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

Rail-tool

Anonymous
Not applicable
Hi!

Our stairmaker tools works but not all the way, the thing I got most problems with is with the stairrails, when I want a rail on a stair to connect to my rails on a slab and to next stair.

My thought is that we should have a rail-tool that only create rails in different shapes, planar / slanted, straight / curved and so on.
13 REPLIES 13
Anonymous
Not applicable
So, Archistair can but Archicad can't!
owen
Newcomer
I voted 'Not Needed' simply on principle .. i think the last thing ArchiCAD needs is MORE specific tools which will inevitably work not quite the way we want and have infuriating discrepancies in behaviour, appearance controls, etc from other tools.

I think AC needs a consolidated set of highly flexible, generic modelling tools which we can then assign their function to. The slab+roof tools are a perfect example of what i see as unnecessary duplication and the associated discrepancies between them (display options, etc)

I would vote 'Essential' however if you meant something like a generic extrusion tool which could for example assign a parametric profile (Complex Profiles + GDL scriptable option) to a 3D spline (also GDL scriptable option) and then tell it is a Beam, Wall, whatever and have ArchiCAD treat it just the same as those native elements (display options, scheduling, etc).

ok .. back to reality
cheers,

Owen Sharp

Design Technology Manager
fjmt | francis-jones morehen thorp

iMac 27" i7 2.93Ghz | 32GB RAM | OS 10.10 | Since AC5
Anonymous
Not applicable
owen wrote:
...i think the last thing ArchiCAD needs is MORE specific tools which will inevitably work not quite the way we want and have infuriating discrepancies in behaviour, appearance controls, etc from other tools....
I'm going to disagree with you on that point. The only way you are going to get the tools working exactly the way you want is to make them more specific to their function. The saying "Jack of all trades, master of none" certainly applies in this situation.

ArchiCAD is BIM. We use intelligent components to construct a virtual building. Using generic objects that sort-of look like the components we need goes completely against this. I actually want to get away from using a beam to form a bargeboard, or a slab to form a worktop. I want to use a roof edge tool, and a worktop tool.

This will become more and more important for interoperability between programs - once an object knows exactly what it is, it will be easier to translate that function to work the same way in another program.

I wouldn't bet against that in the future even the wall tool would be split into multiple types. A timber stud wall does not have the same properties and connecting details as a masonry wall, so why do we struggle to force one generic type of wall to solve everything automatically?

I do agree that discrepancies in behaviour between tools are annoying, but this is just a programming and user interface issue GS should solve and is not insurmountable. It will just take time and encouragement from us!
owen
Newcomer
Peter wrote:
The only way you are going to get the tools working exactly the way you want is to make them more specific to their function...

ArchiCAD is BIM. We use intelligent components to construct a virtual building. Using generic objects that sort-of look like the components we need goes completely against this. I actually want to get away from using a beam to form a bargeboard, or a slab to form a worktop. I want to use a roof edge tool, and a worktop tool.
It is exactly these workarounds - using one tool to create an element that the 'real' tool cannot do - that i am trying to avoid. Relying on specific tools for specific elements is exactly the problem we have now and will only get worse with more very specific tools. Graphisoft cannot factor in all the variables and so inevitably we end up with workarounds as the tool does not do what someone needs it to do.

What i am saying is you could abstract the geometry of an element from its classification. So you would have a base set of powerful, flexible tools to create geometry for ANY type of building element you can think of, and then you define what that element is (e.g wall, beam..) if it is really necessary. So the same tool you use to create your stair rail could be used to create a curving, profiled concrete wall. The only difference would be you have told AC one is a railing and the other is a wall.

I just think the alternative is we end up with certain tools being able to create forms that others should, but can't - simply because Graphisoft did not think it would be needed, or they did but don't have the resources to maintain a ballooning set of tools.

anyway a bit off topic .. this was also discussed a bit more in the What are new tools for ARCHICAD 13? thread
Peter wrote:
I wouldn't bet against that in the future even the wall tool would be split into multiple types. A timber stud wall does not have the same properties and connecting details as a masonry wall, so why do we struggle to force one generic type of wall to solve everything automatically?
This is where AC's new 'Systems' tools would come in, assembling various geometries created by the basic tools into complex assemblies such as timber stud walls, roof framing, curtain walls, etc


cheers,

os
cheers,

Owen Sharp

Design Technology Manager
fjmt | francis-jones morehen thorp

iMac 27" i7 2.93Ghz | 32GB RAM | OS 10.10 | Since AC5

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!