rotation in 3d

[Anonymous]

hello there.
do you know if and how can i rotate an object in 3d ?
for example i have a neon lamp that sends the light down and i want to send it on the left or on the right

[Anonymous]

Thanks Guys,
I will give that a try.
Clearly miss understood and was using the Elevation view.
Will get it in 3D and see how it goes then report back, prob tomw as just off out to site.

[Anonymous]

Philip wrote:

Granville wrote:
Got much the same problem but the save in elevation trick doesn't seem to be working. Any suggestions for this please?

Here is a quick illustration. I have used a simple curved wall but this works with any complex structure that you can build in plan from walls, slabs, roofs etc etc. - even other gdl objects.

I followed your instructions and it worked perfectly!

Thank you very much for taking the time to make such an easy to follow and informative illustration!

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I Second that...
It works, and thanks for the illustration. Really helps.

Question, however, for Graphisoft.

WHY do we have to go to these lengths to do a basic manipulation?

In AutoCAD and prob other CADsystems, you can define an Axis of Rotation, be it a primary XYZ axis or based on any two or three points to form a User Co-ordinate system.
Any Block or Construct can then be slid, rotated or elevated off base, non orthographically, with simple point and shoot control.

How difficult would it be to have a ROLL icon on the Pet Pallet, to do the same as Rotate, but on a Horizontal Axis. Between the two, any axial displacement could be obtained.

Surely they could provide a simple Pan and Tilt command.

[Anonymous]

Granville wrote:
Yeah, I Second that...
It works, and thanks for the illustration. Really helps.

Question, however, for Graphisoft...

...How difficult would it be to have a ROLL icon on the Pet Pallet, to do the same as Rotate, but on a Horizontal Axis. Between the two, any axial displacement could be obtained.

Surely they could provide a simple Pan and Tilt command.

I would guess the answer is that it would be possible but one has to be careful of detracting from the general principles of ArchiCAD. A wall is defined as as a vertical construction element, a slab a horizontal one etc. Obviously it is logical that roofs and beams can be rotated to a specific angle therefore the ability is there.

The guiding principles of ArchiCAD as a program are that it should make sense to Architects by using familiar elements. If you allow any element to be manipulated in random, unnatural ways then the program is in danger of becoming simply another 3D geometric modelling application, of which there are many.

These principles hold true for 99% of construction but of course some will require more freedom and fluidity in the tools they use to design with. I think that this area of design is well served by tools such as 3DS or Maxon. They have good links into the main ArchiCAD working environment but without diluting the critical simplicity of the main application.

Just my opinion but I feel comfortable with the way that ArchiCAD separates these very different approaches to design.

[Anonymous]

Philip wrote:
I would guess the answer is that it would be possible but one has to be careful of detracting from the general principles of ArchiCAD.

Yes that is the rub. Everyone says they want freeform tools, and then when they are provided there are complaints that they aren't parametric, or can't be scheduled, etc.

I do think there are ways that GS could be doing a better job. But I am not in charge and if I were I might find out all the contrary things that I am blissfully unaware of as a mere user.

Even so, I do look forward to being able to build anything (within reason) in ArchiCAD and have it fully parametric, quantifiable, interference checked (though Navis works just fine for that now - if only the translation were a little better) and so on. And then quickly produce accurate and elegant output in a highly automated fashion.

[Anonymous]

A modular approach to a program is one of its strengths in my opinion. We know that no program can be all things to all men. Yes there are things that should be added to ArchiCAD as part of its' core functionality, like collision detection, ease of scheduling and of course a decent stair maker (keep on nagging them!) because these are essential to most Architects offices if they wish to get a faster return on investment.

I feel that the crisp well conceived tools that ArchiCAD has are its' main strength, because they are easy concepts to pick up. The more functions that are bolted onto the package the more complex it becomes and I have found the complexity of upgrading from 9 to 10 to be more than I would really like to have coped with in one go. The productivity balance goes out of the window at these times.

Also, we talk about having the ability to do this and the functions to do that but the programming that goes into the product must be prioritized. Free form modelling, realistic rendering, sketch rendering, collision detection, HVAC services, engineering could in theory be included in ArchiCAD but if you add together the development cost of all those functions then the package would end up costing $25,000. That might be just the ticket for about 0.1% of practices in the world but what about the rest of use who just want to produce a good set of working drawings for a £250,000 home? For me at least I am happy to pay less than £3,000 for the package and then consider more if I need extras.

[Anonymous]

There are instances when non vertical axis of rotation is desirable, other than roof slabs and ramps!

However, this thread wouldn't have developed if you could aim spotlights, or if the Curtain Walling had a built-in facility to create vertical curves - far from unusual events in our profession.

It is when a lateral solution solves the problem but rather in spite of the system, instead of by its very design, that it calls into question the requirement for such facility to be incorporated.

[Anonymous]

Granville wrote:


It is when a lateral solution solves the problem but rather in spite of the system, instead of by its very design, that it calls into question the requirement for such facility to be incorporated.

I agree. These are the things that should be improved upon and we should take every opportunity to remind Graphisoft that making the current things work properly is more important than adding cute new functions. Evolution takes time. Some things that really need to evolve seem to stand still for years...oh here I go again moaning about stairmaker!