Three Buttons for One Tool - Sections, Elevations + Int Elev

[Eduardo Rolon]

Three tools for the same procedure, might it have not been better to create a tag to choose from in the S/E tool panel?

I.E. group with:

• elevations
  sections
  interior elevations

____
Imagine how I will teach this 3 tools to my next group of students in their AC class.

Professor- For elevations you have to use this tool, For sections this one and For IntElev this one.

Student- But aren't these three things the same just with different settings, WHY are they different tools?

Professor- Because GS in their Infinite Wisdom decided that we needed special icons for each

Student- OOOOOOOOOKKKK…, If I make a mistake and I choose the wrong one (because of a copy) is there a button to change it to the other type?

Professor- No, you will need to erase the previous one and create a new one

Student- Why?

Professor- Because GS in their Infinite Wisdom decided that we needed special icons for each

Student- And in how did it work before? Weren't you able to create sections and Interior Elevations?

Professor- It was one tool were a section was called "SECTION", an elevation was called "ELEVATION" and an interior elevation was called "INTERIOR ELEVATION" each with its own marker.

Student- And that procedure does not work anymore?

Professor- Yes it still does

Student- Then, Why create separate icons for what is essentially the same tool?

Professor- Because GS in their Infinite Wisdom decided that we needed special icons for each

Student- Isn't Autodesk the only one that puts new icons for the same commands and calls it an UPGRADE?

Professor- Not anymore…

[Eduardo Rolon]

… and now they have to remember to choose the correct button for the IntElevs, that the limit cannot touch the walls if you need a specific point for it to end which is different from the end of the wall and if so that you cannot put an horizontal dim since it will be measuring the wrong distance…

[Brad Elliott]

This has turned into a great topic. It seems to me that in a matter of a couple of days this group has hammered out a great concept for organizing the future lay out of ArchiCAD. I think at the same time they are trying to reach back to 2D CAD users they should be looking to the future and getting away from specific tools and towards tool concepts.

I think everyone who has ever used this program reaches a point fairly quickly where they ask why aren't slabs, roofs & meshes the same tool? Once you grasp the 3D nature of the program having to use the 2D vocabulary is restrictive. I wish ArchiCAD would take a fresh look at the BIM world they have created and come back with an interface that has matured with the program.

However, with the lack of basic follow up we seem to be getting from ArchiCAD user interface from this topic through the ongoing lack of ability to save custom sketch settings or the wonky non standard ways to revise pen sets and model views I despair for the future. It's sometimes like their human interface people have never looked at another program.

One of the reasons I have shied away from this upgrade is that it seemed to add complexity without adding equal productivity.

[TomWaltz]

Brad wrote:
it seemed to add complexity without adding equal productivity.

I disagree. I think the separation of tools could have been handled differently, but that they do bring a benefit (namely separate defaults and Int Elevs that can both group by room and read that room name in the navigator and title).

The Trace Reference, while a little slow, it a HUGE improvement, as is the revised Layer Combination editing.

I think one of the biggest problems is that the new feature guide was VERY light and does not explain the new features well enough that people can actually use them.

[Eduardo Rolon]

There's an old tale about AutoCAD R14, if I remember correctly one of the main selling points was that they had consulted Architects so that their programmers could talk to them and get feedback to improve the program. Most people that read that went Huh? why didn't they do that all the time?

GS has 2 options either they copy Revit or they become pioneers. Much like the animators and computer effects people in Hollywood always say that "references are king" you cannot assume that a programmer that has never developed a full set of Construction Documents be able to choose correctly what is a time saver or time waster. Thus my opinion that the 3 separate tools was a waste of resources.

What was needed or wished for?

1) separate organization or categories for the tools. Instead of using a prefix in the ID to see what is a elev, sect or IntEl that we could choose the category and they would sort by themselves

2) that in the case of Int Elevs that they could be grouped together by room. Solution would have been the same as above.

this was to clean up the organization. Is solving this problem more important than multi core support or addressing more than 2Gb of RAM or MaxonForm?

The organization of all the different elevs types could have been solved by a small Tip.

question- How do you handle the views between section, elevs and Int Elevs?

answer- To organize all your different types the trick is to use different prefixes in the ID box.

In conclusion things should be kept Simple and should be Flexible. A tool should not force anybody to work in a specific way, if I make a mistake I should be able to fix it easily not be forced to erase it and do it over. As stated before GS needs new users if they make it easy to teach and learn the program they will get them.

A final freebie, one of the biggest complaints about any CAD including AC that I have seen in every course I have taught in the last 10 years is Line Weight Management nobody gets it. Even though in AC it is easier and better than most this should go thru the K.I.S.S. grinder.

Wish one extra level of marked distance area option minimum - PLEASE!!!

[Eduardo Rolon]

Example

[Rob]

ejorolon,
your image represents something that I fear of most... another buttons, switches, toggles etc. complicated interface...noooooo

and I think your system is more confusing for new people like getting to the universal section/elevation tool and skipping the tab with your switches...and they are stuffed...as oppose to having current tools - yep, the section tool is for a section, elevation tool is for an elevation etc... and when you are setting the tool up you know you are safe and it is not going to affect other types of s/e views.

Secondly I believe there is a difference between section and elevation (and not only semantic) therefore they do not share the same settings...it is better that way especially in regards to the future development of AC and introducing a new feature that makes a sense just for one particular type only.

to sum it up:
personally I like to see the streamlined and unified UI but we should avoid a sort of 'puristic' approach because we have been with a particular feature for a long time.
I think the benchmark level for the tools should be traditional architectural elements including documentation semantics rather than creating Great Unified Tool so complicated that could do fuck all.

[Eduardo Rolon]

Rob I respectfully disagree,

OK, I added 5 buttons. GS multiplied by 3 the tool settings dialogs of one tool with all of their sub settings. Since the only difference Software wise between elevation and sections is the name why is it that having more tool panels is easier to understand?

We have three tools that have the same result, present a vertical plane of a model, they should not have different buttons just to be grouped by type in the Navigator.

For example, see Sketchup's Section tool which works in any 3d plane and logically is correct because architectural drawing wise a floorplan is an horizontal cut plane looking down, a section is a cut plane in the vertical direction and an elevation is a vertical plane that does not cut the model. Simple and Flexible.

Another example (based on Mathew's comment) according to CSI (Construction and Specification institute) Door's and Windows are part of the same Spec division and Conceptually we can group them together since both create "holes" in another object.

[Rob]

...present a vertical plane of a model...

that is exactly what I am talking about... yes you are right geometry-wise but it is fundamentally different in architectural terms...we refer to SECTION and ELEVATION and IE...
I like AC because it addresses and names the tools and approaches exactly to the jargon (if you will) of an architect. I f you want to name it "section plane X-Z" it just does not work... I think you are trying to refine software for the sake of software and missing out on the actual purpose of AC and that is helping an architect as oppose to helping an universal 3D model maker.

For example, see Sketchup's Section tool which works in any 3d plane and nobody...

sketchup is a great software but it does NOT cover a full scope of architect's works...you would not be able to document a dog house with it...

80% of the architectural docs delivery is virtually old fashion detailing, scheduling, annotation and other beautifully monotonous tasks that require clear and logic access to traditional tools without any complicated interfaces... think of people who used to work with pencils or 2D CADs or anyone new coming on AC board trying to understand... they will be more confident that there is a tool that can be understood straight away without any universally applied exclusions, switches, etc!

[Eduardo Rolon]

Rob wrote:
… think of people who used to work with pencils or 2D CADs or anyone new coming on AC board trying to understand... they will be more confident that there is a tool that can be understood straight away without any universally applied exclusions, switches, etc!

I think we have a difference in Architectural Education, when I went to school (20 years ago) we were taught the differences between setion and elevation as I explained and this is the easiest way I have been able to teach it to my students for the past 10 years.

The beauty of AC for me was that it is flexible and you could adjust the software to the work you worked not the other way around, IMO this might be the start of having an icon for everything instead of consolidtating, with this example AC went your way it didn't go mine and I think that AC should be flexible for both.

That if I want one icon were I can chose within it what category it is, it can be done and IF I want to split the icon into 3 then I can do it too. Right now it is not, thus the poll, and what I am asking for does not invalidate your workflow, but it does mine.

PS
TO be clear, I use AC for Architecture and making construction documents.

[Rob]

IMO this might be the start of having an icon for everything instead of consolidtating

that's what I said before and I repeat it again:
I would like to see consolidated interface BUT I consider separation of S/E tools fundamental in terms of the basic tools access and further future development of those.

I mean how many tool buttons we have?? honestly... I agree with merging some of them perhaps 2D stuff and the wall-end tool, but S/E is a part of ANY stage of documentation at the fundamental level thus the tools should be well defined and visible.

...and I reckon there was a reason to split s/e tools up at least for GS as I do not believe they would have done it on a whim...