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?

[Rob]

Better to update PM with all of our needs as integrate it in to AC.

and what the hell are you talking about mate? What updating with all of our needs????? as apposed to what?????

I compare your wish/question with the question like this: "what's better, to write a large/complex script for GDL object in one file without MACROS, or some small/easy files(Main+Macros)?".

this is not a really good example. We are talking about doubling the code separately for PM and AC where the second copy (meaning PM one) is stupidly limping behind, so even the doubling the code doesn't do what it should... I just mind you that an application code and programing in C works differently then GDL scripting...

[Anonymous]

Z.Bauer wrote:
Better to update PM with all of our needs as integrate it in to AC.

I compare your wish/question with the question like this: "what's better, to
write a large/complex script for GDL object in one file without MACROS, or
some small/easy files(Main+Macros)?".

Frankly, I don't care about theses "conceptual" questions.
We are architects who just wish software that allows us to get accurate printings (speaking about the PM part of AC).
We are experimenting that PM fits our expectations in a fairly large project but with many unexpected manipulations into a separate program (PM) and a big file that update the data very very slowly.
I compare with another software that obviously make it much faster with an integrate layout concept. As an end user I appreciate the performance, I (again) don't care if they use the worst script in the world with the most decayed computer language that exists.

[Rob]

Don't get me wrong. I do not care about way of programming both AC and PM either. But it's pretty obvious that not having AC advantages in PM (which are programmed in AC core) cripples whole purpose of it.
So, either let's make PM working with all features of AC (the speed problem of drawing updating still remains though) or build PM in AC with its own file format using the very same core. I am not a programmer but looking after one application is (I think) easier then two of them.
Secondly, (as Djordje outlined) there would be a fantastic opportunity to use GDL directly in PM, which would resolve all that crap with the localisation of indexes, issue numbers, section/detail signs and ta-da, ta-da...

[Anonymous]

Well Rob, as far as my English comprehension goes , it seems that I basically agree with your commentaries.
I quoted another comment that IFAIK try to bring software concept into this debate. Writing some GDL scripts (I did) is one of the tools we have to draw even though I prefer graphics methods.
But talking about software (AC itself) programming is nonsense for me, I am not qualified. I can debate about the result (do we have a good BIM? do we have a good printing solution? etc).
If it's smart and durable, I don't care whatever C-C++-#-&-§ language and software "philosophy" they use to achieve that. I am just an architect who uses computer tools.

[Anonymous]

So I want to explain my position in this discussion,

Why I do not want agree today the wish to have a single program for both AC & PM?

Because as you can read in our AC-Talk Forum we all have many important wishes relative to AC, they GS carries out for us very slow. We have AC9 today, with great options, they wasn't in earlier versions. But as you also see but not "agree" AC9 has R1,R2,R3, according many problems, bugs, etc.. I think that's because AC isn't so old but is flexible program with big future. "No more R2" motto/device today not yet functions.
That's why I'm not sure that next AC version(AC9.1 or AC10 maybe) with integrated PM will has no very problematic bugs. Others says, I don't want to have problems with print/plot, because I can go round AC's drafting problems/bugs, but don't want to think about "Why I can't print/plot my completed project as I want".
For the future I fully agree the wish to have integrated in AC PM, because I want to have all AC's options in PM & PM's in AC.
In another words I propose GS parallel to start experiments in the integration way, but before sale of full version test it very thorough. GS can release for example alpha/betta versions. So we can test the program too. And only after that, sale full version, because:"I AGREE THE PROGRESS, BUT NOT BUGS"(No more R2)!

[Rob]

That's why I'm not sure that next AC version(AC9.1 or AC10 maybe) with integrated PM will has no very problematic bugs.

I do understand your cautious approach especially after the experience with AC8 but there is no progress without bugs. I believe that there was a tremendous effort to sustain quality while beta-testing the latest AC9 and risking a few bugs on the way with more flexible and faster outcome is worth that effort, I think.

to Philippe:

I am just an architect who uses computer tools.

So am I, but on the other hand when you use a clutch pencil every day you should know how to push the lead out, I suppose.

[__archiben]

Rob wrote:
I believe that there was a tremendous effort to sustain quality while beta-testing the latest AC9 and risking a few bugs on the way with more flexible and faster outcome is worth that effort, I think.

there was, but i suspect that it was the steadily improving code base of 8.1 that leant an inherent stability to 9 and helped it pass the test within the scheduled release date.

if the next release is of a magnitude discussed here, and of a similar feature-rich development as 8 was, i sincerely hope that graphisoft would extend enough time to the alpha, beta and final tests - as well as including the testers in any decision as to whether the product is ready for launch! rob - there are bugs and then there are BUGS-A-GO-GO! in such a scenario as this, i really hope that the money-marketeers and the big bosses have the modesty to listen to feedback and delay the release day if necessary . . . rather than plunging on ahead as they seemed to do with 8. we really don't want to "risk a few bugs" like that again!

to Philippe:

I am just an architect who uses computer tools.

So am I, but on the other hand when you use a clutch pencil every day you should know how to push the lead out, I suppose.

but if the lead 'aint broke, why push it out (? clutching at straws )

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

Z.Bauer wrote:
:"I AGREE THE PROGRESS, BUT NOT BUGS"(No more R2)!

Calling for "no more bugs" is as useful as calling for "no more tax".
I think they managed quite well the bug detection with the 9. Got a few scratch but it did not really hurt.

to Rob:

So am I, but on the other hand when you use a clutch pencil every day you should know how to push the lead out, I suppose.

obviously, but I still don't care if a sophisticate machine or a simple axe to cut the tree was used to create the pen. (I use wood pens )

[Rob]

I use wood pens

you mean pencils mate don't you or Swiss technology has another surprise for us...

[Anonymous]

Yes integration with engineering- this is and it will be the key of the winner. As we speak Revit is being pitched by a concerted effort of numerous engineering software makers. I am sorry but GS doesn't appear to have much of a choice. My hopes are dwindling.