WISH: Zone and Schedule Formatting:

[StefanV_BCP]

With varying regulations on numerical data presentation for spaces in different countries, I strongly believe that Archicad should introduce a separate type of scheduling that allows users greater flexibility to organize data and graphical representation. The current workflow demands users to create three types of schedules and then collage them on the layout space, which works well for small designs. However, for larger-scale projects, this becomes a nightmare due to increased resource usage (time, manpower) and reduced file usability. While it's recommended to have a separate file for layouting in big designs to avoid file congestion, other resources like time and the potential for human errors increase. Offering enhanced scheduling options would greatly improve efficiency and ease of use for architects working on diverse projects.

[Barry Kelly]

---

@StefanV_BCP wrote:

The current workflow demands users to create three types of schedules and then collage them on the layout space, which works well for small designs.

---

By three types of schedules, do you mean 'Elements', 'Components' and 'Surfaces' ?

These show some information unique to each schedule type, so yes you will currently need 3 different schedules.

But if you are using 3 schedules of the same type, could you show an example of why you need 3 different schedules?

Barry.

[StefanV_BCP]

Hi Barry,

Little late for my side to respond, this thread slipped under my radar.
Getting back to questions:
"By three types of schedules, do you mean 'Elements', 'Components' and 'Surfaces' ?

These show some information unique to each schedule type, so yes you will currently need 3 different schedules."

By 3 types of schedule, I meant I need to create three different schedules for zones (element type schedule) because of the format and calculation limitation of the Interactive Schedule.

For example:
We have 3 types of areas by floor that need to be shown
1. area for the communication
2. area under installation
3. usable area
In an ideal scenario, we would have only one interactive schedule per floor that can show a total of individual areas (communication, installation, and usable area) and the grand total of those 3. While having in mind that under usable areas we would need to have the ability to set what are subtotals (total of apartment 01/02/03....)
To try to recapitulate my scribbling, the formatting should look like this:

Conditions for IS:
Element type = Zone, AND
Home story = 1, AND
Related zone category => (1. Area for the communication, OR
Related zone category => 1. Area under installations, OR
Related zone category => 1. Usable area, OR)

Fileds for IS
- Zone category *Grand total value
----- Group -----
- Zone apartment ID (because this doesn't exist in IS as a parameter, this can be solved with property) *Subtotal value
- Related zone number
- Related zone name
----- End of the group ----
- Calculated Area

In the attachment how visually that needs to look like

[thesleepofreason]

There is certainly a lot of unrealised potential regarding text documentation which I find a bit strange - the data is right there. Being able to use it a more flexible would certainly increase our productivity.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Stefan,

So, what you are basically saying that there should be multiple levels of Subtotals.

If I understand correctly:

1. There is a level of Grand Total, which includes all areas.

2. The next level of Subtotals is different in case of the three Zone Categories:

For "Communication", the individual rows (Hallway, Stairwell) count toward this value (so they are really just values, not subtotals)

For "Installation" the total of the values counts toward this subtotal value (although right now we have only one row here - Installation ducts)

For "Unable Area" the total of all apartment areas counts toward this subtotal value

3. I also see a next level of Subtotals: The subtotals of individual Apartments (A.01, A.02). In the schedule, these are displayed in bold, with a white background.

So, for me, this wish is to have the ability to have subtotals and be able to define what level of subtotal a certain Schedule field should belong to.

Do I understand correctly?

[StefanV_BCP]

Hi @Laszlo Nagy  ,
The short answer to your post is Yes - the ability to have multiple subtotals is needed to accommodate the needed and desired area scheduling.

But with that, it also needs to follow with the ability that users can graphically enhance the table as they want. (individual cell coloring, individual font per cell....). In a way it needs to start to resemble more like Excel, being that "I" part of the BIM is sometimes very difficult to work with.

*One quick note, there should be also a subtotal value for the "Communication" category, I just forgot to enter it when I created the print screen.

Cheers,