The new working environment, was Open two stories ...

[Anonymous]

I would like to be able to open multiple plan view windows, but it would almost certainly involve a major overhaul of the way the program works. ArchiCAD (despite inventing the BIM concept) is plan centered for historical reasons (it allowed the program to run on the much slower machines of twenty years ago). Prior to version 5.1 the plan view was the only way to edit the model with 3D and section views as strictly 2D output.

To allow multiple plan views would (IMHO) require the major change of going from the historically plan centered to a model centered approach. The primary interface to the project would become the 3D window and everything else would behave as specialized views of the model.

I don't mean by this to imply that I object in any way to the idea of multiple plan views. In fact it is part of my ultimate fantasy of how ArchiCAD should operate.

What I am imagining (perhaps in ArchiCAD 11?) is:

- The 3D window is the primary and central interface for developing and navigating through the model.

- 3D navigation and editing with the ease of SketchUp and the power and accuracy of ArchiCAD.

- Instant 3D cut-away views of any plan, section or detail in the main model window. This means that the model is cut as defined in the particular view but is still be free to move and edit normally in 3D.

- The option to ghost the 2D elements in the above cut-aways. (I'm not sure how useful this would be, but it sure would look cool.)

- View types: Plan (floor & ceiling), Section & Elevation, Interior Elevation (that knows what room it's in, and not a kludgy add-on), Details, and 3D Views. (This is really just the current types with the addition of Plan views)

- 3D views would be separate windows for axon or perspective views with the ability to annotate in the model or the view plane (ie. dimensions oriented to the model in an isometric projection and notes and titles oriented to the page).

- Plan views: In addition to the variable cut height also share the section tool's ability to offset so that split levels or other conditions could be easily and accurately drawn. Setting the plan's cut height also eliminates the annoying split walls we have to use to model transom windows etc.

- Ceiling Plans: Like the floor plan views only looking up. I probably don't have to tell anyone all the workarounds this eliminates. Imagine, easy ceiling plans that look exactly the way you want them to.

- Plan boundaries: The plans are (optionally?) bounded allowing the tool to be used for enlarged plans which are still live model views. (This is a major limitation of the detail tool for this purpose.)

- Sections: The section tool is visible and editable in the main model window (as is the plan tool; perhaps only when the view is activated in the 3D window). The section tool has the ability to offset both vertically and horizontally allowing different section locations through each floor (and ending up at the ridge if desired).

- Details: These are still 2D drawings (derived from the model) as far as I am concerned. I find that if I want to correct the model to make the detail work there is much more to it than just the limited area of the detail.

- General: All views have the option to display as line drawings, shaded views, or rendered by any available engines including any combination of these with or without shadows as appropriate (and feasible). Imagine a site plan with notes and dimensions rendered with shadows in a watercolor style for the Planning Board hearing.

What do you think folks?

Would you buy this upgrade?

PS: I know this probably belongs in the wish list. I got a bit carried away beyond multiple story windows or live details.
Perhaps this whole topic should move to the wish list. (What do you think Djordje?)

[Thomas Holm]

Having worked with an environment quite like the one Matthew describes, namely in Microstation, I very much support the idea of having several windows open as definable views into the model. You should be able to define them as you like, having several different 3D windows open, as well as several plan or section views too. All "live" and simultaneously updated when you create or edit anything in any of them. This is how Microstation works. And did already 10 years ago. I still use the old Mac MicrostationSE version occassionally, when digging into old jobs.

However, I think you should not forget that using the plan view for input as in Archicad isn't just an historical fact because of underperforming hardware. The plan view has, at least for input in preliminary stages of a project, a level of abstraction that mimics manual drawing and improves productivity, because it's easy (for a trained architect) to use and interprete. This is mainly because a lot of 3D aspects are set already when you start working in a story. You don't (as much) have to check and watch out for weird things to happen in several views because you forgot where you were. This happens in Sketchup too, despite its ease of handling 3D.

I have also worked in Triforma, which adds some of Archicad's "building intelligence" to basic Microstation. In Triforma, you work in 3D all the time, without the story metaphor and 2D plan conventions. This makes work (at least inputting more ordinary jobs) go significantly slower than in Archicad, simply because there are more things do consider for every move you make. When I was using Triforma and Microstation, more than once I decided to create the basic structure (at least the plan/walls) in Archicad and export it to Microstation, just because that was faster than doing it "natively". Even if the final result was only to be a simple 2D floor plan! This was despite Microstation's superior graphics screen update speed and flexible windowing!

So if Graphisoft were to add more flexible windowing to v11 (or whatever), I would not like them to remove the plan window and stories. Using it as intended, it is a tremendous productivity enhancer compared to every other building CAD system I know!

(another wish I'd like to see - or is it there somewhere but I missed it?: I'd like to be able to select any item in a 3D or section window and let the program tell me what story it "belongs" to. To much time lost in trial and error!)

My 2¢.

Thomas

[Geoff Briggs]

Judging by the feedback from our friends in the Revt camp it would appear that Revit has moved ahead of ArchiCAD in a some areas that we have discussed hear and elsewhere on the wishlist: flexible windowing, the ability for each view to retain unique visibility settings, built-in RCP and demo plan functions, to name a few. Clearly ArchiCAD will need to address these issues to stay in the game. My thoughts on how Graphisoft should proceed, based on my own view of the ArchiCAD way, and the great conceptual foundation we have laid in this thread, as follows:

Flexible windowing: ArchiCAD is already strong here, multiple plan views being the most notable missing link. The ability to crop plans like we do with S/Es would also be nice and could be easily implemented depending on how the plan is originally defined.

Unique settings for each view: The front end for this is well established. We already save quickviews which comprise a defined set of visibility parameters. The difference would be that each open window would remember it’s settings even after moving to another window with different settings and then coming back. This would necessitate some new code. More importantly it begs more questions about structure and workflow. Does each view (sheet) get it’s own window? For example if two views are derived from the same S/E do we want to be able to open each in it’s own window? And do we want real-time change propagation like Revit, always, never, on a window by window basis?

RCPs: If plan views were defined like S/Es then the view direction could be up as easily as down.

Demo Plans: Do we need more than the current tool set to deal with this, is this broken or lacking?

Plans in general: A number of people here have made a strong case for keeping the schematic nature of plans as opposed to adopting a 3D top view approach. I fully agree. A plan is a diagramatic rather than literal view of the project.

But I would submit that with the introduction of multiple plan views the current Story paradigm becomes obsolete. The great value of Stories is in dividing the model vertically, obviating the need for layers to distinguish objects on each level. It essentially creates multiple horizontal sections within one window. With each plan now having it’s own distinct window this becomes unnecessary. We don’t need it for sections, why would we need it for plans?

But this means we need a way to define plans that is better than Stories. Here again we need simply draw from the established and well working functions we already have, in this case the S/E tool. With the S/E tool we have the ability to set the bounds (crop), direction (RCP v floor plan), depth, and distant area attributes (ghost story) of the view.

Now it’s true that a plan is not just a horizontal section but a specially modified one. So we will need either a new section type availabe within the S/E tool, or simply a new tool, the Plan tool.

Taking this one step further I can imagine enhancing the 3D environment so both S/Es and plans can be defined in 3D by dragging and resizing visible cutting planes. Through tool settings we could choose in which other views section markers would appear. Of course they would remain fully editable in those windows.

It sounds complicated but with careful implementation it need not be. If done right it would be great.

[Anonymous]

Geoff Briggs nailed it, thank you.
My only concern is that what he is asking for is more than all what GS developed in 20 years. This sounds tough but I have the suspicion that most of the improvements we received are work around solution as far as the code goes and the proof for this is the general slowness of the program.

[stefan]

Geoff wrote:
[...]RCPs: If plan views were defined like S/Es then the view direction could be up as easily as down.
[...]
Plans in general: A number of people here have made a strong case for keeping the schematic nature of plans as opposed to adopting a 3D top view approach. I fully agree. A plan is a diagramatic rather than literal view of the project.[...]

I'm not fully following you here.
A plan, by all means is a convention and although it starts from the concept of a horizontal cut, it cannot be generated in that way. To generate a 2D-representation that can be totally different from a 3D-model is the correct approach, IMHO. The 3D needs to be detailled for visualisation and quantities (and sections & elevations), but the conventional representation is not a simple cut through the 3D-view:

• * Floor-supporting beams are not cut, but they are shown in plan for their added information

• * What about windows that are not cut: underneath or above the eye-line? We like to show them in dashed or hidden lines, since they serve as necessary information.

• * I often tried to make appealing sections with thin lines in the back, but defining a near and far line can generate ugly lines in your plan, e.g. on a sloped roof: a part is thick and another part (which lies in the same plane and is the same element) is thin. This is how the section works but this is not how you would "draft" it.

When I was comparing Triforma with ArchiCAD a few years ago (to see which to buy), I had the feeling that the Triforma approach (one 3D-model, a plan is a section) could hardly cope with the demands of a construction drawing. They showed how you can generate dimensions and hatches from the 3D-cut. The ArchiCAD approach was the reverse (drawing a plan and generating the 3D-model from it). The graphical quality of the plans (you are drawing directly to make a legible plan) was noticable. A clear plan is still the end result for legal and construction purposes, so to me it seemed to be the best choice.

[Geoff Briggs]

As I stated I'm not advocating that plans be normal sections but retain the conventions to which Stefan refers. I am suggesting that perhaps the model (or a special view of it) could be used to graphically locate and visualize the plan levels (Stories), along with the direction of view (upward in the case of ceiling plans), the extent of the view, and the extent of any distant area view (aka Ghost Story).

Irregardless of whether this graphic paradigm were used to locate the plans, my primary point is that if we have the power of multiple plan views (windows) then we should gain the freedom of something more flexible than Stories. Stories are rigidly stacked one atop another. But the plans in my model could overlap and intersect.

Maybe an architectural plan wants to show a beamed ceiling, so it's extent (height) would be set from floor level to beam level. The framing plan for the same floor might want to show the joists below but not the ceiling, so the extent would now start just above the ceiling below and stop short of the beams. The RCP for that floor would have a shallow extent completely within the extents of the other two plans, and a distant area setting extending to the floor. Instead of worrying about on which Story I should place the joists or beams, or creating a bunch of redundant layers to hide things, I just build it, then define my views.

Stefan is right to point out that the current state of the art in ArchiCAD is to draft directly in plan and expect the sections and 3D to be correct. As such my paradigm does indeed reverse this, build the model and expect the plans (and sections and elevations) to be correct. For this to work we truly need a new WORKING environment, that is a way to create and arrange all the 3D elements free from plans or stories. I believe this is necessary for ArchiCAD to evolve. SketchUp and improvements to ArchiCAD's own 3D window point the way.

[stefan]

That said, I'm supporting the idea to open more then one plan view at the same time.

Or define different view settings and lay them on top of eachother: e.g. show walls, hide openings, display beams etc...

but opening several plan views and several 3D views at the same time and work in whichever view you want would be a huge improvement. The navigator is helping a lot in switching between different scales, layers, settings etc... so it doesn't hinder me that much in practice.

[Anonymous]

Geoff,

Flexible overlapping plans is a very important idea. They should be graphical and easy to manipulate.

To show an atrium space on the level below one could in a section view graphically drag view range hot spots to expose what is needed to be seen for that plan. Conversely, everything above could be set to dashed or not. Then we could have a toggle to show all objects etc. That way we could easily find something that we need to move or change windows, beams, objects, etc. not shown in the view.

Instead of worrying about on which Story I should place the joists or beams, or creating a bunch of redundant layers to hide things, I just build it, then define my views.

I like the idea of not having to think about layering schemes etc. for CD's when constructing the virtual building. Build the model and define the views. Or define the views and work on them while the model takes shape changing the views as necessary. It would be nice to be able to choose our desired method of working. If implemented properly this would drastically reduce the number of layers and layer combinations.

[Anonymous]

The broader context of this thread, the one Matthew began talking about more than a year ago, ties into the new gripping session I've tried to start over in the construction wishes--> 3d modeling thread.

The real issue with all of my 3d modeling complaints boils down to what Matthew is discussing here: The need to be able to work on 3d as the design environment if we so choose. Like most on this thread, I don't want the traditional plan view design option (based on stories or horizontal section cuts) removed. That would be too much like Sketchup and takes away the traditional - and useful - design methodology unecessarily.

I am currently trying to figure out how to use SU to make my model while keeping the CAD - and maybe the plan, in AC9. This isn't ideal. If AC had SU's modeling capabilities we could use AC to design in 3d or in section, plan, elevation, etc.. It would be the ultimate BIM 3D design program.

As it is, with the speed of regeneration for section/elevation views and the limited ability to actually alter and manipulate the forms we create in AC, AC really is a plan-only program now.

The upshot is that sections and elevations and 3d views are the bastard-stepchildren of the plan view, and we cannot manipulate objects in them suffficiently to design in them, not to mention to produce final drawings. The outcome is unlinking from the model. Cleaning up line drawings, getting changes from clients, regenerating, unlinking, cleaning up, etc...
For my money, if I have to unlink for sections and elevations, Vectorworks does as good a job for 1/4 the cost.

There are several threads that are going to the same place: A new work environment in which we can design in 3d if we choose. AC has marketed itself for years as having this, but to reiterate: without the tools with which to manipulate the form and display properties of walls, slabs, roofs and other objects in 3d and elevation, AC is still a 2d CAD program.

This thread, Mathew's, is kind of the granddaddy of all the ones I've been reading recently. Some of the other wishlist threads heading in the same direction discuss:
1. A better mesh tool (as a 3d modeling core),
2. Being able to cut plan views like sections, instead of having to rely on stories,
3. A flexible wall tool with push/pull 3d hotspots.

What to do to... how to proceed? What do we push for first: Mattew's new work environment, or the 3d modeling and display tools required to make that work environment viable, or both?

Thoughts?

[stefan]

Can I add to this:

ArchiCAD is a Building Modeller and not a Geomtric Modeller. I like SketchUp, but SketchUp doesn't care what I make, as long as it's lines and faces. ArchiCAD cares very much about what I make: a wall is not a column and a roof is not a terrain (although we sometime need to use these tricks to compensate for the modelling shortcomings).

If Graphisoft can manage a freeform modelling with all building information and knowledge intact, then I say: go for it.

But throwing away planviews in favour of 3D-cuts throws away 100's of years of architectural graphical communication: a plan is a conventional representation of the building. It is by it's very nature not a 100% replica.

Microstation Triforma/Architecture followed this approach and they needed all kinds of tricks to force the plan out of the 3D, while ArchiCAD starts from the 2D-plan (the output) and builds up a usable, albeit limited, 3D-model.

I happen to like the solution ArchiCAD gives me.

Now if only ArchiCAD would include all Revit's features, ... but that's a different story... 😉

[Anonymous]

I would like to see a hybrid type 2d/3d plan environment. For example to see the base of a sloping wall from a cut at about 5' high etc. but at the cut we should have all the capabilities that we have now. Revit does have this capability, however it is fairly plan oriented as well. Its plans are very well coordinated but it is cumbersome to do much sketchup like designing in it. And like in Matthew's post it would be nice to view/work on the traditional plan cut info. from any 3d sectional view as well in plan mode.

I'm working on some fairly organic shaped beach houses. I do usually start with the plan (I mean people have to live in this thing) but always making sure that the model is correct in the 3d view. The issue is making the plans look right (stacking walls windows etc). It sure would be great if the plan cut could eliminate all this stacking of walls etc. to make it look appropriate for each plan. Many times I have to cut and paste from an plan view in the 3d window and then clean up the lines around the current plan elements to make the design intention clear.

Mark Gillis
architect