I apologize for being obtuse. In the last message, I spoke in analogy, where one thing relates to another superficially unrelated thing.
I come to this way of communicating because of an old Star Trek episode where Kirk and the crew encounter a group of aliens who, interestingly enough, speak English, but always in analogy. Even to give simple commands, they would mention a historic event and a subordinate alien would know to turn the wheel to the left or whatever. Kirk, not being alien, found it hard to grasp the imbedded meaning in their words. As the alien commander lay dying, mumbling something about “… at tanagra…” somehow they figured out that he was referring to a pivotal historic battle and its outcome. Things worked out.
Does anyone remember this episode? (My favorite next to the tribbles.)
Was anyone here even born then?
In this case “pine for the fjords” refers to an old Monty Python comedy sketch where a man is complaining about having been sold a dead parrot. The shopkeeper says that the bird, a “…Norwegian Blue, lovely plumage…” is motionless on its perch because it is “…pining for the fjords.” In fact, it IS dead and is merely nailed in position.
So, when we discuss rendering weaknesses in Archicad, for me, it is like standing at a counter and complaining about having been sold a dead parrot. The shopkeeper, Graphisoft, is there, making up nonsense excuses about why we only got obsolete ray-tracing when everybody else has radiosity, and why the fly-through capability is rudimentary and why there is no rendering preview or real-time OpenGL shadows or transparency.
It is obvious. Marketing. They need to be able to point at features, say the software can do them, and it isn’t until you actually buy the thing that you see the nails in the perch.
The comedy sketch ends in violence, whereas this diatribe merely ends in bitter disappointment. At least the sun is better in Archicad 10.
Dwight Atkinson