cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
2024 Technology Preview Program

2024 Technology Preview Program:
Master powerful new features and shape the latest BIM-enabled innovations

Wishes
Post your wishes about Graphisoft products: Archicad, BIMx, BIMcloud, and DDScad.

Better control of default design option

 

The default design option is set to main model when opening a view where the current default is inactive. This becomes quite an annoyance when working on multiple options concurrently as it first forces the user to keep track if the default changes or not and if then reset it to the correct option. Otherwise elements will be added to the main model instead of the option. 

 

Although the problem is obvious the solution is not. Having a prompt smilar to when trying to create an element on a hidden layer would be rather tedious, having default option saved as a view setting would run into issues with multiple option sets in addition to the added management.

 

This is a drawback of the shortcut approach taken by GS where design options just adds more of complexity for the user to manage without bringing much to the CAD/BIM table. Design options should be about distinct states of the model (as outlined here) and not about about separation of elements within one state. For the latter we already have layers and it should be noted that enhancing layers with the functionality of design options rather than introducing a new feature could have achieved the same result but with the bonus bringing a substantial increase in efficiency for the layer based workflow which GS is determined to stick with.

33 REPLIES 33

I don't think that the pipette tool is a solution. It would still require action from the user (keyboard and mouse) to reset the default and in addition to that the user would have to keep track on which design option elements belong to in order pick it up and then there is the issue with picking up design option, layer and renovation status at the same time and that it would have to be done for each element type. It's more efficient to just reset using the palette.

bvd
Contributor

Working on internal elevations and find this extremely annoying as well. 
Every time I click between views it defaults. If I apply option A it would be nice to add it to all "View Map" views, and click quickly to B and all views changed again. It's quite annoying to have options disappear or change when I'm editing from different angles. I understand this is Typical for layouts and pens etc, but Design Options should live outside of this. 

I would prefer to 'assign' display for Design Options in layout book under Drawing Selection Settings dialogue, if I need to present a layout for the client, copy pasting the same drawing and then switching which option it is viewing. You could knock up a drawing set, copy the page, highlight them all and flick them to option B in presentation mode.

In modelling mode, resetting views is terrible for workflow. best option is to shift select all the views your working in and change them all at once... still too many clicks. 


mthd
Ace

Hi, I have been experimenting with the DO’s workflow. I know that goal is that once you finish with your design options and you select the chosen one as the main model the rest are deleted. 

What if I want to keep all my DO’s intact as different plan variation for house designs that a builder might want to have in his catalog ? Do I save a file with all those DO’s and have a different one for the chosen design ? Why not have a way to keep all your options intact and select one to become the main model instead ? That way you avoid creating too many extra files for DO’s.

AC8.1 - AC27 ARM AUS + CI Tools
Apple Mac Studio M1 Max Chip 10C CPU
24C GPU 7.8TF 32GB RAM OS Ventura

@mthd wrote:

What if I want to keep all my DO’s intact as different plan variation for house designs that a builder might want to have in his catalog ?


Just don't merge the Design Options.

Just activate the one you want.

 

If you want to, you can set up multiple views for each Design Option.

You can even set up multiple layout pages and publisher sets.

It is just when you do merge a DO, you will then have more to delete manually (views, layouts, publisher sets).

 

If you work for a building company that uses 'standard' designs that the client can choose from, you can set up a standard plan with all the options available.

You keep this as a standard file.

The client decides which kitchen they want, the elevation style, the extra bedroom, etc.

That is when you then merge the design options, getting rid of what is not needed, and save it as the client's file.

 

You can keep all of the design options you want for as long as you want in any file.

Even if the client makes their choice, you merge the options, and then they change there mind, you can still copy and paste options from the original file if you have kept a copy (i.e. the 'standard' plan).

You will have to manually delete what is not needed from the main (merged) model though.

 

Barry.

One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 27
i7-10700 @ 2.9Ghz, 32GB ram, GeForce RTX 2060 (6GB), Windows 10
Lenovo Thinkpad - i7-1270P 2.20 GHz, 32GB RAM, Nvidia T550, Windows 11

 Hi Barry, thanks for pointing out the extra steps that we could take in that type of workflow above.

 

Do you see any ways of how DO’s could be improved for all of us ?

AC8.1 - AC27 ARM AUS + CI Tools
Apple Mac Studio M1 Max Chip 10C CPU
24C GPU 7.8TF 32GB RAM OS Ventura

@mthd wrote:

Do you see any ways of how DO’s could be improved for all of us ?


I think they work pretty well now for what they were intended to do.

Simply, alternate design options in the early phase of documentation/design.

 

I don't think they were ever intended to be for a complete set of construction documentation for all design options in the one file.

Of course we will push those limits and that is what I intend to set up for the project home builder I work for.

One standard plan with various options that can be chosen from, merged and then then all documentation is already done for that particular plan and the options wanted.

 

But if you have a 30 storey office tower with different floor plan configurations, elevation treatment, etc., I doubt you would fully document all of those options.

You would just have the design concepts, so the correct ones can be chosen, merged and then the documentation can be completed.

 

That is what I think design options are really meant for.

Early design options that affect the model (not the full documentation).

They could be options you are simply trying as the designer, or they could be actual options you want to present to the client so they can choose.

Then you either merge the wanted options into the main model (discarding the unwanted DOs) or adjust the view settings to include the DOs that you want and ignore the other DOs (keeping them in the file).

 

Barry.

One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 27
i7-10700 @ 2.9Ghz, 32GB ram, GeForce RTX 2060 (6GB), Windows 10
Lenovo Thinkpad - i7-1270P 2.20 GHz, 32GB RAM, Nvidia T550, Windows 11

@Barry Kelly wrote:
Early design options that affect the model (not the full documentation).

Wait - isn't the model suppose to be the documentation? Or is that just in some marketed digital twin BIM reality? It's obvious that GS are quite far from walking their talk, but if the actual brief for developing design options was nothing more than the ability to do some digital fiddling then they will never catch up.


@thesleepofreason wrote:

@Barry Kelly wrote:
Early design options that affect the model (not the full documentation).

Wait - isn't the model suppose to be the documentation?


Of course.

I am just saying if you are going to do 15 design options for a client, you wouldn't fully document every one (annotation, all sections and elevations, details, layouts, etc).

You would just model the 3D enough to convey the design choices.

 

Of course you can fully document every option if you want to.

That is what I hope to do for our standard home plans, so we just choose the options we want and 95% of the documentation is done.

 

Barry.

 

One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 27
i7-10700 @ 2.9Ghz, 32GB ram, GeForce RTX 2060 (6GB), Windows 10
Lenovo Thinkpad - i7-1270P 2.20 GHz, 32GB RAM, Nvidia T550, Windows 11

What I was trying to point out is that the notion of modelling and documentation as two separate phases is outdated which makes it questionable why GS develops features that are conceptually limited to one or the other. We need the ability to handle change and alternative designs within the model - we don't need some sidetrack sketchpad.

You can fully document every design option if you want to.

There is nothing stopping you from doing this.

My point was, if you have one client and you are offering multiple options, would you fully document each of those options from the start, or would you do what you need to and let them choose the best option before you complete the documentation?

 

If on the other hand you work for a project home builder (as I do) and you have multiple clients all choosing from the same standard plan with multiple options, then yes I would fully document all of the design options.

Client 1 chooses what they want, I merge those options with the main model - job is done, fully documented plans.

Client 2 chooses different options, I merge those - job done.

 

So different horses for different courses as they say.

 

Barry.

One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 27
i7-10700 @ 2.9Ghz, 32GB ram, GeForce RTX 2060 (6GB), Windows 10
Lenovo Thinkpad - i7-1270P 2.20 GHz, 32GB RAM, Nvidia T550, Windows 11