Open up PIO's and provide better Vectorscript Support Now.

[Assembly]

The more that I read about BIM the less confidence I have in VW.

http://www.construction-innovation.info/index.php?id=1083

The speed of development I see in other platforms is leaving VW behind.

The main reason I have not changed platform is Vectorscript.

I've been writing custom objects for a number of years. It is an easy language. I employed a student, 6 weeks training and he created some very sophisticated objects. I still have a lot to learn. I have learnt the most from the people who contribute to the Vectorscript area of this forum.

VS can be extremely frustrating. I've invested an huge amount of time streamlining my development process. I've created a structure for 3D modeling that is very fast in development.

My test cycle used Menu commands... HOWEVER when I took the code into a PIO I now have memory issues. $#!?. was my time useless?. I doubt I will get any support from NAA to help.

There are a lot of independent VS developers. NAA could leverage the work of these developers. Create and host an App Store.

Reading others code is the best way to learn VS. Open up the PIO code for independent developers to look at. Then we can see how you are handeling the data we need access to for BIM.

[Jershaun]

People that use AutoCAD find it difficult to change to another CAD system and most times refuse even if they are shown a better more productive and better looking CAD system (eg. vw). This is because (IMHO) they have invested so much time, money, effort and lisp routines that they don't want to loose all that even if it means staying in the dark ages. "They'll cut their nose to spite their face". Similarly, vw users don't want to let go of this archaic pio's because they have spent so much time creating this "code" in vs. Sometimes to move forward, we just have to let go.

@ Miguel Barrera

Sorry to disagree but the stair by definition is still an Object. In object oriented programming (OOP) anything can be defined as an object that has attributes (shape, dimensions, color, etc.) and responds to actions (clicks, events) through defined methods.

The fact that VW cannot modify objects in 3D space now does not mean it will not be able to in future releases. Vectorscript at the moment only allows input and editing in 2D and will need 3D control points in order to edit objects in other views besides the top plan. Once NNA adds this feature to VS, you will be able to manipulate plug-in objects as in the video.

Interactivity is only ONE of the points I'm trying to make. The other is that these "2D and 3D Control Points" should be made without "code". I would like to quickly and visually place a control point without writing lots of code. Similar to "Dynamic Blocks" in AutoCAD.

Also, pio's are extremely restrictive. I work according to my own office standards which have my own infill colours and line weights and when I use the window/door pio, it doesn't comply with my office standards therefore I don't use those tools and I work with symbols instead. eg. the 2D sill in my windows should have an Infill Colour of light red, glass to have a colour of blue, timber frame to be light brown, steel frame to be light blue, aluminium frame to be light grey, etc. (I print everything in colour) and this isn't possible with the window pio. The window/door pio is according to someone else's standards, not mine. Now, if I could set these 2D and 3D control points with my mouse in my symbols (Dynamic Symbols), then problem sorted.

Whatever you call it, pio's, dynamic blocks/symbols, or whatever, I need to have 100% control without learning code. I hated DOS, never learned it and don't bother about similar type of things. I'm too old and life's too short to start learning code. Code should be left to programmers and not designers.

[VincentCuclair]

Whatever you call it, pio's, dynamic blocks/symbols, or whatever, I need to have 100% control without learning code. I hated DOS, never learned it and don't bother about similar type of things. I'm too old and life's too short to start learning code. Code should be left to programmers and not designers.

Have to second that Shaun......can't and don't want to count the hours nay days nay weeks I must have spent learning how to change, manipulate, customize the CAD apps I have used instead of putting these hours in designing and drafting.......

Edited September 9, 2010 by Vincent C

[Miguel Barrera]

You are still mixing apples with oranges. How a plug-in object is programmed is not always a limitation of its technology.

Similarly, vw users don't want to let go of this archaic pio's because they have spent so much time creating this "code" in vs. Sometimes to move forward, we just have to let go.

PIO's are not outdated as you assert but the essence of today's technology. BIM is nothing more than defining objects in a format (XML) that everyone can understand. Programming has not changed dramatically in the past 25 years either. You can now define windows, menus and buttons visually but you still have to write the code to define their actions. In the same way, PIO's will not go away but rather evolve with each VW version. There has been many features added since Diehl Graphsoft (NNA) introduced the technology in the 90's.

Also, pio's are extremely restrictive. I work according to my own office standards which have my own infill colours and line weights and when I use the window/door pio, it doesn't comply with my office standards therefore I don't use those tools and I work with symbols instead. eg. the 2D sill in my windows should have an Infill Colour of light red, glass to have a colour of blue, timber frame to be light brown, steel frame to be light blue, aluminium frame to be light grey, etc. (I print everything in colour) and this isn't possible with the window pio.

This is a limitation on how the pio was programmed and not a limitation of pio technology. This can be resolved easily by assigning the parts to classes created by the pio. Then the user can change the class attributes to his liking. I link classes to parts in my pio's all the time so I can change the look if needed. This is in addition to having a popup menu with proposed, existing, removed, and salvaged choices in the OIP which changes the look according to the linked class.

"Dynamic Blocks" are also restricted to what they can do and are not as easy to define as you make it appear. There are several steps and menu choices to make to have it working. It would probably take me the same amount of time to do it in VS for such simple functionality.

Whatever you call it, pio's, dynamic blocks/symbols, or whatever, I need to have 100% control without learning code. I hated DOS, never learned it and don't bother about similar type of things. I'm too old and life's too short to start learning code. Code should be left to programmers and not designers.

This is exactly the problem when users complain about their software. Designers are not programmers so they cannot change the software to fit their needs (or willing to learn ways to change it). And programmers are not designers so they may have no clue as to what the user really wants (as I wanted to know how much material was needed to build a house and created Wall Framer to satisfy my curiosity). Granted that programming is not easy and will never be as easy as choosing from a menu. But not understanding the technology should not be the sole reason for scraping it.

As I mentioned before, what you really want is a visual interface to do simple tasks in addition to VS and the SDK.