We made the comparison. There is no difference. Comparison should be made with a semi-rigid solution. In the rigid diaphragm model, there are modeling differences between the manual and macro solution and the results are not exactly the same. Please pay attention to the following points in this comparison. 1) Make both systems a semi-rigid solution 2) Make sure to reset the wall loads of the cassette beams in the project you entered manually 3) Make sure that each of the loads and geometry make sure it is the same in both projects 4) In the project where you enter the beams manually, the slab live load is not taken on the part on the beam, it is taken in the cassette macro. 5) In the project where you enter the beams manually, beams up to /2 of the width of the main beam take a little self-load in the connection of the cassette beams to the main beams. All beams 25/50 Columns 45/40 Wall load on all beams 0 Floor height 3 m If the project is made by paying attention to these issues, the following result will be obtained. G load results on the left Manual system on the right, cassette macro. Naturally, there is a very small difference in the system on the left due to the fact that the inputs entered as cassettes are not extended to the axis of the main beam. Other downloads Q Ex Ey downloads are the same.
German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish 