The Global ARCHICAD Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

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

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

What's your opinion about this wish?

Essential (5)
21
84%
Important (4)
4
16%
Average (3)
No votes
0%
Not important (2)
No votes
0%
Not needed (1)
No votes
0%
By oreopoulos
#21692
1. Free Form Columns (that is obvious of course)
2. Moving a Column should move all attached beams. (another obvious one and just imagine setting a simple grid first and then just moving the columns to correct positions.)
3. Define the fixed points of the column and let the other point be movable hotspots so resizing columns (after the engineering calculations) is fast.
4. Choose if the column shows and on which stories.
5. For each floor show the Mass center and rotation center defined by the placement of columns (this maybe useless to US colleagues but people working in Europe should watch out that those 2 points should be as close as possible. If we had a script language this would take me 10 minutes to write down. Its extremely simple but imagine giving your civil engineer a plan and when he gives it back to you with columns resized to have columns much larger than expected.)
6. Beams with other than rectangular profile.
7. Sloped beams. ( Just simple have graphical hotspots an enable to move the beam or make it tapered)
8. Beams are not always linear. Using arcs is absolutely necessary.
9. A general move enchament proposal: Except obvious logical connections (i.e a beam that intersects another beam is “Connected to it” or a beam attached to a column is connected to it ) we may define wall-beam connections ,that is a beam over a wall, and when moving (define that move with another name.. e.g RelationalMove,) the beam the connected beams walls columns move accordingly. Algorithmically is simple. All intersected elements extend so that they can follow, all attached elements (attachment happens at points) follow the movement of attached point, and the analogous happens with walls. A great time saver.
10. Hmmmmm stuck on the tenth :) Any help
#21697
oreopoulos wrote:1. Free Form Columns (that is obvious of course)


This would be nice but complex assemblies (as in classical orders) would be more useful to me (see item 10 below).

2. Moving a Column should move all attached beams. (another obvious one and just imagine setting a simple grid first and then just moving the columns to correct positions.)


Similar to your wall request. Of course, this should also be optional; that is whether elements are attached or not. I haven't tested to see if this already works for intersections when the elements are selected as it does for walls.

3. Define the fixed points of the column and let the other point be movable hotspots so resizing columns (after the engineering calculations) is fast.


Even having stretchy columns would be nice. This sounds like a nice expansion beyond that.

4. Choose if the column shows and on which stories.


Multi-story is essential. This is something that should be consistent for all model elements.

5. For each floor show the Mass center and rotation center defined by the placement of columns (this maybe useless to US colleagues but people working in Europe should watch out that those 2 points should be as close as possible. If we had a script language this would take me 10 minutes to write down. Its extremely simple but imagine giving your civil engineer a plan and when he gives it back to you with columns resized to have columns much larger than expected.)


You're right, I haven't run into this in US practice.

6. Beams with other than rectangular profile.


Clearly, essential.

7. Sloped beams. ( Just simple have graphical hotspots an enable to move the beam or make it tapered)


Also highly desirable. I'm not sure what this would do to the complexity of the interface.

8. Beams are not always linear. Using arcs is absolutely necessary.


This would also be good though the need is uncommon enough here that I don't mind faking it with curved walls.

9. A general move enchament proposal: Except obvious logical connections (i.e a beam that intersects another beam is “Connected to it” or a beam attached to a column is connected to it ) we may define wall-beam connections ,that is a beam over a wall, and when moving (define that move with another name.. e.g RelationalMove,) the beam the connected beams walls columns move accordingly. Algorithmically is simple. All intersected elements extend so that they can follow, all attached elements (attachment happens at points) follow the movement of attached point, and the analogous happens with walls. A great time saver.


The relational issues can get very complex. I haven't seen how Revit handles it lately, but It seemed quite limiting in the early releases. This is a HUGE strategic issue which deserves careful long term planning. It seems that if we start cobbling together various relationships ad hoc, we would probably have an unruly mess.

Nevertheless, being able to define relationships which help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the building while increasing the speed of production is clearly desirable.

10. Hmmmmm stuck on the tenth :) Any help


That's easy. Columns and beams should be definable as complex assemblies (by applying GDL macros probably). For example: A beam could be a complete entablature including the architrave and frieze (perhaps even the cornice) with metopes, mouldings, etc. A column should be able to include a plinth, base, shaft (fluted or not) and capital (with acanthus leaves for corinthian, volutes for ionic, etc.). And, of course, it would be nice to be able to do basic steel sections with gussets, angles and welds.

Of course, with this one, the curved beam becomes essential for constructing rotundas. Wouldn't it be nice if ArchiCAD could easily model the Pantheon?

This is really just part of my big picture wish to merge the GDL capabilities into all the element types. Perhaps I should resuscitate or restart that one. It's one of my favorites.
#21700
Matthew Lohden wrote:


The relational issues can get very complex. I haven't seen how Revit handles it lately, but It seemed quite limiting in the early releases. This is a HUGE strategic issue which deserves careful long term planning. It seems that if we start cobbling together various relationships ad hoc, we would probably have an unruly mess.

Nevertheless, being able to define relationships which help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the building while increasing the speed of production is clearly desirable.



As i said it would be nice to call that Relational move and seperate from standarf move procedure.
I dont know at witch extend revit uses relationships but that relationship i propose is the simplest i can think.
Of course you have found your self in a position having to move a wall and take more than half an hour to bring the model in the disireable status (of course i dont talk about a 2 stories building)
I also see the pitfalls in computing power waiting round the corner BUT my feelling is that that is the correct way to follow.

A simple example.. You make a slab. Put some walls around some in the middle, some beams some columns.. Ok know..
And you decide to change only one of the slab edges..
What to we expect..? The walls.. beams columns to follow. Instead of 10 minutes of work (and a GREAT risk of creating Inaccuracies in the model) it will take 2 cliks.
Is it hard? Hmmm . in my opinion if you set up right the relational model is easy.
a)The walls (of course optionally) will be "accossiated" to slab edges.
b) walls an beams and collumns associate as described in the first post.

How much does it cost in computing power.?
To answer that i need to create worst case analysis, but i am sure it is not forbiting.
#21720
For simple columns and beams I find it easier to use objects. At least they show on other stories. By looping a GDL script I can make multple instances of the beam, post, rafter in one object. Also I can have beams of any shape, incline or roll them and have multiple instances in the vertical plane.


I might use the beam & columns tools if it had those features
User avatar
By James B
#23668
Matthew Lohden wrote:That's easy. Columns and beams should be definable as complex assemblies (by applying GDL macros probably). For example: A beam could be a complete entablature including the architrave and frieze (perhaps even the cornice) with metopes, mouldings, etc. A column should be able to include a plinth, base, shaft (fluted or not) and capital (with acanthus leaves for corinthian, volutes for ionic, etc.). And, of course, it would be nice to be able to do basic steel sections with gussets, angles and welds.

Of course, with this one, the curved beam becomes essential for constructing rotundas. Wouldn't it be nice if ArchiCAD could easily model the Pantheon?

This is really just part of my big picture wish to merge the GDL capabilities into all the element types. Perhaps I should resuscitate or restart that one. It's one of my favorites.


I'm so with you on this. I kinda think that GDL should be inplemented into any object.

I find it weird that you can't strech a square column in plan - like you can with a slab. I should be able to champher corner, curve an edge, have assymetrical columns, be able to taper a column (or the top is off centre to it's base - ie it leans). And I also agree that you should be able to have steel columns, C, I, H sections etc.
#54404
oreopoulos wrote:4. Choose if the column shows and on which stories.

This is a must WISH, how can I vote on it so GS may listen, or is it going to be in AC10?
Thanks,
Joseph
User avatar
By Sergio
#54453
How about the ability to attach composites to columns, in a way that they can either stay independent of intersecting/adjacent walls or combine with them. Basically a beefed up veneer option (does anybody use the standard one now?).
#54457
Sergio wrote:How about the ability to attach composites to columns, in a way that they can either stay independent of intersecting/adjacent walls or combine with them. Basically a beefed up veneer option (does anybody use the standard one now?).

Yes all the time,
but need it to show up in upper or lower stories.
Joseph
#54606
How about something as simple as showing section lines like the joist beam object allows? It would be nice to show whether it is sawn, LVL, or glulam material. similar to hatch of the column tool also. I never understood why they didn't work in similar fashion.

Chris