Generative Components and Graphisot: Parametric modelling

[Anonymous]

Hello all!
As the parametric thinking is taking over the CAD world I would like to know if GS is thinking about going some steps further. GS was leading in this tech but not any longer.
Generátive Components , for Microstation , is really impressive.
It is used by Foster&partners
http://www.smartgeometry.com/
I would be really interested if GS could developp something kind of similar.
I'm sure GS could find a way of making it easy and powerfull.
Stefan made a good explanation of what GC is about here:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=7985&highlight=generative
I'm sure GS could developp a new concept for using GDL. To free it from its prison (the object) and make it live in the model .The new curtain wall tool is showing new possibilities.

What do you say GS? are you thinking about such developments?

[Djordje]

AFAIK also OMA (Rem Kolhaas) - or at least they say so ... but still require AutoCAD proficiency 😉

The chief developer has recently defected to Autodesk.

However, it does sound like a correct approach. Nothing really new - parent/child relationships - but as I understood not very intuitive and not at all graphical.

Yes, it would be g-reat to have - let me fantazise a bit - a mix of relationships and hierarchical assemblies, with graphically editable/created building blocks (design your CW mullion in place!)

OK, time for bed now ...

[Anonymous]

It must be a lot to ask for an overall parametric environment in ArchiCAD?

As it must be the most obvious issue to resolve to keep up with or beat competition?

I am proficient with ArchiCAD and Revit (using both on a daily basis for various reasons) and would like to point out that personally ArchiCAD is far and away more enjoyable to use but frustrating when waiting for sections etc to update.

Its certainly not like Archicad is slow, quite the contrary, just saying in comparison 😉

[Anonymous]

i think ArchiCAD should develop an extension for user easy to use GDL

[Anonymous]

I agree that we need better and easier creation of gdl objects. One possible solution is for them to work out the ability to translate from sketch-up and the parametric components that you can creat in the new sketch-up version. Note very many architects that I know know houw to write GDL script.

[TMA_80]

this interesting articleshows that the parametric " generative" modeling is now part of most of the leading softwares ( including Revit) . I think that GS need to improve its GDL interface or /and Make a better "live" connectivity with lets say Grasshopper.

[Anonymous]

Please GS tell us what are your views on this subject!
Everytime I open Archicad I have to do and redo things that would be so simple to script, it is getting boring.
Why don't you say yes, no or "we are thinking about it".
You think archicad user don't want to program? make it visual.
They are not interested in paramtricizing? then stop talking about GDL objects.
The users who have had the patience to learn GDL can easily learn other languages and would find rewarding to use this knowledge outside of just the objects.
Or if you think it has to be developped by a third party let it be known, and say if you wish for it.
Thanks in advance.

[sityu]

Olivier wrote:
Please GS tell us what are your views on this subject!
Everytime I open Archicad I have to do and redo things that would be so simple to script, it is getting boring.
Why don't you say yes, no or "we are thinking about it".
You think archicad user don't want to program? make it visual.
They are not interested in paramtricizing? then stop talking about GDL objects.
The users who have had the patience to learn GDL can easily learn other languages and would find rewarding to use this knowledge outside of just the objects.
Or if you think it has to be developped by a third party let it be known, and say if you wish for it.
Thanks in advance.

I completely agree.

I think the problem is that GS has too small group of beta testers, and the strategic decisions they make, are based upon this small tester group's opinion. I think approx. less than 1% of archicad users really need programming features in archicad. 1% could be considered as a little proportion or a good number of architects.
And if you have a beta tester group of 200 people, it could easily happen that you won't have a single architect in the group, who wants up-to-date parametric programming features. And even if there are the 2 person (of the statistics' 1%) present in the group, their opinion is confronting the 198 other, anti-geek architects'.

So this feature is essentional, not because the majority of the architects are wanting it; but because GS has to escape from the comfortable lothfulness, he is in; GS has to convert himself into the trail-blazer software company he was in the '90s.

And why they have to do like this?
Because they owe to us. Because we've paid a lot of money for the yearly upgrades for the last decade (or more); we trusted them, that they are producing the best architectural software.
I have gigabytes of plans in .pln, so I can hardly change into another software; but I will change if GS won't change.
I want my software as good as possible. And if it had up-to-date programming functions, I could help to develop it, also. In the '90s there weren't appropriate programming language to serve it to a semi-professional (like an architect), but in 2013 there are convenient programming languages and programming paradigms, easy to learn, easy to use.

So, GS, it's time to move!

[Anonymous]

I think you are totally right Sityu.
And it is a big mistake IMO to think that 1% is not much.
How many percent of Rhino uses Rhinoscript ?
Certainly less than 1%! But it made Rhino much more visible and opened the way for Grasshopper.
And how many percent of Rhino users uses Grasshopper? certainly less than one percent too! (they are a lot who wants to use it but never do)
But it gave RHino a big place in the public debate and research and enthusiasm etc...
I'm still full of hope.

[Karl Ottenstein]

sityu wrote:
I think the problem is that GS has too small group of beta testers, and the strategic decisions they make, are based upon this small tester group's opinion.

Your premise is completely wrong here. Beta testers have no input on new features - they test the features that the Graphisoft design and development team have already implemented for the next version.

Graphisoft themselves, with input from key clients and others, decide the features for the product based on all kinds of strategic requirements.

Your input here is indeed input to them, but you should note the 100's of items in the wishlists here which have not yet been implemented either. 😉