What is going on with Tech Support these days?

[Richard Morrison]

This is a rant. I called tech support today with a very specific issue I was having. The rigid insulation was not being cut by the higher priority concrete footing as I expected it to. I was routed to a tech support person (I guess they are being called BIM Advisors now), who said that in the five years he's been doing this, he's never had an issue with building materials acting incorrectly and that it was likely lack of user knowledge. It was probably going to require training that I was going to have to pay for. (WTF???) He suggested that there could be several possible causes. I said, okay, why don't you just tell me what they are. He bristled and said, "Well, then I'd have given you 20 minutes of free training." After assuring him that I had over twenty years of using ArchiCAD and it wasn't likely a lack of training, I agreed to send him the file. He got back to me by e-mail a few hours later with the response that ArchiCAD was working exactly as expected, and suggested a solution that was going to require other workarounds.

After tinkering with this on my own a bit more, I discovered that the complex profile didn't clean up properly as a wall, but DID as a beam.

I am left with a complete lack of understanding of what merits the "priority" technical support that I am supposed to receive as an ArchiPlus subscriber vs. training, which I understand is beyond technical support's purview. This whole experience does not reflect well on Graphisoft. (I really miss Nick Cornia )

[DGSketcher]

Sounds like he could be ex-Autodesk and needs some customer service training.

I would escalate the way you were treated to his manager, as you say paying the annual support fee should provide a decent level of service, particularly if you are also more likely reporting a bug rather than correcting a lack of knowledge.

[Karl Ottenstein]

No excuse for how that was handled, Richard...

But, to me, this isn't even a building material / intersection priority issue but a modeling one. Why would the complex slab be extended beyond the inside edge of the stem wall in any case? It would never be built that way. The issue in your screenshot doesn't seem to be that the insulation and flooring isn't being cut... the entire slab should be cut by the stem wall portion of your profiled footing/stem wall... and the green highlight shows that not even the concrete is cut.

[Richard Morrison]

Karl,
You are correct regarding how this would be built in reality, however, I wanted the slab at the outside edge of the building for modeling/2D reasons, including early dimensioning and "magic wanding" purposes. I figured the building material cleanup in section would take care of any shortcuts regarding the slab. The top and bottom layers of the slab were concrete sandwiching the rigid insulation. As it turned out, the complex profile as a wall didn't cut the insulation at all, even though it was set as a lower priority material. Interestingly, when I used the same profile as a BEAM, everything was cut properly. (Also, the beam had the nice feature of providing a hidden line for the footing below. I probably should have used that in the first place. Walls don't create the automatic hidden lines under slabs that beams do.)

The only reason my brain went first to the complex wall rather than the complex beam was the ability to easily magic wand the footing around the slab accurately, since beams use their axis which required more adjustment. Going then to section, I was perplexed that it wasn't cleaning up the way I expected, and called tech support to figure out why.

I think what bothers me most about this experience is the apparent automatic assumption that users probably just don't know how to use the program correctly, and now need to pay extra to get the inside secret that the user inadvertently overlooked. Given how complex GS has now made this program (e.g the stair/railing tool), it feels like GS is now trying to profit from the complexity that they created themselves.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Totally agree with your feelings about the situation, Richard. And now see your desire to use the slab as a preliminary design and then refine it with automatic cutting. Check.

The beam behavior totally makes sense given that beams have always - even a dozen versions ago - cut in ways that other things did not...

But, I'm still intrigued by the wall profile problem.... If the concrete in the stem wall correctly used a different building material with a stronger priority than the concrete in the slab (basically, duplicated structural concrete and a higher priority)... it should have cut? It would have to not be the same BM as the slab concrete as otherwise it won't cut through the slab, much less reach the insulation to cut it. I think...? Also, with a separate BM, you would then see proper pour lines in section as well, as the two concretes would not merge?

(I hope someone from support management reaches out and comments on your experience.)

[DGSketcher]

A further observation... if the stem WALL extends by any amount higher than the top surface of the slab then the PBC's correctly form at the junction. I think this is a modelling inconsistency and Richard was right to take it up as an issue/bug with support.

[Anonymous]

I thing it's a bug. Wall's and Slab connexion works differently than others due to the fact that Walls may have Doors and Windows.
There is a rule that prevent Finishes layers of composite Slab to be cut by Walls where Doors or Windows lies with a bottom level align with the top face of the slab ignoring material priority number.
What you describe sounds to me like a bug in the way this rule is programmed.
In the Slab composite is your insulation define as finish ?

[James B]

The Wall and Slab are forming an L junction, similar if these were 2 Walls on Floor Plan. When 2 Building Materials of high strength meet, then it won't continue in an L type junction. If this was a T type, then it would continue, similar to how 2 Walls would meet.

Slab and Beams don't have this L vs T type logic. They only intersect.

The pages on the Help Center have been updated a bit lately, but I see this type of explanation and clarification is missing.

[runxel]

Hey James! Thanks for chiming in and thanks for the clarification.
I just fail to see... why this "logic" is there in the first place? Like, where do you need this behavior?
Maybe I'm missing an obvious thing here, but it clearly looks as if most people are confused by that.

[Erwin Edel]

Luckily in about 15 years we've never been treated like this by support from our local reseller, so not all of them are bad!

There is always the option of telling someone they need basic training, but certainly not in this case.

For the problem at hand: often core/other/finish settings also yield different results.

The tricky part with composite slabs is ussually insulation and finish layers that extend beyond the core, requiring you to draw them larger/bigger than they should be or to give up and work with several slabs.