Structural steel sections & profile manager

[Anonymous]

Assuming that I'd get a chance to test ArchiCAD in a project... (Been only looking at the demo for a few hours and it looks quite appealing, I must say.)

How does one - in real world - (i) create and (ii) manage even a modest selection of steel sections? Is there something in the profile manager I don't get?

I mean: if I have the standard hot rolled sections from channels to IPE & HE A/B/C, stock sizes of RHS, SHS and RHS etc., is there an efficient way to store & select sizes? Can the profile be a parametric object?

[__archiben]

Petri wrote:
Thick as a brick - can't get the top & bottom to be cut along the horizontal plane as I can when using the Column tool...

Must be something very simple...

more likely one of the 'i's or 't's i forgot to dot or cross. that object was simply just a proof of concept. another 10/15 minutes with it would probably be needed to clean it up properly so that the beam/column functionality was correct.

Petri wrote:
Trying to incorporate all the details and situations in a Comprehensive Model seems to me to be a rather pointless exercise.

yes - but this is what round-trip collaboration with tekla structures and the like is supposed to achieve:

• architect creates rough beam/column elements and sends to engineer.
• engineer designs the structure - plates and all - runs the calcs and sends back.
• architect's steel objects get revised according to engineer's design including plates.

this is what the 'x-steel' library was supposed to do about 4 years ago - bring everything back in except for the bolts! except that back then it was too flaky. i've since moved on to smaller projects and no longer collaborate on that level so i haven't tried recently.

b

[Anonymous]

~/archiben wrote:
[
yes - but this is what round-trip collaboration with tekla structures and the like is supposed to achieve:

Supposed at least. I'm in no position to comment the reality.

Besides, I don't necessarily want my objects to be "revised" except for size. Plates, bolts etc. have little relevance in most cases (hi-tech exposed structures perhaps, but not necessarily, excluded.)

In the early STEP propaganda, they made a lot of (well-founded) noise about the (expected) ability to view objects at a chosen level of detail. I wonder if this has become reality in IFC and compliant programs. How would I change the representation of imported objects in ArchiCAD? (Maybe there is a tab or control already in the info dialog? This I even might be able to test: "omit plates and bolts"?)

[Anonymous]

~/archiben wrote:
more likely one of the 'i's or 't's i forgot to dot or cross. that object was simply just a proof of concept. another 10/15 minutes with it would probably be needed to clean it up properly so that the beam/column functionality was correct.

Something for you to consider, should you take this quite promising concept further:

1. The top & bottom should be able to be independently defined to be at least
a) horizontal
b) vertical
c) at an arbitrary angle against horizontal plane
d) at an arbitrary angle against the axis

2. Ideally the "angle" should be able to be defined interactively, in plan projection at least.

3. Even more ideally, the height should also be able to be defined interactively in a 3D view. (The column may support a beam that is not horizontal.)

These are either existing, planned or wish-listed features of my (admittedly less than ideal) VectorWorks object. (Item 3 is, I think, beyond either my programming skills or VectorScript programming language.)

Call me weird if you like, but - for some reason or another - many of my projects, after starting as simple, rational & orthogonal designs, develop themselves into strange combinations of complex 3D-geometries. This happened already on the drawing board, so I was a very early user of "scientific" calculators in the 1970s...

[Djordje]

Petri wrote:
I gather the said Messrs. have no fiscal or financial responsibilities and can just go around burning someone else's money. I can't. Maybe they do not have professional standards to adhere to. I have.

Now ...

I do not feel that there is a need for insulting comments like the one above, or that anyting I or any of the mentioned had written warranted it.

Having a high opinion of yourself is useful. Plastering it all over the universe is counterproductive.

As I said elsewhere - if you have a grudge against M.A.D., Graphisoft, pricing in Finland, your fee that cannot cover the cost of the sotware (trial version is free for 30 days and does save) please don't try to get THAT sorted out with anyone HERE. Wrong address.

What does and should get sorted is your trouble will steel profiles and IFC, where I see you are on a good forward movement with Ben, Rob and others. Let's keep it like that and refrain from spilling the excess bile on unsuspecting talkers, huh?

Thanks,

[__archiben]

1. The top & bottom should be able to be independently defined to be at least
a) horizontal
b) vertical
c) at an arbitrary angle against horizontal plane
d) at an arbitrary angle against the axis

how is that any different from how the cutting angles are currently implemented? you can already do this with the cutting planes. or are you talking about tapering the column/beam?

2. Ideally the "angle" should be able to be defined interactively, in plan projection at least.

which angle? the inclination angle or the cutting angles? depending on the context some are editable, some aren't and others need to be.

for example, you can edit beam cut-angles interactively in plan, but not column inclination angles. and depending on the axis of the column cut-angles, they probably shouldn't be editable in plan because there is nothing to align them to. in other words you can't see what you are doing because of the 2D limitations.

regardless, this is about the only thing you've asked for that isn't quickly achievable. but a spot of GDL to provide a hotspot toggle in the symbol somewhere would also take care of that.

3. Even more ideally, the height should also be able to be defined interactively in a 3D view.

the height/length - whatever you want to call it - is interactively editable in the 3D window: click hotspot, choose stretch from the pet palette and away you go.

Petri wrote:
Something for you to consider, should you take this quite promising concept further:

have you actually tried using the steel objects? i think if you had and based on what we've discussed with regard to IFC you would have found out for yourself that you can quickly achieve 99% of what you require instead of having me drip-feed it to you.

i'm afraid to say that it is beginning to seem as though you really just are here for an argument rather than wanting to figure this stuff out. i stepped in initially because tom can often be misinterpreted as brusque in his replies - he wasn't, he was trying to help - and your reaction was rather over the top. but following your downright rude comments in the other thread toward the forum moderator it's pretty apparent that you just have an attitude problem: figure it out for yourself. i am not wasting any more of my time.

[Anonymous]

~/archiben wrote:
i'm afraid to say that it is beginning to seem as though you really just are here for an argument rather than wanting to figure this stuff out.

Not at all. I posted a question, got argumentation and lecturing as a reply.

Besides, I'm not expecting you to create a tool for me or anything like that, just made some points should you wish to make one for yourself or for sale. If some of those things are already doable, fine. The user interface (eg Pet Menu and modal editing) is something I do not find easy or intuitive.

i am not wasting any more of my time.

Then keep your peace.