The Global Archicad Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Discussions closely related to Archicad. (Example: Do we need a Linux version of Archicad?)

Moderators: Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, Barry Kelly, Gordana Radonic, nbalogh, mnguyen, gkmethy, mtron, Csaba Kézér

I know that GDL has much more flexibility than Revit families, but I would not learn it. Why? I ,as an architect, need time to learn many other modern architecture issues as well. New structure technologies, new environmental issues, new material issues, new construction methodologies.....Who can say I am reluctant to learn new technologies? I am learning and learning everyday. I don't have time to learn GDL. Don't say It's easy or not that difficult to learn GDL. If you learn programming code, you can do lot of things. Absolutely! Who don't know that? However, what about other issues that architects have to learn? Time is limited and architects has lot of things to do.
spacemaking97 wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:32 am If you learn programming code, you can do lot of things. Absolutely! Who don't know that? However, what about other issues that architects have to learn? Time is limited and architects has lot of things to do.
Cheers to that! Furthermore it is not a matter of each one of us voicing our personal anecdote about GDL. The failure of GDL is evident in the market share of ArchiCAD, the availability of library parts and the adoption from vendors. All these in comparison with the BIM field leader which for the last 6-7 years has been Revit.
Moonlight wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:36 pm @jl_lt

It was the opposite, how to create Topographic contours from any mesh. By the way, how many programs that have not implemented this option !!
My bad! i was so excited by the prospect of it that i didnt actually read the document. The video you uploaded is beyond amazing though. Around minute 44 is particularly mind chattering. But Also, it helps to illustrate the following:

-Deconstructivism, as a philosophical and formal method to create the built environment is as death as disco (i might be wrong on this, but i doubt it). Many of us appreciate it for its will to explore the limits of materials and non regular geomtrical forms. But as the resources of the world become more scarce, the odds of seeing this kind of archicteture get built seem less and less likely every year. I ocasionally like to dance some disco on a given Friday night though!
-Its (arguably) spiritual succesor, generative and organic parametric design, seems even more grand in its ambitions while being even less rooted in the economic and urban realities in which it pretends to insert itself.
-Archicad struggles a lot if you want to design deconstructivist stuff and basically cannot natively handle Organic/generative design
-Not because they are heavily promoted in magazines and whatnot, it means generative design is/should be the norm. Quite the opposite in fact. Im confident to estimate the amount of comissions that require organic/generative designs account to much less than 1% of the whole universe of comissions. This is specially true in less devolped countries where it would be much much much less than 1% as other needs require everyone atention. (if anyone has hard data on this, please share).
-The last point doesnt mean that just because we can´t/should/dont know hot to do it now, we shouldnt do it in the near future. Preparation is key to survival
-A self-build social housing project in south America needs different tools and construction processes than a Zaha Hadid one in Dubai (may she rest in peace). Why should it be different for software?
-Some offices seem to need super detailed real world objects for their projects. Other offices are happy with the ability to simbolicaly represent objects as long as they can define their dimensions, position in space, specifications, can be listed and it represents in plan, section, elevation and 3d.
-Super detailed objects tend to increase file size?

So to wrap all this rant up, and returning to the Pareto principle, i think Graphisoft would need not 80% but more than 90% of their effort, resources and manpower to create an in-house parametric modeller. From a business point of view it would make absolutely no sense to spend that much for something that would be used in real world situations by around 1% of its user base (i would say much less than that), and i doubt they would be able to compete with the best of the best in this area which is grasshopper and rhino.
Usage percentage may vary, but the same can be said about a GDL Graphical user interface.

Innovation usually comes from top to bottom. Catter to the rich big companies, the masses will follow.
But sometimes, every once in a while, you have to keep the masses happy.

So here are some cost-effective ideas. Probably they already exist, but who knows:

-For the GDL object creation, asuming a GUI is out of the question for now, Why instead of all of us wanting every manufacturer on earth spend precious resources on modelling their products and updating them every year, which, in the case of GDL, it has already been established by almost everyone that it is no walk in the park.
So instead of that, why not create GDL objects that can absorb the specifications (dimensions, ID, description, resumed and full specification, center, point of conection ETC) from a GLOBAL list of manufactured products which would be much easier to mantain and edit. And by Global i mean a Global Database of manufacturers and specifications from all over the world, accesible from withing Archicad.
Example: A bed is a bed everywhere i look, but dimensions vary. What if i want an specific Crate and Barrel bed? I put my global Bed object, and then, within the object, i pull down my Manufacturer list, all of it perfectly categorized, listed and daily updated via online connection to a global database maintained and curated by a reputable institution, select Create and Barrel, the model i want and then PRESTO!, the global object changes itself to the specification of that particular model, WxDxH measures, specifications, ID, etc. Yes, it will not be the EXACT real world model, but you will have its exact dimensions and specifications and they will update automatically (if the model ever goes of production, it will alert you on that). Sweetness.
-For the above to be done, a keynote system management tools is imperative.

Yet, people might still need custom based GDL objects. Mr. Moonlight mentioned in one of his posts that if more and more data is added, complexity arises. Mr. Clarence mentioned that teamwork can be pushed far beyond of what it is now.
So, How about a platform for Archicad projects where everyone can share what they want (old projects, pln files, resources etc, even an online collaborative environment where many people can work a given project just for fun (as if everyone had time for that). Something like GitHub but for archicad users. But most importantly, put together in one place a very scarce resource: GDL programmers.

Then, all the installed Archicad user base would have access to that, and for a very reasobable price we can download and request custom made GDL objects. This way everyone benefits: Normal users get access to the beauties of GDL programming while GDL programmers get fairly paid for their work. Graphisoft would just need to initially set up and fund the platform and then sit back and relax. Economics of scale at work and verybody wins, hopefully.
Last edited by jl_lt on Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:59 pm, edited 5 times in total.
jl_lt wrote:-For the GDL object creation. Why instead of all of us wanting every manufacturer on earth spend precious resources on modelling their products and updating them every year, which in the case of GDL it has already been established by most everyone that it is no walk in the park.

Manufacturers don't invest on Archicad Objects not because they have limited resources, but because Archicad Objects aren't popular. The cost to develop and maintain an Archicad Library is peanuts compared with their annual budget for magazine advertising. If Graphisoft doesn't provide a cool/easy/popular solution for commercial parametric content creation inside Archicad it won't work. Like Clarence said GS tried this (BIMComponents) putting the chariot after the horses. And now it is just another waste of GS resources.
And also the maintenance of the global database that you suggest could become a nightmare for GS in a few weeks.

IMHO the thing must be like this:
  1. Graphisoft provides a cool/easy/popular/stable solution for commercial parametric content creation inside Archicad;
  2. Users start using it and producing their own content;
  3. Manufacturers notice that architects are using and sharing it ALOT;
  4. Manufacturers contact some developer (if not someone inhouse) to make some inicial content;
  5. Put it on their own website or other BIMObject like platform;
  6. See that the "fish" is biting the worm (Lots of downloads and increase on sales);
  7. Repeat 4/5/6.
The result:
  • Archicad users with a big smile on their faces; :D
  • Graphisoft with more licences sold not only to architects, but to manufacturers, as they will start producing and maintaining their own content;
  • Graphisoft technical resources will be free to keep up the good hard work developing Archicad;
  • Young Architects that don't use Archicad will start to learn it to increase their job opportunities, as manufacturers will need them to create and maintain their commercial BIM content;
  • Finally Graphisoft will reach the so called Bigger Market Share.
@Mr. Braza

Thanks for the swift reply! The points 1 to 5 you make are what we all wish should happen. The points i was trying to make, in an, some might say delusional, attempt to understand Graphisoft point of view, are about why it is most likely it wont happen like this in the near future, for business reasons. After pondering of many of the points made here, I dont necesarily see it as a bad thing.

Some clarifications:

-I didnt say manufactures resources are limited. I said their resources, as anyones, are precious, which is similar but different. As in "why even bother?"
-As i read in an article the other day (cant find it again), a lot, if not most, of Revits manufaturer content we see isnt even made in Revit. Its done in inventor or other modeling software for industrial design, which is where the objects are originally designed and manufactured via CAAD/CAM. As Autodesk owns most of these software, the translation to Revit is easier if not automatic i might guess. Trying to compete with this process would seem nonsensical from a Graphisoft point of view.
-The database i talk about would be maintained accesibility, stability and functionality wise by Graphisoft or whoever, but the data would be generated and updated directly by each manufacturer in a specified format via its own login user access. something like: Enter Company name, Country, category (IFC anyone?), product name, Model, Specifications, nearest point of sale or local sales rep, overall dimension of its bounding box, nominal dimensions, simbolic representation in plan, section, and elevation via dwg, etc, upload that and that would be it. How long can that take? Then the GLOBAL object i talk about, one per IFC category maybe or whatever, picks up this data from the manufacturer list you select from within Archicad and updates itself with all the data, both in its dimensions and the specifications. Do this for all the objects you add to Archicad and eventually you dont have to specify anything, the manufacturers do it for you. Talk about collaboration. Then you increase market share.

The manufacturers that get into this would get specified more easily (which is where the real money is) by a still considerably large Archicad Userbase. The ones that dont, get funked up.
Last edited by jl_lt on Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So to explain this again:

1. Creating a visual algorithmic solution for ArchiCAD, per-se is a waste of time and effort, specially when you already have Grasshopper, and ArchiCAD-Rhino connection. It's already there and can be used. Besides, Rhino have created Rhino.Inside, so a better integeration with those plugins would yield a better results in the short and mid-term periods.

2. Creating a visual/Graphical GDL for ArchiCAD right now, is also a waste of time and effort, specially when knowing that GDL is in its own means is capped with in the program, and that will not solve the issues.

3. ArchiCAD can get a better result if it started to market itself as the to go BIM for the Grasshopper community, and Graphisoft must show it and convince them, then they will start flocking in.

4. If you have any doubt, there is a program called Visual Arq, that is a BIM platform that is built on Grasshopper as a plug-in. You can check its video on YouTube.

5. If you really want to convince the Rhino community, Graphisoft must open its API, or at least adopt Mc Neel's policy respect letting the users play with its API, no questions asked, and I would advise you to search for Rhino's Trout Lake.

6. You're all impressed by Grasshopper and its capabilities, but there is a back story that you ignore, and that is Grasshopper was an idea that was created by an architectural student, that wanted to create something similar to Generative Design, which is Micro Station's native Grasshopper, and thanks that David Rutten didn't know about the program but the concept, Grasshopper would have been a bad copy of its predessesor.

7. Most of the Graphical programs that you have mentioned were made share two key points:
7.01. They were made as a response to the ever growing popularity of Grasshopper, and as a preventive measure for losing users.
7.02. All these programs you can program and use the programs tools.

8. Who is still not convinced by creating an algorithmic design plugin tool native to ArchiCAD, is unaware that time have changed, and Graphisoft is past that point long time ago, so it's better to it to exploit what Grasshopper can offer.

9.@jl_lt, if you thought that this was mind blogging, wait until you read the research papers that the founders of Front, Inc, have wrote, and you will understand that with Grasshopper they can leave behind any BIM program, and if you're talking about IFC exchange, then check Geometry Gym plugin in Food4Rhino.

10. @Braza, I don't know if you have checked BIMObject or not, but their search engine is far much better than that of BIMcomponent, and that is for starts.
Moonlight wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:36 pm So to explain this again:
With all due respect (and I really and humbly mean with utmost respect), I think you should stop stating your opinion as if it is a fact that everyone should just agree with or accept because no other reality or truth exists out there.

Especially when you're seemingly disinterested in what other people's opinions, or feelings or thoughts - even about your own comments - are with respect to the subject at hand.

A lot of people here have already expressed why learning how to script in GDL is not a viable or preferred (or even feasible) option for them in this industry, as I did too.
It's also been mentioned why learning or adopting Rhino or Grasshopper - as great a program and plugin as they both are (and I should know as I use both) is also not realistic for most folks who don't practice the sort of architecture that would lend itself to needing the power that those tools offer,...and yet STILL need improvements in ArchiCAD with regards to getting the most out of it for what they actually DO and use it for.

...and yet, despite all this, none of it seems to have had an impact with you and you just cycled right back to your starting position seemingly having zero capacity to empathize or see how the problem(s) could affect other people from their point of view.

And in my own opinion, I don't feel like this is particularly useful or fruitful for the purposes of discourse or moving along the discussion in trying to find solutions or help see if there can be a way forward. You clearly know your stuff, which is why it's a little perplexing when it comes off as you're telling others what they should do and the ONLY thing they can do, and it's the sort of 'Take-it-or-leave-it' attitude that seems to have come to characterize the perception that a lot of ArchiCAD users nowadays have of the people who develop the software.
And like I said, I don't feel like this helps either side when on the one hand you have people who might have legitimate reasons for thinking the way they do and doing what they do how they do it, while on the other you have another group who are unaware of any of it, but also feel like their concerns just fly off into the void, with no one listening - which ultimately just leads to a death of dialog that's not good for anyone at all.

Perhaps it's just the way you state things that makes it seem like you come off that way when that's not your intention. Or maybe it's that common inability we often suffer from of clearly communicating our thoughts and understanding each other through a medium that cuts out almost half of what we like to say, if not how we want to say it.

In any case, it almost feels like in talking to you, we're speaking with an actual Graphisoft developer (which is why I said you seem to know your stuff), and which is also why it comes off as a little trouble, especially if this is also the same way they feel about this topic
(with the clear implication here, being that all of this is just a big gigantic waste of time on our part and all we're doing here is pointlessly venting. Which,...maybe we are).

Anyway, that was just my two tiny cents and tiny take.
And also my own (Very very very) Humble opinion.
Hi everyone,

I understand that idea of Graphisoft creating and let’s say “Managing” a Global database of AEC BIM products available to Archicad users seems a logic and feasible thing, but it is not. It is not Graphisoft’s core business. Let’s leave it to guys like BIMObject that will someday make money out of Big Data. But until then they will spend loads and loads of investors’ money. Money that Graphisoft simply don’t have. But even if BIMObject falls, we will still have our beloved trusted Archicad to save the day.
IMO Graphisoft should focus on what it best do, which is BIM Software for Architects by Architects. And that includes a cool/easy/popular/stable solution for parametric content creation inside/native Archicad.

If Graphisoft starts to leave innovation to other companies, like you suggest, it has its days counted. As already said, and I agree, promoting the quality of your product depending on others is not a wise move.

@Bricklyne Clarence
Bricklyne Clarence wrote:Or maybe it's that common inability we often suffer from of clearly communicating our thoughts and understanding each other through a medium that cuts out almost half of what we like to say, if not how we want to say it.
So true. Especially for us not native English spoken and with Latin hot blood too much close to the hart.
Anyway. Again: Thank you all for your thoughts.
Another point, Free objects and plugins will streghthen archicad position in the market, revit plugins and objects are almost free, in the other hand, archicad has usefull and good plugins, but with extra cost...
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 25