads are located.

I'm really surprised that a program as mature as Archicad 11 contains such a fundamental flaw in its logic. It is not reassuring.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Erich,

While I agree with the basic point you are driving at, I still have to take issue with your dismissal of Mikem's point as being "Hyperbole".

Yes, there have been numerous complaints about the stair tool and yes, some of those complaints have been raised in less than savory or even civilized or acceptable ways. I don't think Mikem's posts fall into any of those categories.

Furthermore, I'm of the belief that during the few times that GS bothers to venture into these forums to see what user concerns are, when they see posts like your dismissing other users' serious concerns as being hyperbole, unnecessary, or insignificant, that that basically gives them the unspoken license to ignore said concerns because they can justify it that an equal number of users are not bothered by that problem. I can't find any other way of explaining or figuring out how else they would ignore such a problem as this or even the stair tool as a whole, unless they hold this attitude or worse yet, unless they are or were at some level unaware of it. In which case how can a thread like this be "hyperbole", in any event? when at the very least, it's alerting GS to this problem, or if they are then it's also letting other users be aware of this problem beforehand.

Again, I'm not absolving any architect of the responsibility of checking their drawings but if I have to spend that extra time looking out for an error that I wouldn't even have to check for were the drawings done the traditional way and which ultimately defeats the entire logic of a parametric model with design integrity on all drawings, then that $4000 license fee is better spent elsewhere: either with another software or with human drafters who don't need to be told more than once to repeat this kind of error. It goes beyond the professionalism and diligence of the architect and speaks instead, to the efficacy and the inherent value of the software as well as the commitment of its developers to producing a viable product and serving their customers well.

And as for the car analogy, I don't know about Oregon, but most places I know, its not the customer's responsibility to ensure that the product he or she buys, works as its supposed to work, or, as it's advertised to work. One wants to be sure that it works well to be certain, but to expect a soccer mom, a teenage driver or just plain Joe average to be capable of taking apart of the car system to make certain that all the nuts and bolts are in place as they are supposed to be, so that the brakes will not fail, as you seem to be implying is to the very definition of 'hyperbole' IMO and to completely miss the boat. Some firms have entire divisions, - plants even- just to test and ensure against these kinds of things.

Quality Assurance!

.......one can't say enough about it and just how much other companies regard it along with its impact on consumer confidence.

[Anonymous]

Looks like 12 is upon us. If it hasn't already been fixed don't hold your breath waiting.

[Jere]

Bricklyne wrote:
Erich,

While I agree with the basic point you are driving at, I still have to take issue with your dismissal of Mikem's point as being "Hyperbole"..

And I have to disagree with you and agree with Erich. I might even use the term "absurd" instead of hyperbole. If you get sued because of a flaw in your modelling, it's solely your responsibility. I fine your car/brake analogy strange. You're talking about the manufacturing of a built object. A better example would be a typographical error in a science textbook because spellcheck changed a word it shouldn't have. In that case it would be the author (i.e. the creator of the intellectual work) who was at fault, not the creator of the spellcheck software.

Personally, I would love a "perform building code review" function, but for now that responsibility lies with the designers.

[Anonymous]

Its unfortunate that this topic has been sidetracked by a 'throw away line' I posted. It would be better if we all agree to disagree and the topic stays focused on what is important.

We deserve a definitive response from Graphisoft on this issue telling us whether the logic flaw still exists in Archicad 12, or not.


PS: Jere, regulatory checking of virtual building models already exists as a capability: http://www.solibri.com/

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Jere wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
Erich,

While I agree with the basic point you are driving at, I still have to take issue with your dismissal of Mikem's point as being "Hyperbole"..

And I have to disagree with you and agree with Erich. I might even use the term "absurd" instead of hyperbole. If you get sued because of a flaw in your modelling, it's solely your responsibility. I fine your car/brake analogy strange. You're talking about the manufacturing of a built object. A better example would be a typographical error in a science textbook because spellcheck changed a word it shouldn't have. In that case it would be the author (i.e. the creator of the intellectual work) who was at fault, not the creator of the spellcheck software.
...........

.....in your eagerness to disagree you must have missed the part where I stated (repeatedly, at that) that I don't absolve the architect of his professional responsibility to ascertain the integrity and accuracy of his drawings regardless of the shortcomings of the software.

The car analogy was and is valid - you're merely and needlessly splitting hairs here; we're talking about a manufacturer (or developer in this case) producing a faulty product while assuring his customers that it works fine, despite the fact that it impacts the customer's intention for buying the product negatively, and financially even if the customer is responsible on his own end using the product.

Which wasn't even the point in contention to begin with. The point was that the product manufacturer or developer - be it a car manufacturer, spell-checker developer or CAD/Design program developer - has just as much a professional responsibility on his own end, to his clients and customers ( just as the architect has his professional responsibility to his clients, regardless of whatever software or means he chooses to use) to ensure that his product will do what he advertises it to do and not leave flaws unresolved.

I don't see how that is so difficult to understand. But you're right; let's just agree to disagree.
I for one still agree with Mikem that Graphisoft still need to resolve this issue.

[Jere]

Bricklyne wrote:
I don't see how that is so difficult to understand. But you're right; let's just agree to disagree.
I for one still agree with Mikem that Graphisoft still need to resolve this issue.

My eagerness to disagree? You're right about that. In fact, I've sitting around all morning just wishing to find something to disagree with you about. When I found something that I disagreed with, oh.....the joy. "FINALLY!" I exclaimed.

I don't believe it's difficult to understand either. I'm fairly confident I understand your point about professional responsibility (on the manufacturer/developer side) and professional liability (on the designer's side.) However, I still find your analogy odd. Comparing a handrail height on a drawing you're responsible for to a life-safety device in a motor vehicle seems a bit of a stretch.

But I'll talk no more about it. I think we can both eagerly agree this conversation is detracting from the point of the thread.

[Anonymous]

I agree with MikeM as well. This tool always baffled me and I gave up trying to do stairs with StairMaker because I could never make the balusters and the nosing line up correctly.

Has this been fixed in 12?

[Laura Yanoviak]

william235711 wrote:
I agree with MikeM as well. This tool always baffled me and I gave up trying to do stairs with StairMaker because I could never make the balusters and the nosing line up correctly.

Has this been fixed in 12?

From what I can tell, the original issue as posted by mikem oz has been fixed in AC12.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Jere wrote:
My eagerness to disagree? You're right about that. In fact, I've sitting around all morning just wishing to find something to disagree with you about. When I found something that I disagreed with, oh.....the joy. "FINALLY!" I exclaimed.......

....wow. Comedy is just not your thing it seems. Sarcasm neither, apparently.......but then again there's that thing they say about sarcasm being the last resort of something....

Good thing you're in architecture; no laughs required here......

[Anonymous]

"Good thing you're in architecture; no laughs required here......"

I used to be next to an office like that with all of these grim-looking, young faces glued to their screens quietly tip-toeing around the older, bitter, angry, disrespected professional they worked for. 😉

I'd like to see the stair tool in action and then how easy or not it is to make custom objects for balusters.