Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Wishes forum

Embedded GDL (GUI-based) Modelling App

Graphisoft Alumni
Graphisoft Alumni
"Graphisoft [should] include [an advanced] graphical GDL [like ArchiForma, ZoomGDL, GDLToolbox 2] modeling interface *within* ArchiCAD, one that enables the easy creation of complex 3D parametric objects without the need to be a GDL programming expert.
Consider the workaround...model a door or window or chair on its side
using slabs, walls, etc. Works fine until the user comes to grips with
the fact that it is not possible to fully (easily and in real-time) rotate objects in the 3D space using ArchiCAD's standard modeling tools or commands, nor is it possible to add parameters without going into GDL."
Jeffry Covarrubias
GS US Technical Support Team Leader
P-C2D 1.86GHz/2GB w/ 256MB GeForce 8600GTS; G4 OS 10.4.10 1GHz/1GB "[that other software] is a fancy set of electronic marker pens"

This would be a useful feature.

To material parameters the interface could list only the properties used in the objects created to make the object (materials, fills, line colours/types, etc). Then you could select one (material), give it a variable & name and it would change all parts of the object that have the same material (all the walls used for a door frame, for example).

May get tricky when you want to incorporate different accessories, such as handles, panel types, etc...

My 2c

Graphisoft Certified ArchiCAD BIM Manager

ArchiCAD 25

Windows 10

Geoff Briggs
A built in modeler is an essential addition to ArchiCAD. It should be a graphical environment that creates GDL objects so the code can still be accessed and tweaked if that’s easiest. We need to be able to edit as well as create objects in this manner. In addition to the modeling environment certain transformation tools are needed, namely a 3D rotate tool/command that can function both graphically and numerically.
Geoff Briggs
DeForest Architects
Seattle, USA
AC26 INT, M1 Mac, OS 13.2.1
Yes, you read that correctly, we are in the US but use the INT version, because the libraries are better.

F_ Beister
Instead of an explicit modeler GS could expand the publishers export list with 'GDL and GSM'.

We could export 3D-Objects out of the 3D-windows and 2D-objects out of the floor-plan windows.

Then you can use a project file to create your own complex objects with all common component types inclusive all library parts. By using layer groups and adapted publisher settings you could create complete series of objects.

Best if one could optional enable, that matrial-, pen- and line-settings would become parametric.

Shouldn't be so hard to do for GS, because it worksyet with manual export. Would be very useful and a tiny version for modeling.

Imagine a 3D Spline - or lines for that matter, why can we not make such objects yet? Loft, Birail, Skin, Nurbs - is GDL incapable? I doubt it - but have often wished for these kinds of tools, autofolding and adding points and lines to slabs as with sketchup or others.

For that matter, why have a slab tool when the roof tool can do everything a slab can do and then some? Why Can beams do more than a slab? (materials)

Why have a line tool when a polyline can do everything a line can? And why have fills when zones can do everything fills can do and more?

Isn't it time to start consolidating tools and offering more options for 'primitives' ie. METACUBES rather than 'slabs' !?!

Andy Thomson


very good points actually! with a perfect example of a slab vs a roof.

I suppose, we could merge the wall and beam tools as well, like we don't have an option for a curved beam and an option for a wall with the independent empty fill on plan and material settings to all faces, or why would you need holes for a beam (I doubt if anyone has ever used that option) if you could use much more flexible wall openings.

Ok, I can see the reason to keep them separate as they are different building elements by a function, but they could share the very same attributes internally, so I think, it would be easier to code them (same routines for both=less bugs to fix) + clarity of interface (same principles for a hole in a wall/beam or in drawing methods etc).

Contradicting myself about keeping different elements separate, why we keep separately the slab tool and the roof tool when I want to create a concrete ramp (which is a sloping slab!) and I have to use a roof instead(!). Confusing is this world of tools...

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!