Also, just a reminder from my very wise 8th grade English teacher: Be mindful of the very nature and limits of metaphor or analogy as you use them. Both of these linguistic tools serve a specific purpose. They aspire to act as a surrogate way to communicate ideas which other wise are challenging at best to get across, but in doing so do not overtly announce which part of the borrowed subject is being leaned on by the user to assist in the illumination of the subject the metaphor is focused towards and in doing so the user neglects to indicate which part of the borrowed subject should stay on the side line as not really pertinent to the meaning of the metaphors intended usage. By this there is an agreement to listen carefully, not always an easy thing to do. The playful analogy of the automobile, luxury or otherwise, is not a one-to-one comparison to AC and Revit, as it falls short on many fronts in wanting to blanket the whole meaning of this topic of conversation…so watch your metaphors closely for as like an unruly child they can run astray and trip you up!! Chew on that metaphor for awhile. lol
You see your suggestion of buying different kinds of vehicles for different kinds of uses [going off road or otherwise] really is interesting, but not a good match for this conversation. Being a drag racer, or Indy racer, or derby crash-car clown car driver, or a mother with her Prius for taking the children to school in an ecologically sound manner are all acts of driving, but very different kinds of activities; do you choose one vehicle over the other for reasons which have to do specifically with the same act but under different circumstances? Of course you do. But with AC/ADT/Revit you choose them all for the same act and activity and circumstances = designing buildings. So see if you can find a way of keeping your metaphors tracking within a line of reason…part of being clever with words is holding to a thru line while wondering off into the arena of the poetic, and maintaining a certain level of intellectual honesty is key.
IRNEB: “Now to get to your idea of an architect drawing a window. That you only do in ACA or Revit. In straight ACad you draw a bunch of unrelated lines…”
DANIEL: Yes, IRNEB, we all know how they each work…if not then you are a bit handicapped in this discussion and should go do your homework. We all know how ADT windows & doors get inserted and how they get into the data flow process, and we all know that AC doesn’t have ‘intelligent blocks’ as plug-in windows and doors, etc, like ADT or Revit. Which is exactly why my idea is so brilliant: I’ve worked around this difference by focusing the intelligence on the TAG [or callout depending on your preferred nomenclature] not the objects being tagged!! This makes it a universally usable feature [not industry specific], and not graphics dependant [meaning lines or arcs representing real objects – those get to stay dumb] and as such is an enhancement of already built in functionality found in AC. Have I not made this point clear yet? Let me know and I will try again.
But while you were away I was thinking about another way to achieve my brilliant idea. The first notion was putting the intelligence in the TAG as I’ve just described; but then I got to thinkin’ that this could also be done using a grouping method, sort of like what you’ve just describe – only a bit differently. In this alternative way when you make a group [a quasi block if you will] you do this using a special new ‘group’ tool, sort of a ‘smart group’ [like smart objects in Adobe CS series] tool set which is linked into the Table functionality I’ve already covered. So, when using this ‘smart group’ tool it activates an attribute editor interface where you can fill in all the kinds of data you want attached to this ‘smart group’ of lines/arc/circle/or even blocks. Then you can reuse this ‘smart group’ entity [which represent what ever you wish] just like a block or a Wblock and the data travels with it & is editable as you wish.
The added functionality is that this ‘smart group’ also initiates a Table execution in the background, just like Vectorworks does with its Worksheets [which BTW has a true Vertical fleet of software each adding upon the other for industry specific tasks, though all sharing this built in excel ‘worksheet’ scheduling functionality for both 2d & 3d workflows]. One of the fields in the ‘smart group’ attribute editor interface which opens when the tool is initiated is an area to select what kind of ‘group’ the entity represents i.e. a door, window, plumbing, electrical, structural member, nut/bolt/connector, landscape stuff, etc… Checking the appropriate field [or check box] initiates some basic formatting rules for the Table. Pretty much like choosing your category headings for your schedule when creating table columns in Revit & ADT tables creation steps -- and as do all the other programs out there with a similar feature.
So there are several ways for the programmer to get at this new functionality. Though this is the job of the programmer I would be glad to help in any way I can. In the meantime our job is to put the ideas out there and understand its value to us. If you don’t understand the value of my idea, and JW might not given that he doesn’t make schedules, then just say so. You won’t hurt my feelings…I promise.
IRNEB: “It does not know what a window schedule is, it does not know even that the door drawn inside the wall is linked with a reference tag to a schedule. All it knows is what the user (after tedious setting up) told it…”
DANIEL: Of course!! That’s the whole point. And it doesn’t need to be tedious anymore – does that interest you? May be you have been misdirected by my initial use of the word SCHEDULE, which is of course the real world word to use to discuss this topic, but in terms of the mind of the software [silly metaphor] it’s not really that at all. It’s simply 0s & 1s. So, the data extraction you discussed here is exactly the same with my idea, its just happens in a new way. SCHEDULE schmedule, the word means nothing to the software. But it means a whole lot to us users, and that is who I am speaking to and why I framed the thread as I did.
IRNEB: “You should know yourself that Arch Schedules have no real standard….”
DANIEL: This is trivial, though true. All software advancements especially those directly focused on annotation/dimension/text based tools run into this very same formatting and style issue. This is the very same issue Revit is running into as you noted, and Vectorworks and ArchiCad and all the other software’s which work to provide flexibility to a disparate user base…certainly not a deal breaker for the idea. Plus the AC table edit-ability would still be fully functioning as it is currently!
I’m really beginning to get the impression you have not quite grasped the idea I’ve put forward…its not that complicated, just take the same processes you already do and combines them into a more stream lined automated way. Sure, at first there may be a reduction in the full range of applicability, just like it was with Sheet Set manager or dynamic block editor or other enhancements through out the history of AC, but those things get worked out over time; and in the meantime the most common uses for scheduling will have greatly improved…thus improving our lives.
And yes there is an add-on company ‘JTB World’ who I did contact about creating such an add-on, they thought it was an outstanding idea, but would need the $$ to put it together. And there is another company who has a version of this, though somewhat cumbersome and not quite there. I downloaded their manual to learn about it and it’s very similar to what we already have in AC; it’s a good leap forward, but not exactly internal to AC as I am suggesting it can and should be. http://www.globalcad.com/products/schedule.htm
Your final statements around the challenges of variations on the theme of Scheduling and the WORSE IS BETTER IS WORSE is all very interesting and even cogent if you want to play the role of programmer in this conversation. But let’s not go there again…I’m speaking with my peers. Or am I??
I am a user, and I am impressed with the programmers abilities already demonstrated by very specific developments with in AC. WE the USER reserve the privilege of promoting more development, however…that’s our job, that’s what the programmer wants from us, that’s what user group forms and wish lists are all about. Can we at least agree that this is a fair approach to using this user group? Meaning sticking to our wishes and not interjecting notions of what ‘they’ may be thinking [meaning Autodesk]. Otherwise we are having 3rd person dialogues based on conjecture. Talk about a cat chasing his tail….
BTW, I don’t except your #4 in your final list: AC doesn’t have a vertical program to move into. Oh, wait I think I’ve heard that somewhere else already. lol
But since this is fundamental to your P.O.V. then we will have to agree to disagree about that and so avoid trying to have a tug of war over the validity of the statement and get back to the merits of the idea as it stands on its own.
So, would you use ‘it’ if Autodesk provided it in AC? IF this is too much to answer no worries…I get it. I’m still having a really wonderful time discussing the matter and hope you will continue to join in and tell all your friends to come along for the ride too. d.