Got a minute? We appreciate your feedback:

Graphisoft Learn survey
About Archicad's documenting tools, views, model filtering, layouts, publishing, etc.

Renovation status of openings

In AC25 5010 openings can be placed with a renovation status that is incongruous with that of the associated element. So an opening with new status can be placed in a wall with demolish status and an opening with status existing/demo can be placed in a wall with status new.


Is this really correct behaviour? In contrast doors and windows inherits the status from the associated wall if and when incongruity arise.


Barry Kelly

I guess technically it does not make sense.

But the difference between doors and windows and the openings is that doors and windows can only exist in one wall.

Where as openings can be in walls, slabs, meshes and beams.

As well as that they can interact with more than one element at a time.

So it is probably very difficult to automatically control the renovation status.



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

Mahmoud Qenawi

I feel renovation status for openings give us the power to handle each opening separately.

Unlike doors and windows.

AC 27 INT 4001 - AC 26 INT 5002 ( For MEP Purposes )
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with Radeon Graphics 3.20 GHz 16.0 GB


I don't see how the fact that openings can have different types of associated elements should make it very difficult to have the associated element override the renovation status of the opening. So openings that only cut one element seem straight forward.


But yes, openings can cut multiple elements which in turn can have different renovation statuses and the current solution sort of allows for this to play out, but I would say that it is too messy to be acceptable.


For example, a new element associated with an existing opening will be shown without the opening on a renovation filter that only shows new elements.


It also seem to lead to strangeness regarding the element information. I don't know the technicalities behind that but if with the plan set so that it doesn't show both the opening and associated element then the element information in any view that shows both will be incorrect. The screenshots is of a new slab and existing opening shown as existing plan in the plan view and as planned status in the 3D view. Although the opening is correctly shown in the 3D view, the opening is not accounted for in the element information.




So the question becomes - what is the association relationship really about? Does it indicate that the opening is a part of the element or is it just a means of placing the opening? If it is part of the element, why doesn't it show? If it is not part of the element, wouldn't the correct solution be to have openings as independent elements? It seems like the developers couldn't decide and ended up halfway between.


I find it worrying to see such an issue with a relatively new tool (AC23) and it is hard not to see it as an indication of a piecemeal approach to the development of AC which I believe is starting to really take its toll, both on the application and its current users.

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!