plotmaker inside AC or separated

[Anonymous]

I know it is an old debate but searching for "Plotmaker inside Archicad" or plotmaker standalone" I found nothing in the wish subject.
I just went to a Re*it demonstration (another debate, but how fast it is to publish inside Re*it)
I think the answer is: both.
Inside AC for 99% of the projects and standalone for special cases.
I am convinced Plotmaker should work inside AC especially since we have the navigator. Most of the things have to be settled inside the view editor and most of our prints come from a single AC file (plans, sections, elevations, details, what else in most of our work?).
This way, I expect the prints to be refreshed with the editor redefine button and generally speaking to cut the incredible slowness of Plotmaker update.
And for special case with layout of mixed files, why not a standalone PM?

[Anonymous]

Yesterday, I saw a quick demo for Revit 8. The last version I saw was 2 years ago, and I have to say they have made quite a few improvements since then. There are 4 things related to plotting which I see as advantages to having sheet creation in the same program as modeling:

1 - You can build your sheets in the same file as you build your views. This means it is far easier to modify and update a view than in ArchiCAD. No switching to ArchiCAD, tweaking a view, saving, then jumping back to PM and updating.

2 - Because the sheets are in the same file as the model, your section and detail markers all have live numbers in them, so it appears to be easier to find the section/detail windows in their version of the Project Map.

3 - Similar to #2, all the schedules are dynamic. If you make a change to a door, the schedule updates in real-time. You never have to wonder if you or your teammate updated a schedule or not.

4 - WHen you finally print, the sheets are collated by alpha-numeric order. Publisher always spews our sets out in a totally random order.

From what I saw, these features improve the workflow tremendously.

[archislave]

Based on comments I have heard some in that ought to be in the know make ... I thought it was a given that Plotmaker will be integrated into Archicad.

It is more like a plotting 'solution' or sheet management will be integrated. I guess plotmaker will still ship and legacy users can keep on doing it the old ineffiecient way!

[James Murray]

~/archiben wrote:
you simply include the link inside a 'url' tag like this:

the text that you want to contain the link

I don't know when they changed it, but if you click the URL button, it offers a field into which you can paste a URL, followed by a field into which you can type the link text. Very convenient. (It leaves the cursor in a funny place though.)

[archislave]

Why are you long-timers talking about jokes that go way back and over the heads of new users. I thought this thread was about Plotmaker and v10

I am so frustrated with Graphisoft's lack of aggressive development and legacy users resigned to the status quoa. You are always making excuses for GS and the existing ways. Why don't you dream a little and ask for more.

If you look this is not a very hot forrum and does not seem to attract a new generation. Graphisoft needs to do better at marketing and faster development.

Look at what is making more of a buzz today: Revit, Sketchup, Ghery's Digital Project. Archicad needs to repackage itself, and attract investors.
Quicker revolutionary development!

[Rob]

Yesterday, I saw a quick demo for Revit 8. The last version I saw was 2 years ago, and I have to say they have made quite a few improvements since then. There are 4 things related to plotting which I see as advantages to having sheet creation in the same program as modeling:

Exactly what I said, there are better solutions (in my opinion) so lets get them! Honestly, there has been always some bitching about PM as a standalone application so let's get rid of it. It has not worked out, fair enough GS, so let's move on and stop being pathetically attached to something that is not going to work. Just bloody learn from the competition, it's not so hard is it?

[Anonymous]

I totally disagree. Just because some people bitch and complain, just because other programs do it differently, doesn't mean the GS ideal is wrong way. The root of the matter is what makes the most sense in the long run.

Paperspace was horrible. You never knew where the drawing you wanted to print was to be found. There is too much in one program and it ultimately leads to sloppy files. Breaking it in two makes it much more manageable. The model is the model and the layout is the layout. This keeps everything clear and IMHO makes GS standout among the other programs.

That said, there needs to be better printing options for temporary, or 'light weight" situation in AC. Printing in AC is awful, at best. How about a quick plot with a predefined titleblock? How about pushing all colors to black except for grey halftones? All colors black doesn't do many people any good (unless I am missing sometrhing).

On the plotmaker side, instead of scrapping it, put more resources in to the development and make it run faster, leaner, with more power (GDL libraries, etc.) and with more capabilities (like a lightweight Pagemaker - PDF import, brightness, better text capability - for things like general motes).

Plotmaker does some incredible things, like auto-numbering and masters and title types. Better yet, why doesn't GS fix all the problems and speed and spin it off as a separate program and sell it to AutoCAD, Vectorworks users, et al. Or use it for future programs like GS Constructor and GS Estimator.

I am constantly meeting young people coming out of college who do all their portfolio work and other layouts in Photoshop. That's asinine IMHO, I can't even imagine how difficult would be, after knowing how to work with Quark or Pagemaker. I feel combining the two programs would be the equivalent of using Photoshop for layouts.

LONG LIVE PM!

[Rob]

mate, I am not really sure if you have red everything in this topic. But there are some thoughts to be considered before you jump into quick conclusions, mind you that I am not asking for the paper space as we know that from ACAD (I agree it is not a good solution):

1. running two separate applications virtually copying each other is not an efficient way of handling your computer resources, therefore

2.copying the code requires more time/resources for GS programmers, actually doing the same thing twice!!!

3. you are forgetting that PM was originally based on file links so the purpose having PM separated made a sense at that time. I am sure you would agree that it did NOT work at all. So we got a strange solution with version 8 - an old idea with circumstances completely changed. It just does not make a sense to open the same file again (as PM does with the background AC) for getting it printed. it is REDICULOUS no matter how original GS tries to be.

4. Using PM as a substitute for Quark or Pagemaker is a very tragic mistake and I think those aspirations should be abandoned by GS (and I hope they will be). Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see SOME of the nice features but you can't expect full bodied desktop publishing software 'bundled' on side with full-on AEC CAD. We need more progress on the main AC application and that should be priority of GS programmers.

Plotmaker does some incredible things, like auto-numbering and masters and title types. Better yet, why doesn't GS fix all the problems and speed and spin it off as a separate program and sell it to AutoCAD, Vectorworks users, et al.

I would be very very rude if I repeated opinions of former ACAD users using PM about how it actually works, even after finding benefits like auto numbering etc. So I am not sure if your idea to sell PM to Autodesk or whoever would be so great.

PM IS DEAD, LONG LIVE AC!

[Anonymous]

I tell you what i don't like in PM
I don't like that i must have 2 files (1 for AC and 1 for PM) and when i make a change to the model i have to make the same chance to PM
Thanx

[stefan]

As a long time supporter of a seperate PlotMaker, there is one main reason I don't like it: it is really a different application: different screens, different shortcuts, different workflow. And that is probably largely because it is a seperate application, with a seperate codebase, using seperate (or partly seperate) libraries.

As long as it follows 100% of the ArchiCAD interface, I don't mind it being apart or being integrated.

[Erika Epstein]

"James Murray" wrote:

Love the new house James