The Global ARCHICAD Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

GDL language and objects, API, Add-ons, Script…

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

User avatar
By Philippe Reymond
Rakela Raul wrote:GS probably has a deal with Cigraph .

I am afraid that GS HAD a deal with Cigraph (free Archistair for all users) but that now, it creaks (?). Nothing moves anymore, either Stairmaker, or Archistair.
User avatar
By Matthew Lohden
Philippe Reymond wrote:
Stress Co. wrote:
Rakela Raul wrote: i never post whishes here, it is a waste of are better off convincing alpha testers to convey needs to GS.
I wonder if wishes were just a pacifier....... a suggestions box over a trash can. :?

Same conclusion
Just a trick to keep us asleep
Maybe we should fill the wishlist with the same question: " what do you do with our suggestions? "

I can assure you that GS takes our wishes and suggestions very seriously. The list is very long and they are working according to a very complex set of priorities.

We all wish they could make faster progress, and it does seem that they could use some more programmers, but at the same time there is only so much change we want to manage in each new release.

AC8 was a mess in large part because they tried to implement too many new features at once. (If only they had delayed some of those to version 9 we would have had two major, solid releases instead of one overreaching and the other catching up.) AC10 was at the limits of pain as far as the cost of the transition for some, but at least the result was very rewarding.

I believe we will be seeing some very positive improvements in the next few versions which will be driven in large part by the wishes made here. Of course it is so much easier to talk about new features than to implement them that we have now gotten years ahead in our discussions of what they can (or should) accomplish in the near term.
User avatar
By Philippe Reymond
Hey Matt 21st feb 2004 your contribution :(
Frankly, you don't have any feeling you wasted your time, as we feel? :evil:

Matthew Lohden wrote:László,

I will try to come up with some pictures for you. In the meantime here are some thoughts:

The requirements for stairs are perhaps the most difficult of any in the program. Some elements are defined primarily by graphic means (slabs, roofs, etc.) while others are defined almost entirely by specification (furniture, fixtures, etc.). The more an element requires definition both graphically and by specification the more difficult it becomes to create a simple interface for its manipulation. Add sophisticated modeling requirements and the complexity of the assembly (and sub-assemblies) and you have the real challenge of making a stair.

The new stair tool as I see it should include:

- Graphic adjustability should include: the length and width of each run of steps, the size and shape (polygonal) of landings, the radius and angle of curved stairs, and the floor to floor height for each stair assembly (in 3D & section).

- Specification of library parts for balustrades and treads at least, perhaps for structure as well. These would be assigned as multiple parts associated to the same assembly. New subtypes would be needed for these stair parts and new global variables for values such as rise & run of the current set of steps, nosing overhang, tread thickness, structural thickness, etc.

- A basic set of library parts for railings, newels, balusters, treads, etc. should be included along with the ability to modify them or create new parts.

- The ability to define/cut the floor penetration automatically including a material setting for the surfaces of the hole.

- Flexibility in the definition of the 2D symbol with line types, text font & content, plan cut height, etc. all user definable. A ceiling plan view would be nice if such a function (e.g. for creating proper ceiling plans) were to also be added (yes, this is a hint :) ). Inclusion of custom 2D GDL symbols would also be good if possible.

The form/function of the tool I see as follows:

- The stair would be defined by a 3D poly-line representing the center or walking line of the stair or the outside or inside edge (much like the reference line of the wall tool). This would be drawn in the same fashion as a 2D poly-line with the addition to the pet palette of defining whether an edge represents steps or a landing. It may be that each run of steps will necessarily be followed by a landing, but a landing could consist of several edges; so perhaps one would need only click the pet palette to start each new run of steps with landings following automatically.

- Once defined the width and shape of each run of steps and landing should be adjustable. This will undoubtedly be the truly difficult part. Graphically this calls for an element that behaves as a multi segment wall (if there were such a thing) that is also adjustable like a slab. It might be that the tool should be limited to simple straight runs of constant width at first with the more complex options left for future revisions.

- The vertical dimension should be defined initially as the overall (floor to floor) height for the complete assembly. This should default to the current story height with the option to adjust it later or set it in the info palette before drawing. Landing heights could then be individually adjusted afterward.

- Dimensional constraints and defaults should be defined in the settings dialog. Optional constraints for rise and run should be available but not required. The number of steps would be determined by the constraints or overridden by a fixed value from the user. The number of steps in each run would be distributed according to their relative lengths. If a fixed tread depth (run) is specified then each run of steps would be drawn in incremental lengths. Defining and managing these constraints is potentially the most complex part of the stair function and the biggest challenge for the design of the interface. This has the greatest potential for frustrating the user if the relations and effects of the constraints are not clear.

- Different base types of stairs should be predefined to make their creation easier. These would include, at least, straight run, L-shaped, U-shaped, curved and helical (aka spiral) stairs. These types would all be based on the same internal definition of a stair based on the 3D poly-line and constraints as described above in order to maintain the greatest flexibility and consistency for the future.

- It is essential that a clear environment with the necessary global variables and functions be created to permit the creation of custom stair components. It is not possible nor appropriate for Graphisoft to create all the various handrails, balusters, treads, nosings that may be used or imagined by all the Architects in the world.

In Conclusion

The initial release of a new stair tool should at least permit the quick and easy creation of basic stair types such as straight runs, L-shaped, and rectilinear U-shaped stairs. It should also allow flexibility in the choice of handrails and balustrades, including a basic (but realistic) set of standard parts included by Graphisoft, and allowing the creation of custom parts by both third parties and end users. It must also provide serviceable symbols in plan so that it is not necessary to model the stair on one layer and draw it on another as we do now.

While the new tool may be (and perhaps should be) fairly simple to start with, it should be developed with the full range of possible future developments in mind. In addition to the more advanced options for stairs I have described above, I believe it also should ultimately be able to include all manner of vertical conveyance including escalators, ramps, elevators, etc. As long as the tool is being redesigned it should be planned to be as complete and versatile for future development as possible.
User avatar
By Masse
Matthew Lohden wrote:
I can assure you that GS takes our wishes and suggestions very seriously. The list is very long and they are working according to a very complex set of priorities.

Hello Matthew
Can You prove it ? Graphisoft never says what they do, and everybody respond " that's normal ". The old customers have to wait, and pay to see as in the poker if the new release corresponds really to their needs. That's the best way to loose a big part of them if you want my opinion. Now we are in this case for the version 12 and it isn't our fault, we asked many questions for the AC11 ( here). That said, we have never had clear and net answers from Graphisoft. It's sad and we get tired in this game.

For the priorities, complex set or not , I'm sorry but as many architects, we can draw plans without Virtual trace, not without stair :cry:
By Joeri
Masse wrote:Can You prove it ? Graphisoft never says what they do, ... we have never had clear and net answers from Graphisoft. It's sad and we get tired in this game.

With all due respect, what kind of prove or answer are you aiming for ?!?

Any commercial firm that points out its strategy or improvements in next versions will fail :
1. current AND potential clients will wait for later releases, they won’t buy nor upgrade
2. it would be very beneficial for other software developers to take over in a hurry the same ideas or innovations before Graphisoft can integrate itself…

We cannot demand to share this critical information. AC is a niche product and Graphisoft has to compete the market with its leadership in knowledge and development.

Nevertheless I understand your feeling. There are some things I don't like and many more I want to see implemented. If all my wishes would be fulfilled, AC would be the perfect CAD application. As my wishes are not yours or others, this can never be achieved in real world… ☺

About this topic :

Yes, I fully agree that Stairmaker needs to be taken care of seriously and rather soon!
Waiting this long it's to late for minor adjustment or enhancements. We need a new, extended, handy instrument with graphic input and total control of the representation in 2D/3D...

This can bring ArchiCAD litterally one step higher!
User avatar
By Achille Pavlidis
To bring the topic again back to spotlight since the only improvement has been the railings visibility on floor plans, i add my own wish to the ones already mentioned.

I wish there would be the possibility to have stairs with more than one landing.
It is really frustrating to have to add slabs and railings that never match the ones of the stairs when you have more than two flights of stairs...
User avatar
By TMA_80
I also put my contribution here refering to one of my later posts about the subject : ... hp?t=30894

and i really hope GS will react as his compititor is doing (AS Revit seems the main pupose with AC14 :wink: ). ... ight=stair

( the improvments made with 12th version of archicad are realy welcomed but imho came too late and some 'real' and 'practical' expectations are still far from being fullfiled.)
User avatar
By kantrolya
all i can say is wow...
8 years... :shock:

i am hopeful that 15 will include modelling improvements including the stairmaker, but then, that is nothing compared to y'all who've been hoping this since 2004. does anyone know when v15 comes out?
User avatar
By rwallis
8 pages over almost as many years...
still no definitive answer....

buy an add-on and move on.....not worth waiting
User avatar
By archibaldo
This topic about stairs will continue for manny years because ....others GS priority.
So maby a more useful tread is : Altrenetive tricks to make a good stair in archicad !
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10