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, gkmethy, Csaba Kézér, mtron

User avatar
By Ghaleb Khadra
#303965
Dear All,

Thank you for your responses on the Interface text issue and for providing the Graphics Card being used.

Thanks to that information, we could find out what the cause is.

Unfortunately, this issue is not from ARCHICAD's side. We say unfortunately, because if it was from ARCHICAD's side, then we could address it directly. However, the reason behind this behaviour is twofold:

a. Apple discontinued OpenGL support for their macOS with Mojave and on.
b. AMD Graphics Card's drivers struggle with OpenGL.

The above 2 issues are exacerbating each other unluckily. However, AMD is working on this continuously and hopefully with each update, they address compatibility issues with OpenGL more and more.

This is affecting some users who are on Mac and using AMD Graphics Card because OpenGL is used in ARCHICAD heavily as some of you know, even on the interface level.
This does not mean GRAPHISOFT is doing nothing about. We already began work on transitioning to Metal, OpenGL's replacement for macOS.

We completely understand that this is a major inconvenience, and there is a possible workaround to avoid this however, it comes at a small performance cost.

Disabling the 2D Drawing Hardware Acceleration option should make the issue subside, but the cost is navigation and display performance.
This option can be found under: Options -> Work Environment -> Advanced Redraw Options...
We sincerely hope we were able to at least bring some clarity into this topic.

Once more, we're very sorry for the inconveniences you are experiencing, but we are very thankful that you constantly keep posting these issues as it helps us greatly in improving and keeping this knowledge available to everyone!

Sincerest regards,
Ghaleb
By DGSketcher
#304101
I just tried to do a wall analysis, opening, heights, areas etc. Several of the standard parameters available to the schedule are not being calculated and reporting zero values e.g. Number of holes, minimum heights etc. This was done with a single wall 2m long x 4.5m high containing a 1m x 1m Hole and trimmed by a roof pivoting from 2m up at 45 degrees. One wall is cropped W99C and the other trimmed W99T

Contrary to the information here... https://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/user-guide/65410/ the "Maximum height of the Wall" is reported based on "Trim to roof" but the Minimum is reported incorrectly for single skin walls and as zero for composite or complex walls. Why the requirement for cropping to get accurate values still exists in general parametric design baffles me!

The Gross volume & Gross surface areas of the trimmed wall are reporting incorrectly, apparently based on being trimmed at the upper face of the roof. The Net values are correct. I have checked and the top of the wall is trimmed to the roof soffit based on PBCs.

I would like to do basic take offs for my client but these results aren't reassuring.
Attachments
Screenshot 2019-11-23 at 11.20.17.png
Schedule of parameters
Screenshot 2019-11-23 at 11.42.37.png
Wall profile
User avatar
By Ghaleb Khadra
#304154
DGSketcher wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:45 pm
I just tried to do a wall analysis, opening, heights, areas etc. Several of the standard parameters available to the schedule are not being calculated and reporting zero values e.g. Number of holes, minimum heights etc. This was done with a single wall 2m long x 4.5m high containing a 1m x 1m Hole and trimmed by a roof pivoting from 2m up at 45 degrees. One wall is cropped W99C and the other trimmed W99T

Contrary to the information here... https://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/user-guide/65410/ the "Maximum height of the Wall" is reported based on "Trim to roof" but the Minimum is reported incorrectly for single skin walls and as zero for composite or complex walls. Why the requirement for cropping to get accurate values still exists in general parametric design baffles me!

The Gross volume & Gross surface areas of the trimmed wall are reporting incorrectly, apparently based on being trimmed at the upper face of the roof. The Net values are correct. I have checked and the top of the wall is trimmed to the roof soffit based on PBCs.

I would like to do basic take offs for my client but these results aren't reassuring.
Greetings,

I am very sorry about the issue you are facing with the Schedules. I would love to help out and take a look at this issue if that's okay with you, and take proper action to address it.

However, to ensure that we are having the exact same conditions, I would kindly ask of you to send me - in a PM - the file itself where you face these issues in. I will conduct tests in-house and investigate this matter to the fullest extents in order to determine why this is happening!

I'm looking forward to hearing back from you.

Kind regards,
Ghaleb