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

!Restored: Door/window library parts

Jere
Expert
The library should be simplified and the objects more complex.

What I mean is this: instead of having so many different door types, such as a single wood door, a door with a sidelight, a door with two sidelights, a door with sidelight and transom, a door with transom, double doors, double doors with transom, etc, etc. there should be one library part for single doors and one for double doors. Within these library symbols should be the option for adding sidelights or transoms or multiple sidelights or multiple transoms, etc.

In essence, this one library symbol could be as simple as a single door or, by turning on different options, as complex as a storefront with multiple leafs, lights, panels, and transoms.

Same goes for the window tools.

Also, ganging between windows and doors should be better (although this may be redundant if the above tool is as flexible as I want it to be.)
ArchiCAD 25-4013; Windows 10; Intel i5-3570K; 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960
25 REPLIES 25

Laura Yanoviak
Enthusiast
Hey -- vote for your own wish!!!
MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz Intel Core i9, 32 GB of RAM

AC25 US (3011) AC24 on Mac OS Catalina 10.15.7

Anonymous
Not applicable
Sounds like Door and Window Builder!

Aussie John
Newcomer
I have to vote essential to this as this is how I have scripted my custom door. Makes plan changes a lot easer.
Cheers John
John Hyland : ARINA : www.arina.biz
User ver 4 to 12 - Jumped to v22 - so many options and settings!!!
OSX 10.15.6 [Catalina] : Archicad 22 : 15" MacBook Pro 2019
[/size]

Rob
Graphisoft
Graphisoft
yep, current strategy of having zillions of d/w lib parts simply does not work + they should be treated as a sort of assemblies rather then one-off or limited parametrics pieces....
a very difficult and complex implementation, however necessary and essential considering the importance of openings as a vital building element.
::rk

Stuart Atkinson
Participant
Couldn't agree more.

I believe this has been mentioned before, but I would also chuck in that there should not be seperate door and window tools, but simply an opening tool that does all.
The amount of times that i have had to delete a door/window and replace it with the other.

Cheers
Stu

Chazz
Booster
s2art wrote:
Sounds like Door and Window Builder!
Yep. Pretty much to a tee. Three objects (a door and a window + a garage door) and millions of permutations. Be warned, the current version (3.5)does not support Interactive Schedules well. Hopefully next version.
Nattering nabob of negativism
2019 MBP
(2022 MBP M1 still in the box)

Stephen Dolbee
Booster
I wish GS could buy the rights to D&W Builder and incorporate it in AC. I have never liked the windows and doors that come with the standard library.
AC19(9001), 27" iMac i7, 12 gb ram, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512mb, OS 10.12.6

Jere
Expert
s2art wrote:
Sounds like Door and Window Builder!
somewhat yes. I have, and use Door and Window Builder. Even though I think GS's library parts need improvement, I like where they're going. The interface is leaps and bounds ahead of D/W Builder.
ArchiCAD 25-4013; Windows 10; Intel i5-3570K; 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960

Chazz
Booster
Jere wrote:
GS's library parts need improvement, I like where they're going. The interface is leaps and bounds ahead of D/W Builder.
Agreed. You can make an amazing range of openings with DWB but it sometimes involves some real pain and suffering.

One issue with both door products, (AC's and DWB), in fact ANY heavily parametric object is the tiny interface area allowed in the tools settings dialog box. It is so small that it can very hard to figure out what is going on.
Nattering nabob of negativism
2019 MBP
(2022 MBP M1 still in the box)

Jere
Expert
that interface is much better than the PC version!
ArchiCAD 25-4013; Windows 10; Intel i5-3570K; 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960

Anonymous
Not applicable
There are serious problems with library parts but the solution is not to have fewer but more complex ones. The ones we have are already complex to the point of being unmaintainable. What is needed it the ability to create complex assemblies from simpler parts. The difficulty of using DWB further points up the problems of trying to manage complex assemblies with the present tools.

Chazz
Booster
Matthew wrote:
What is needed it the ability to create complex assemblies from simpler parts.
Are you saying we now need to buy and use ArchiJamb and ArchiPanel in conjunction with ArchitraveBuilder and HingeHandler? What about ThresholdMaster and HandsetHoudini? PenetrationPrevailer?

I'm OK with the current paradigm. The real issue for me is that the interface of these things is poor. This, of course has it's roots in the limitations of GDL and perhaps the limitations of the SDK. Maybe more central is the fact that GS has set the interface bar so low that the developer community is less than inspired?
Nattering nabob of negativism
2019 MBP
(2022 MBP M1 still in the box)

TomWaltz
Newcomer
I've had better luck making custom openings out of walls & slabs. If you have a subtype, they will have all the listing parameters, even though you may not have all the size adjustments you want.
Tom Waltz

Anonymous
Not applicable
Chazz wrote:
Matthew wrote:
What is needed it the ability to create complex assemblies from simpler parts.
Are you saying we now need to buy and use ArchiJamb and ArchiPanel in conjunction with ArchitraveBuilder and HingeHandler? What about ThresholdMaster and HandsetHoudini? PenetrationPrevailer?
If those become available and you really like or need them, sure.

Seriously though, I would like a more hierarchical approach where the components are interchangeable (within reason and the capabilities of the individual programmers) such that within a door assembly the user can specify a jamb, door leaf, hardware, casings, etc. from any source and not be limited to those provided by GS for their doors or CADimage for theirs and so on. Not only is there too much duplication of effort, but those efforts are going to the creation of monstrously complex and fragile assembly/component hybrids.
I'm OK with the current paradigm. The real issue for me is that the interface of these things is poor. This, of course has it's roots in the limitations of GDL and perhaps the limitations of the SDK. Maybe more central is the fact that GS has set the interface bar so low that the developer community is less than inspired?
I agree about the low bar and the current limitations of the interface for custom parts, and much could be done just by improving these, but these are only stop gap measures to relieve some of the current pain. I don't think the current paradigm can scale any further to accommodate complex assemblies such as stairs and curtainwalls since it is already failing to manage basic doors and windows very well.

Once a library part gets much past 1000 lines of code it becomes difficult to debug and maintain. This problem increases exponentially when such parts call macros which are similarly complex. The current door and window libraries are excellent examples of this.

The other problem is that the current system puts most of the complexity right up front where you have to deal with it whether you need it or not. We need a system where the basic functions (and simple, schematic parts) are easily accomplished with more complex features available to be added as needed.

Haneef Tayob
Contributor
Maybe GS should evaluate how people use the windows and doors parts. I generally start off a sketch design and just throw in 'fixed windows' which I then re-size and design as the project progresses. Sometimes this is left for very late in the project.

There are only a few of the doors and windows in the standard parts that I use. I also cringe when I have to make major changes to doors & windows - This should not be the case. My preference would be to provide something very flexible.
Stephen wrote:
...I have never liked the windows and doors that come with the standard library.
This sentiment has been mentioned time and time again.
Has GS ever replied to them or mentioned how they see the way forward?
Haneef Tayob
Aziz Tayob Architects
AC23 INT rel 3003, OS X 10.14.6 iMac 3.3ghz i5 dual monitor, 24GB RAM

Anonymous
Not applicable
Haneef wrote:
Maybe GS should evaluate how people use the windows and doors parts. I generally start off a sketch design and just throw in 'fixed windows' which I then re-size and design as the project progresses. Sometimes this is left for very late in the project.

There are only a few of the doors and windows in the standard parts that I use. I also cringe when I have to make major changes to doors & windows - This should not be the case. My preference would be to provide something very flexible.
This is a major part of my point about assemblies. I want to start in schematic design with a simple opening, maybe just a sash to represent a window and a simple solid panel (with or without a jamb) to represent a door. As the design develops I want to be able to add the details as needed until they are sufficient for the completed documentation. Casings and hardware as necessary, custom door panels, sidelights, multi-sash windows, various operable and fixed lights, etc.

With the Opening defining the basic context (and parameters) of the assembly, it becomes possible to attach various components to it as needed. Set up properly, this could allow the greatest range for choice of components, and the flexibility to create exactly the function, appearance, and level of complexity desired.
Stephen wrote:
...I have never liked the windows and doors that come with the standard library.
This sentiment has been mentioned time and time again.
Has GS ever replied to them or mentioned how they see the way forward?
They are aware of the problem(s). I expect we will see some improvements in these areas

Jere
Expert
Matthew wrote:
There are serious problems with library parts but the solution is not to have fewer but more complex ones. The ones we have are already complex to the point of being unmaintainable.....
I don't know much about GDL or programming, but what i'm asking for doesn't seem to be that difficult. We have window objects with transoms, for example; would it be that difficult to turn those off or add a second transom?
ArchiCAD 25-4013; Windows 10; Intel i5-3570K; 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960

Jere
Expert
TomWaltz wrote:
I've had better luck making custom openings out of walls & slabs. If you have a subtype, they will have all the listing parameters, even though you may not have all the size adjustments you want.
Just curious, can custom profiles be used in the creation of a custom window?
ArchiCAD 25-4013; Windows 10; Intel i5-3570K; 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960

TomWaltz
Newcomer
Jere wrote:
TomWaltz wrote:
I've had better luck making custom openings out of walls & slabs. If you have a subtype, they will have all the listing parameters, even though you may not have all the size adjustments you want.
Just curious, can custom profiles be used in the creation of a custom window?
Yep. They look amazing in section.
Tom Waltz

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!