a couple of wall-related bugs . . .

[__archiben]

un-reported yet. i'd appreciate some feedback first . . .

1. first off, parameters:
using the syringe ('pick up parameters') command in automatic walls takes everything bar the level values (top and bottom heights). should it? or is this operationally correct for automatic walls?

example: my wall height values are from 0 to +3000 ('b' and 't') . . . i go to the first floor (second floor for you guys across the pond) and syringe an auto-wall placed between +3000 and +6000. when i try to place it i get the "as a result of the last operation elements have been created on others stories..." alert. a quick check in the info box shows my wall height values never changed during the syringe operation and thus the wall is created back on the ground floor.

now, i can see that you might want this to happen in reverse - which is why i'm hesitant about reporting it as a bug - but is there a logic i'm missing in this scenario?

2. next, editing the heights of multiple walls in the 3D window:
it has been discussed previously and the bug supposedly 'fixed' (here). but it seems now that we can only stretch the heights of multiple walls in the 3D window if their reference lines all connect (i.e. form a polyline). i'm trying to stretch the heights of two unconnected parallel walls at the same time and finding i cannot!

did i speak too soon in that thread above? i'm pretty sure that this was previously possible in AC9 (but i can no longer open it to check without resorting to WIBU madness) . . . so is this still a bug?

getting kinda fed up with graphisoft's half-arsed implementation, supposed 'fixes' and constant scissors-and-cellotape workarounds built on top of flaky technology and added-on with fingers crossed . . .

~/archiben

[Link]

1. Seems logical enough to me mate, what did you expect to happen? It stores everything in the Wall Settings dialog, including the height and elevation, but the elevation is always relative to the story you're on. This is where the Info box may be misleading you?

2. This is a bug, and yes they are aware of it.

You? Fed up?? Pinch me, I'm dreaming...

Cheers,
Link.

[Anonymous]

1. You want wall's settings to be relative to current storey, sounds reasonable. Maybe a(nother) preference setting.

"Make automatic wall's base and top heights relative to current storey "

[Aussie John]

~/archiben wrote:
un-reported yet. i'd appreciate some feedback first . .
1. first off, parameters:
using the syringe ('pick up parameters') command in automatic walls takes everything bar the level values (top and bottom heights). should it? or is this operationally correct for automatic walls?
~/archiben

Yes this has been annoying me. I would prefer that the syringe picks up all the parameters.

[__archiben]

Link wrote:
It stores everything in the Wall Settings dialog, including the height and elevation, but the elevation is always relative to the story you're on. This is where the Info box may be misleading you?

ah - there's the problem. unfortunately, is this another case of our "consistency" lecture shooting ourselves in the foot again? although that maintains the consistency with the logic of legacy wall behaviour, maybe that logic needed to be thought through with the introduction of auto-walls? i'm with john - i want the absolute levels to be picked up by the syringe, NOT the relative-to-floor-level . . . and wouldn't that cover relative-to-floor-level for non-auto walls anyway?

2. This is a bug, and yes they are aware of it.

glad to hear it - you're sure they're aware this is a distinct aspect of the first 'stretch multiple walls' bug and they don't think that they've already got it fixed? wouldn't surprise me . . .

You? Fed up?? Pinch me, I'm dreaming...

yeah. can you believe it? revit here i come . . .

[__archiben]

s2art wrote:
"Make automatic wall's base and top heights relative to current storey "

or better still - define a relationship between a wall's top and bottom levels and slab-x/storey-x levels . . . the marquee works great for handling horizontal relationships, but vertical relationships are still awkward, inconsistent and a pain to resolve quickly and efficiently.

~/archiben

[Link]

Maybe GS should consider Parameter Transfer Preferences, similar to the Favorite Preferences?

Cheers,
Link.

[__archiben]

Link wrote:
Maybe GS should consider Parameter Transfer Preferences, similar to the Favorite Preferences?

no. then it gets too confusing. default logic should work the way you expect it to. it's too easy to propagate an application with settings and options at the greater risk of causing even more confusion and conceding 'ease of use'.

but hang on: there is still something mysterious happening here.... i have an inkling that this only occurs if the syringe-clicked wall is one that has originally been created out of it's 'home' storey. whatever's going on, it's wrong.

the thinking man's solution would surely be to divorce the wall reference line from the wall base elevation? (but hang on i hear you shout: an automatic wall doesn't have a 'vertical reference point' does it?!). graphisoft clearly haven't been thinking too much in recent years. they've just been making it 'work' in a "let's-deal-with-80%-of-required-solutions-and-hope-for-the-best" kind of way.

[SeaGeoff]

Link wrote:
Maybe GS should consider Parameter Transfer Preferences, similar to the Favorite Preferences?

Not preference but option. Normal syringe=all parameters transferred. Syringe+modifier=options dialog with include/exclude check boxes.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Geoff wrote:
Not preference but option. Normal syringe=all parameters transferred. Syringe+modifier=options dialog with include/exclude check boxes.

I like this idea, Geoff....

Karl