about archicad 12 modeling and rendering capabilities

[Anonymous]

Hi i just have saw the videos about new archicad 12 version , but i would like to know if there is something new improvements about modeling tools and rendering capabilities , along the new features included ,or the rendering and modeling tools capabilites remains the same ,? plk

thanks

[Bricklyne Clarence]

...nothing? No? nada?

how about the handrail below? At least tell me I can do that. I know it's a little on the fancy side, but architects have been pulling off stunts like this out of their backsides practically using charcoal an rice paper. So we should be able to do this one at least, right?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

.... but enough about stairs that are masquerading as blobitecture, masquerading as stairs. We have been assured that the Stair Tool has undergone great improvements so none of that should be an issue any more. And that's good enough for me - boy, I can't wait to get my hands on that new and improved shiny Stair tool.

....those crazy kids and their blobitecture fads.

Aaaaanyway, to change the subject completely, who needs really Maxonform and improved modeling tools, when the height, ...the very apex of crazy free-form modeling and design in Architecture that any of us will ever ever encounter, particularly that which closely approaches (but which is not quite) blobitecture, is the condition shown below;
a condition which most of us encounter frequently and one which we all know can eeeaasily be modeled and documented in ArchiCAD without having to resort to unconventional geometrical acrobatics and wacky gdl coding schmonsense - such as, by using Complex profiler on Roofs. Oh wait, we can't do that.

Good thing I don't do "blobitecture" or any such kind of crazy design for a living.

Yeah, good thing I only have to cope with simple stuff las shown below; which as we all know, ArchiCAD chews up and spits out with the greatest of ease and contempt. Hooray for non-fad architecture.

[__archiben]

could you bite any harder?

isn't it past your bedtime up there?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, good thing I only have to cope with simple stuff las shown below; which as we all know, ArchiCAD chews up and spits out with the greatest of ease and contempt.

I know it is an add-on, but if you are interested, Objective by Ralph Wessel with do this and more.

Then again, if you are wanting to sell your copy of AC email me.

Don Lee

[Bricklyne Clarence]

~/archiben wrote:
could you bite any harder?

isn't it past your bedtime up there?

........as always Ben, I bow to your insightful, informative, rational, educative, explicit, descriptive, on-point and.....um......oh yeah, Relevant responses and contribution to the proceedings and the discussion. I always, always learn so soooo much when you're around. For sure.

........I mean, what the hell was I thinking here, audaciously bringing up valid rational points backed by supported examples to what is obviously a pointless-comment and snarky-response gunfight; as is well illustrated by your fine example and comments.

Never fails.

[stefan]

I heard the announcement of MaxonForm by Dominic Gallelo when he was in Brussels, a few years ago. And he did mention that this was not a reason to let ArchiCAD stop developing modeling tools. They still have to prove this claim, as AC11 and AC12 have only made smaller steps towards more powerful modeling.

Beware that the new Curtain Wall can be probably seen as a "prototype" (with all the good and the bad this entails) of a newer generation of geometry manipulation in ArchiCAD. Just let's hope that they ensure that they don't forget the 2D and documentation part of the equation with these tools.

If you are talking about parametrics, then there is MicroStation and its Generative Components module (which might be the one you are referring to when designing large organic buildings).
http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Promo/Flash/GenerativeComponents.htm
(they have a trial version available)

Now there is a plug-in for Rhino, called Grasshopper, which has a similar approach.
http://en.wiki.mcneel.com/default.aspx/McNeel/ExplicitHistoryPluginMainPage.html
(FWIW, the plugin works with the demo version of Rhino and can save it's tools in a separate script, so you can try it out freely, if you like)

Check the things you would be able to do:
http://designreform.net/category/_tutorials-rhino/
Beware that these examples are often recreations of systems that were made in 3ds max, which has extensive scripting and parametrics available for quite some time.

While I love to investigate these systems further (Windows-only, but Rhino is currently being ported to OSX), they are closer to programming than modeling. But imagine if GDL editing could be combined with such a visual programming system...
(Well, GDL still needs to be relieved from its isolated object position to become a more generic scripting system).

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Don wrote:

Yeah, good thing I only have to cope with simple stuff las shown below; which as we all know, ArchiCAD chews up and spits out with the greatest of ease and contempt.

I know it is an add-on, but if you are interested, Objective by Ralph Wessel with do this and more.

Then again, if you are wanting to sell your copy of AC email me.

Don Lee

I know about Objective,.....and Archiforma, along with the host of all the other 3rd party plug-ins and add-ons available out there for doing the little things that GS seem convinced users don't need to have the capability to achieve in ArchiCAD.

They all share the same family of problems related to their usage in an ArchiCAD environment, chief of which are the fact that they are never completely well-integrated into ArchiCAD's workflow and/or interface, and of course, not everyone has the budget to buy every single add-on necessary to plug in (pun intended) the holes left by GS's development strategy and ArchiCAD's deficiencies.

But that's not the point. Nor is selling my copy which I would have done along time ago. The point was Graphisoft's own stated commitment to improve the tool-set of their product in the past (as illustrated by the quote I brought up earlier) and the steps they've taken since then which seem to undercut this position.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

stefan wrote:
I heard the announcement of MaxonForm by Dominic Gallelo when he was in Brussels, a few years ago. And he did mention that this was not a reason to let ArchiCAD stop developing modeling tools. They still have to prove this claim, as AC11 and AC12 have only made smaller steps towards more powerful modeling.

Beware that the new Curtain Wall can be probably seen as a "prototype" (with all the good and the bad this entails) of a newer generation of geometry manipulation in ArchiCAD. Just let's hope that they ensure that they don't forget the 2D and documentation part of the equation with these tools.

If you are talking about parametrics, then there is MicroStation and its Generative Components module (which might be the one you are referring to when designing large organic buildings).
http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Promo/Flash/GenerativeComponents.htm
(they have a trial version available)

Now there is a plug-in for Rhino, called Grasshopper, which has a similar approach.
http://en.wiki.mcneel.com/default.aspx/McNeel/ExplicitHistoryPluginMainPage.html
(FWIW, the plugin works with the demo version of Rhino and can save it's tools in a separate script, so you can try it out freely, if you like)

Check the things you would be able to do:
http://designreform.net/category/_tutorials-rhino/
Beware that these examples are often recreations of systems that were made in 3ds max, which has extensive scripting and parametrics available for quite some time.

While I love to investigate these systems further (Windows-only, but Rhino is currently being ported to OSX), they are closer to programming than modeling. But imagine if GDL editing could be combined with such a visual programming system...
(Well, GDL still needs to be relieved from its isolated object position to become a more generic scripting system).

.....some of which would seem to lend some credence to oreopoulos' constant (and I guess, sometimes over-enthusiastic) requests for some sort of accessible scripting capabilities, functions and interface (certainly more accessible than the C++ of the Application Developers Kit for ArchiCAD in terms of credibility.) for ArchiCAD.

I may not be as vocal as he is but even I can't fail to recognize just how beneficial the possibilities and the versatility offered by Rhino scripting, Maxscript, MEL scripting in Maya and most significantly Ruby for Sketchup have been for both the users and the dvelopers of these respective programs. I mean, if you look at Sketchup as an example, the basic accessibility of it's scripting Kernel and interface has basically led to the point where they now have multiple photo-realistic rendering facilities for Sketchup both native as well as bridges to more robust programs, multiple complex tools and toolsets for a variety of macro-like functions, even parametricity to a certain extent, and most recently (and most impressively to me), the facility for organic, free-form polygonal/subdivisional modeling from what was natively an orthogonal architectural modeling program.

None of these facilities were developed by Google or AtLast before them, to the point where one has to seriously wonder whether Sketchup 7, whenever they decide to release it, will have significantly, that much more to offer than the scripting and plug-ins developed by third-parties and an enthusiastic user community gave to the functionality of Sketchup between versions 5 and 6 alone.

That being said, the reason I would be apprehensive about a more accessible scripting interface by GS, or even basic scripting capabilities for that matter, is that it would only exacerbate the exact problem we're decrying in this thread; i.e. it would lead to even more complacency by GS as more and more users develop more tools that they seem not bothered to develop or improve in ArchiCAD. Some things can only be done best or better integrated via the resources they have at GSHQ rather than by independent developers and enthusiasts.

But just imagine just how vastly Macro-functions, for example, could extend one's productivity for some of the repeatitive tasks we have to perform in ArchiCAD on a day-to-day basis.

[Anonymous]

I also have to remind you what they told us when they introduced constructor.

I shouted that this would stop evolving scheduling and calculating functions in AC. I don't have to remind you what "the usual suspects" said.
A few years later NOT A SINGLE function has been added in interactive scheduling


Unfortunately i dont see any strategy and not a sparkle to really improve the software. Just small steps that will bring back money. In my opinion bad strategy. What you win from that you lose in reputation. When a competitor will leave you far behind it will be too late to respond.

In the 3-4 last years i see a certain pattern in upgrades.
2-3 features that really take time to code and the rest are features that require 10 minutes of coding. The "correct" pattern would be 10 major features and about 20 minor ones, but that would happen only in my dreams

[Ralph Wessel]

Bricklyne wrote:

Don wrote:
I know it is an add-on, but if you are interested, Objective by Ralph Wessel with do this and more.

I know about Objective,..... They all share the same family of problems related to their usage in an ArchiCAD environment, chief of which are the fact that they are never completely well-integrated into ArchiCAD's workflow and/or interface, and of course, not everyone has the budget to buy every single add-on necessary to plug in

I've been watching this discussion, but decided against commenting. Now I'm intrigued, and I can't resist asking... what would you change about OBJECTiVE to make it fit into ArchiCAD better? We've worked hard to make our software work as seamlessly as possible. This will sound too much like an advert if I spout off about it here, but the actions we've taken are all listed here for anyone who's interested: http://www.encina.co.uk/add-onconcerns.html

We've also never charged users for updates when new versions of AC arrive - when AC12 is released, existing OBJECTiVE users can simply insert the latest version and carry on as normal.

The initial cost issue is straight-forward: if the profitability of your business is improved by some feature above the implementation cost, then there is everything to be gained by paying for it. If it isn't, the feature was never worth having anyway, i.e. GS would be wasting their time adding it to ArchiCAD. I also use OBJECTiVE for real projects and have saved more than its cost in billable hours in a single project (picture attached). The problem looks deceptively simple, but involves a listed building on a very steep, flood-prone site. We went through more than 20 different schemes, all involving elements that not only curved in plan but rose and fell in gentle curves in elevation. The cost of repeatedly re-modelling this would have prohibitive without the add-on, and I was engaged to do it because the client had seen what I could produce. I could produce many other examples.