Matthew wrote:I might have not expressed myself correctly, but 2 or more plan view is what I was talking about in this poll :
Tell me how and I will be glad to add the poll. Otherwise please feel free to add it. The responses could be: 1. Great stuff, 2. Sounds OK, 3. Maybe, 4. Yuck, 5. No way.
Geoff wrote:I agree that this topic is a bit large for a simple vote.
Holy hanging chad Batman, how do you vote on this one
Is this really about multiple plan views or about the future of ArchiCAD and our collective vision of BIM?The original post was about multiple plan views. My response went a bit beyond this.
Some random thoughts:I would rather see a different plan view type and keep the detail tool as it is. I think in the overall scheme it is better to maintain a distinction between plans and details. I presently use the detail tool as you describe for enlarged floor plans, but I would rather have them in a live model view and I think of them as a fundamentally different type of drawing. The enlarged plan is a drawing of one specific place in the building whereas detail drawings are usually of typical conditions which may occur in many locations. This is why I don't think the detail tool needs to be a live model view (perhaps I should introduce this as a new poll topic).
We have multiple plan views (with boundries) now using the detail tool. This tool could evolve to encompass more of the things Matthew is looking for. Live 2-way linking and detail-in-detail would be a good first step. User definable Z coordinate is another.
The option to manually control when a window is rebuilt (the subject of a recent poll) would probably be necessary to address the inevitable hardware issues Ben raises.This would be very useful now and, you're right Geoff, would be absolutely essential in the model-centric vision. (The lack of this ability is the main, perhaps only, reason I still unlink the elevations.) I don't agree that hardware performance is such a big issue. The plan views in my scenario would behave similarly to the section views and I haven't found editing in section to be particulary tedious. The big job from a programming standpoint would be keeping the immediate feedback as it is in plan presently (and adding this in section?) but this doesn't seem to me to be a hardware performance issue.
Which leads to another question: Shouldn't ArchiCAD retain distinct view settings (layer combination, view options, etc.) for each open window? Without addressing the 3D window specifically, this would make ArchiCAD more model-centric. Each window would represent it's own snapshot of the virtual model. That's the way it works when you save out to PlotMaker, why not when you're working?I don't see much of a change here. The present approach in sections and details seems fine. The distinction between the project map with the basic window list and the multiple associated view sets would work fine for the plan windows. The complex part is how to organize the plan views in navigator. Perhaps the existing story views would remain and would become subsets with multiple plan views stored within. The thing I haven't got a clear image of is how going up and down the story views would work; perhaps it would depend on whether a particular plan view crossed multiple stories (talk about recursion problems ).
As to the bigger question of whether the 3D window should become the primary interface, that makes sense in the design phase of a project. Thus all the comparisons to SketchUp, a product focusing on the design phase. Who wouldn't want to see their groovy interface come to the ArchiCAD 3D environment?I don't see a major issue here. I don't think the ArchiCAD 3D interface should be just like Sketch Up; only adapt some of the ideas as appropriate. Perhaps a new massing study tool would be nice (virtual clay). A model-centric approach would allow the possibility of 3D only tools like this. A quick (3D) space bar click and the massings could become zones with walls and floors. Perhaps the massings could have optional relationships between each other and with their contents (now THAT might require some serious hardware).
But we all know the difference between these products. SketchUp is a surface modeler, ArchiCAD is a database. A very special kind of database where most windows act as both records (input) and reports (output). Many of my own wishes speak directly to this. Things that reduce 2D drafting, like slabs with associated fills, or proper composite intersections in section, are more than time savers. They represent the intelligence required for the assemblies we model to report themselves correctly no matter the view.
All views reveal something about the whole. As the project progresses it becomes more technical. Plans, sections and details become valuable places to refine the design and the best area to focus our effort as we insure that our concepts can be built. Reduce not the power of the plan window, but bring parity to S/E and detail views.I wholeheartedly agree. Part of my conception is to bring improved function to all the view types while keeping the unique qualities that each requires. The idea is not to diminish the plan views in preference to the 3D but to enhance their function by unburdening them from being the central means of relating to the project.
So bring on the improvements to the 3D environment. Anything to improve the design and presentation capabilities of ArchiCAD. But don't banish the other windows to the second class citizenship of being mere extractions of the model. Nay, improve them too!
Matthew wrote:Isn't that just semantics. What if it were called the Partial Plan by Polygon Boundary tool? I'm all for the functionality you describe and have no problem with a new window type, unless that prospect keeps it from happening.
I would rather see a different plan view type and keep the detail tool as it is. I think in the overall scheme it is better to maintain a distinction between plans and details. I presently use the detail tool as you describe for enlarged floor plans, but I would rather have them in a live model view and I think of them as a fundamentally different type of drawing
The complex part is how to organize the plan views in navigator.Views may appear under the detail part of the project map, but can be put wherever you want in your view sets.
I don't see much of a change here. The present approach in sections and details seems fine.Wouldn't it be more true to the virtual model concept if each view (window) retained it's own settings even through a rebuild?
The idea is not to diminish the plan views in preference to the 3D but to enhance their function by unburdening them from being the central means of relating to the project.I agree completely.
Geoff wrote:Just semantics? Semantics, along with syntax and grammar, are how we organize the expression of our thoughts and as such I would say they are quite important. The changes we are discussing are about how we organize the creation and expression of our design work and I suspect that we agree that the details of how this is done are very important (ergo our conversation here).
Isn't that just semantics. What if it were called the Partial Plan by Polygon Boundary tool? I'm all for the functionality you describe and have no problem with a new window type, unless that prospect keeps it from happening.
Maybe we already have the tool in place if only it were enhanced, as the section tool was, by allowing it to be linked or unlinked. The current section tool can be used for sections of course, but also elevations, wall sections, and sectional details. An enhanced detail tool would be just as versatile.
Imagine seeing the completed exterior of your project in 3D (no interior parts), a framing plan in 2D (structural assemblies only), an enlarged plan in a detail, er partial plan window (composites, casework, furniture) and a section in an S/E window (composites, casework, no furniture). Each window is a live model view. Make changes anywhere, rebuild the lot and see how things fit, both in terms of design and documentation. As it is now all the views switch to the same layer and display option settings. To get the same feedback you have to cycle through all your views, rebuilding each in turn.This is a great idea. To be able to have multiple windows open each with their own independent layer, display options and dimension preferences etc. would be terrific.