BIM Coordinator Program (INT) April 22, 2024

Find the next step in your career as a Graphisoft Certified BIM Coordinator!

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

@thesleepofreason wrote:

What I was trying to point out is that the notion of modelling and documentation as two separate phases is outdated which makes it questionable why GS develops features that are conceptually limited to one or the other.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.


Exactly.  The DOs need to be placed in the hierarchy with other AC organizing features, not peer to peer.  It seems the idea so far is just a tool to quickly look at discreet options as the design develops.  But, then, shouldn't DOs be under the Design menu and fluid with modeling workflow?  And shouldn't you be able to override all your folder views on the fly to a given option?  And shouldn't the Reno Status be within the DO?  All new construction is great, but aren't we in a trend for more re-use; thus more complex remodeling needs where options will change what we demo?  

 

I am also trying to understand why DOs are under Documentation if, after you choose an option, you are to Merge & Accept.  Presumably, that would occur prior to documentation in most cases. 

 

On a positive note, one simple application of DOs I find intriguing: Because elements and SEOs are wholly separate (and do not interact) from the Main Model,  I can store elements in a DO that I may need for modeling reference, or temporary holding, but want hidden most of the time.  Unlike a hidden layer, they will not interact with other elements but can be in the same position.  I can easily click for visibility without saving special modeling or document views.

“The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” - Abraham Lincoln

AC27 USA on 16” 2019 MBP (2.4GHz i9 8-Core, 32GB DDR4, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8G GDDR5, 500GB SSD, T3s, Trackpad use) running Sonoma OS + extended w/ (2) 32" ASUS ProArt PAU32C (4K) Monitors

You are missing the point which is about the developers intension with design options. It's ridiculous to limit the scope of development (and the evaluation of implementation) to some "noncommitted early design pre-documentation" stage. It is simply not good enough for an modern CAD/BIM application that strives (and charges) to be a industry leader. We need to be able to handle alternative designs in a way that lets us show our clients the difference between building a wall with material A or with material B regardless of where we are in the design process or regardless if we choose to fully document the state or not. The model is the documentation.



@Marc H wrote:
On a positive note, one simple application of DOs I find intriguing: Because elements and SEOs are wholly separate (and do not interact) from the Main Model,  I can store elements in a DO that I may need for modeling reference, or temporary holding, but want hidden most of the time.  Unlike a hidden layer, they will not interact with other elements but can be in the same position.  I can easily click for visibility without saving special modeling or document views.

Implementing the functionality as an enhancement to layers and/or visibility would have had a tremendous effect on the workflow - while leaving the door open for a new and better approach to change and alternative design. Unfortunately I think we will be stuck with this for a while now while every other CAD/BIM is looking into history based approaches.... 


@thesleepofreason wrote:

You are missing the point which is about the developers intension with design options. It's ridiculous to limit the scope of development (and the evaluation of implementation) to some "noncommitted early design pre-documentation" stage.



That was me saying there is no need to fully document every design option.

And I personally, believe anyone is a fool to do more work than they need to if a client is not paying them for their time.

How much work would you put into a proposal, when you don't even know if any of the options will even be accepted?

 

Graphisoft's intent was to offer users a way of containing various design options all in the one file - which they have done.

They have not limited the scope of the design options in any way.

If you want to fully document each design option, there is nothing stopping you doing that.

If you want to show just an early concept, you can do that as well.

 

Whether you fully document each design option or not is purely up to the person doing it, but it can be done.

The type of job would have a big impact on that.

3 versions of a bathroom layout is much different to 3 options for a 30 storey office block, with different floor layouts, number an size of office towers, parking areas, etc.

I certainly wouldn't want to fully document the office tower versions until one of them has been accepted, so you would only model what was necessary.

 

 

I am sure I have mentioned this in this or other posts, this is how I understand design options work.

You have a file set up with views and layouts and publisher sets to provide the documentation you need - same as we have always done.

Now we have the ability to add design options.

Those views (and hence layouts and publisher sets) can only show one design option.

So you have a choice ...

 

- change the design option used in those views, which means you have to do this for every view, every time you want to publish the full documentation for each design option.

You can select multiple views at the same time and change them all at once rather than doing it individually.

Then when you merge the options you want, be sure to set the views back to 'main model'.

 

- or create new (duplicate) views, layouts and publisher sets that you can set to show each design option.

Now you can publish any or all options at any time you want.

Then when you merge the design options, you just keep the original 'main model' views, layouts and publisher sets and discard the rest.

 

Barry.

 

 

One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 27
Dell XPS- i7-6700 @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB ram, GeForce GTX 960 (2GB), Windows 10
Lenovo Thinkpad - i7-1270P 2.20 GHz, 32GB RAM, Nvidia T550, Windows 11

@thesleepofreason wrote:

Unfortunately I think we will be stuck with this for a while now while every other CAD/BIM is looking into history based approaches... 

Would you please provide links to verifiable sources that support this statement about every other CAD/BIM?

In particular, I would like to see these supporting facts for each of these: Revit, AutoCAD, SketchUp, Allplan, Vectorworks, and Rhino.

Loving Archicad since 1995 - Find Archicad Tips at x.com/laszlonagy
AMD Ryzen9 5900X CPU, 64 GB RAM 3600 MHz, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB, 500 GB NVMe SSD
2x28" (2560x1440), Windows 10 PRO ENG, Ac20-Ac27

Many years ago you would have been a fool to draw 100 table designs for a living room. Then came downloadable packs, then parametric table models. 
Adaptable and changeable models, prefabricated construction, highly benefit from DO process to the full extent of documentation. The ability to change DO and service multiple clients specific to their desires and environment, and generate documentation, or retain documentation from previous designs is valuable. 

Better to focus on opportunities and potential of development than to try justify whether someones workflow is adequate based on personal opinions and experience. 

mthd
Ace

True we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be hired out for peanuts even if we are just CAD Monkeys lol ! If however you have clients who are willing to pay you to come up with various DO’s then that’s all cool !

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

@Laszlo Nagy  wrote:

@thesleepofreason wrote:

Unfortunately I think we will be stuck with this for a while now while every other CAD/BIM is looking into history based approaches... 

Would you please provide links to verifiable sources that support this statement about every other CAD/BIM?

In particular, I would like to see these supporting facts for each of these: Revit, AutoCAD, SketchUp, Allplan, Vectorworks, and Rhino.


You want me to link verifiable sources supporting my thinking about the future of CAD/BIM applications? Are you for real and how do you contribute to the discussion here? And more importantly is this post made in a personal or any official capacity - because the lines are quite blurry.

You stated that every other CAD/BIM is looking into history-based approaches. Ok, so if I understand correctly, this is your personal idea and not a fact?

 

Loving Archicad since 1995 - Find Archicad Tips at x.com/laszlonagy
AMD Ryzen9 5900X CPU, 64 GB RAM 3600 MHz, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB, 500 GB NVMe SSD
2x28" (2560x1440), Windows 10 PRO ENG, Ac20-Ac27

No I did not - and if you read the whole sentence and not just the part you decided to highlight then it takes some real effort to missunderstand it as a factual claim. Primarily as I explicitly state that it is something I think but also due to the hyberbolic use of "every" and the vague use of "looking into".

So whats the reason for your nitpicking?

Learn and get certified!