The Global ARCHICAD Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Modeling (Wall, Door, Window, Roof, Stair...), Favorites...

Moderators: Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, Barry Kelly, gkmethy

What is your opinion about this Wish?

Essential
9
45%
Important
3
15%
Average
1
5%
Not Important
No votes
0%
Not Needed
7
35%
By DGSketcher
#302721
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For me I think the literal route of modelling is a tricky one for developers. Where do you stop? Where is the coving tool or the lintel tool? You could pick any number of architectural features and complain there isn't a specific tool named for the job. I personally would be happy to see the core elements simplified to generic components e.g. a single laminated slab type object, much like the shell tool could be used for any number of applications like floors, walls, roofs, slabs and ramps it doesn't need to be called a wall but suitably tagged and layered it would provide a much simpler and consistent modelling solution. The same could be said for the column & beam tool, why do we need two tools for a linear profile? It's the same with doors, windows and now openings (in 23), why not just openings?

Just saying.

Yours,
The Defending Apologist :D
User avatar
By jessicaluchesi
#302727
ejrolon wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:53 pm

Just to nitpick but with this sample the correct floor plan representation will have a line were roof meets slab so the new settings in 23 do not need to do anything with them.
I fully agree, as I have said, roofs and slabs are not the same and should be treated as different entities, because they are. I was just pointing out they are different things. If I have two continuous sloped slabs that touch, I could want to have a diferentiation to say they are two slabs which form a continuous material surface finish... if I have two roof slabs that connect in the same way ( if I have to keep using roofs for the sake of having no sloped slabs ), I am not sure they would be treated the same.

In the end, I'd rather have 3 ways of doing the same operation ( as I do often have in Rhino... in Rhino it is quite common that, for each thing you want to do, you might have several forms to achieve the same construct ), and that's fine. But for me, a roof should be used for roofs, not inclined floor slab, but I am starting to become repetitive :/
User avatar
By jessicaluchesi
#302728
DGSketcher wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:56 am
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For me I think the literal route of modelling is a tricky one for developers. Where do you stop? Where is the coving tool or the lintel tool? You could pick any number of architectural features and complain there isn't a specific tool named for the job. I personally would be happy to see the core elements simplified to generic components e.g. a single laminated slab type object, much like the shell tool could be used for any number of applications like floors, walls, roofs, slabs and ramps it doesn't need to be called a wall but suitably tagged and layered it would provide a much simpler and consistent modelling solution. The same could be said for the column & beam tool, why do we need two tools for a linear profile? It's the same with doors, windows and now openings (in 23), why not just openings?

Just saying.

Yours,
The Defending Apologist :D
Taking any logic to the absurd extreme conclusion isn't always the best path for discussion. But the roof tool for me, being in a country where the usual residential roof is much more complex structurally than what the tool provides, I only ever use it for a base outline of the generic shape, in any early proposal, and it is often replaced by yes, beams and tiles and so on. :shock: Like I said, if the roof tool worked as a slab when in section cut, when paired with a slab or another roof, I'd be using it and not saying anything. The problem is, it doesn't.

That is the problem, people sometimes assume ( I am not sure if this has some portion of "Oh, the girly brain didn't grasp..." or some degree "Mansplaining" involved - it does happen in everyday life and is quite annoying... like when I was discussing stereophotogrametry work I did in the past, and a man stopped me to explain to me how I should have done it, basically, repeating to me most of what I did, and some positions he had from lack of actual experience on the process... which I had to address and correct... ) that I am making a request out of the blue, or without actual experience on the software package, or having been using every other solution presented by my peers for quite a while. This wasn't a post of "I have a doubt... what's the best way to...", which I have done before. And was thankful for every constructive answer. This was a serious "I'm an architect, the available features don't cover this aspect, this is a small improvement which should have been default from start, I miss this from actual experience on the software".

Because a Lintel is just a beam. Like I said before, if a flat roof is just an inclined slab, and is supposed to be the only single sloped slab we have, then move that into the slab tool and allow for sloped slabs, and remove it from the roof toolset. And then work into it material continuity when slabs overlap.

It does make more sense to use the slab tool to make flat roofs, than use the flat roof tool to make slabs. Right now, it feels poeple are telling me we don't need a beam tool, because I could use a Lintel tool for that :lol: But that is my two cents.
Last edited by jessicaluchesi on Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By jessicaluchesi
#302729
Bricklyne Clarence wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:21 am


You did not come off as aggressive.
You came off as frustrated and annoyed.
Which is ABSOLUTELY your right to feel this way about something you're investing so much money in.
Just as it is your right to express that frustration here when you can't get the help you feel you need.
Thanks, prior to being an architect, I was a software developer, and I can quite understand both sides of the problem. There is sometimes a personal logic that a critique is a critique on the person, and not on a product. This isn't even really a critique, just a request for a feature.

And I am glad the idea for a composited mesh was voiced, it would, for landscape architecture, be a killer feature if it was available.