we find that the programs are cumbersome and demand compromises to make their use economical. (Or in some cases even possible.)
Compromises?? such as??
Well, for instance (mostly I'm talking about modules of the RAM software here)...
In some cases there are restrictions on where you can locate a member in the model. Usually it's a matter of a member being located where no structural logic would require one. Still people have to do such things, and just because it might be redundant, or slightly off a panel point, or connect floor 3 and 5 without ever intersecting floor 4, is no reason for the program to refuse to analyse (or even allow construction of) the model.
In some cases the geometry we need to model simply cannot be modeled at all, and we must jump through hoops to approximate a situation. One common issue is the creation of a circular hole or pad on a mat foundation. We paid a good bit of money for this software and it's got everyone pissed that modeling a circle isn't a matter of two or three clicks as it is in AutoCAD.
It's a pain to find the program you bought because it will do dynamic analysis on a 100 story building cannot deal with a column that is cantilevered from a floor and does not reach another unless you have placed a node on every possible floor where it "might" intersect, if only it was longer.
So we "compromise" our models in some manner that simulates the situation--yet is not the actual situation--so that the analysis will run. It takes time to figure out acceptable workarounds. It takes effort and time to justify their use to the people checking our work. It causes a lot of premature baldness, if you know what I mean. :ugly:
