Composites and Profiles - Classifications and Properties

[gdford]

We seriously need to add classification and properties to composites and to profiles.

I would much rather manage common data for one wall composite type than manage the common data in 1000 placed instances of the wall composite type.
This would be soooo BIM!

[Nathan Hildebrandt]

Been asking for that for over 5 years now. 

[gdford]

Yes - It seems unbelievably obvious that this should be part of the BIM.

[Marc H]

Agreed!  If GS added even a limited set of data or property fields to the composite assemblies table, it would be great, especially if you could use them to filter your selection when looking for the needed design choice or managing your composite portfolio.

I thought the new AC26 composite folders were a step in that direction, but I must say they have not proved helpful and now I'm finding they are unstable.

• You cannot have the same composite name in two different folders.  One can understand the need for unique IDs, but if you want the same composite in two different folders b/c they share the same assembly (e.g., as one can have multiple applications currently done with the wall, roof, and shell icon), you need to create a different name.
• The folders only work 'going in' to the Composites listing.  They are not visible or available in the Composites listing when you apply a search filter, nor are they visible or available from the Attribute Manager Composites listing.  As they do not include any information about which folder the composite is in, one is back to relying on the name to indicate its category.
• When I try to create two second tier sub-folders with the same name under different branches, it tells me the name already exists and apparently deletes or hides the content of the composites within the folder. This appears to be a 'bug' or as we say in architecture, a defect.
• I somehow lost a full folder set of a dozen composites when working with the folders and had to import them from an older archived template.  

I am normally very supportive of new AC features, but this one does not even appear to have gone through basic functional and quality testing. I think I'll go back and restore my old composite naming convention and take a pass on these folders.

[gdford]

Hopefully there are immediate plans to flesh all of this out - apparently there is no reason to move to 26!

[Nathan Hildebrandt]

I always move onto the latest release when I know there aren’t any killer bugs for my workflows. At least then I get the benefit of any performance improvements that they have put into the software in the background.

I sadly think we will be waiting for a while till we get properties at the composite and complex profile and surface levels. It would be a great inclusion ASAP but I am not going to hold my breath. 

[Moh]

This is top of my wish list!  It would make life so much easier to get rid of our current workarounds to try and achieve something like this.

[James B]

Thanks for the feedback.

I've moved this to 'needs info', as we'd like to understand exactly what data you'd place to the Composite/Profile, and how this data would react on element/instance level? If you have some further examples, this will help our future planning in this area.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Graphisoft Product Management requested additional feedback to understand this Wish better. Since no feedback arrived by the feedback deadline (4 weeks), we have closed this Wish.

[ChristianMuntean]

Hi! Please reopen the status to needs info. I´ll gladly provide a dedicated example with screenshots of the exact problem we are facing with a detailed description and a specific but basic scenario.
Also if needed I could mockup some quick UI to show the ideal implementation and functionality we would want to see!

Let me know if I should write it here or if I should post another wish, thanks!

[Laszlo Nagy]

@ChristianMuntean in such a case, the workflow is to open a new wish.

Please start a new wish where you can provide all the information needed.