topic Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about... in Documentation

Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

DGSketcher — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 17:03:12 GMT

So a big improvement over last years launch, and nice to see a coherent strategy, however much I disagree with the bloating of AC by other disciplines. A few answers in the Q&A were given the usual non comital "we're working on it". But the one area that really troubles me amongst all these different software data exchange opportunities is the complete lack of engagement on the basics. It's no good having fancy data sharing ecosystems when the user is faced with poorly maintained and under developed basic CAD functionality. The addition of the Search function has been a positive step, but over many years there have also been multiple requests to simplify & improve the basics. Simply posting your request is WISH-13202 doesn't really offer a lot of reassurance.

@Marton Kiss When are Graphisoft going to start noticeably fixing the bugs and delivering the many basic improvements that are regularly requested on this forum?

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Funfun Yan — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 17:48:48 GMT

I have to say that exporting DWG files is extremely troublesome, especially when it comes to dimensions. After exporting DWG, they are almost impossible to make further modifications for other people.

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Rex Maximilian — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 19:54:52 GMT

I was struck by how much was rationalized last night, or an answer was misdirected from the original question. My question about the imbalance of MEP/S development for tools and features compared to Architectural features was answered by them simply stating why MEP/S tools were needed in the first place; which wasn't the question. How "coincidental" that right before my question was asked, there was another "non-question" about how much they loved the new architectural tools. Uuuummmmmm... ooookay.

Also, the question about why Graphisoft can't participate more on the Community Board was answered by saying they didn't want to quash or discourage the responses from other community members. The questions that are usually asked "TO" Graphisoft are mostly policy or development questions, which can "only" be answered by key personnel at Graphisoft. These largely go unanswered.

Both responses should have been:

1) We hear you. We will look into the balance of development between interdisciplinary tools and features. We agree that our focus should be on architectural tools at the forefront and will promise to do better.

2) Yes, we consider the community board a very important communication conduit between Graphisoft and our users. We will be better at interacting with all of you there, in particular regarding questions directed to us.
(* they did say they would try to "do more," but they need to understand that when questions are asked "TO" them, "THEY" need to respond).

Marton was tagged in the original post by DGSketcher, so we shall see.

One thing was clear however. We'll continue to see what most will consider over-development of MEP/S integration into ArchiCAD on a yearly basis; while much less by comparison will be developed for Architecture.

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Alison_007 — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 20:36:15 GMT

Unfortunately, it seems like GS is getting lost. Even a tool as basic as Morph and terrain seems archaic. See what Autodesk did with Revit terrain tool, splendid. Graphic Options, free modeling similar to Vectorwork. In other words, there is no shortage of references to improve, it's just a matter of listening to users and wanting to improve.

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Strawbale23 — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 23:26:00 GMT

It would appear that like many businesses, GS is beholden to the Sales and Marketing people: "We need to be able to show that the latest version of AC has these big and impressive sounding, all singing and dancing features, in order to make the bulk sales to big architectural firms".

They are trying to play the arms race game with the big boys, by puffing up what AC seems to be capable of.

My dream for AC would be, that the developers would instead focus on creating the best user experience possible for us, the users, putting it on a whole level above the competition. This would make AC stand out, as the reference for being the gold standard in the industry. The ppl who would have to use the software would demand that AC be purchased.

The wishes system is pretty much pointless as it stands. In order to be in anyway effective it needs to have an organized ranking table with votes. Not just likes. There needs to be a ranking table permenantly at the top of the wishes page showing the top wishes, as voted for. With a member of GS activley present.

And I will go further.... a commitment from GS that at least one of the wishes in the current top five should be implemented with every update!

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

jl_lt — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 03:09:36 GMT

What did they do? Terrain modelling was one of the things one could say sucked in both softwares

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

jl_lt — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 15:00:43 GMT

I must keep insisting that there are probably 20-25 issues, big and small, that, if addressed, would solve probably around 70-80% of the main demands and needs users have. There have been some attempts at identifying and agreeing on them, but to no avail as of now. But im sure with a little bit more effort they could be listed (most of the ones i can think of are things that should have been addressed by now).

My take on why they havent bothered to address most of them (it wouldnt be fair to say there hasnt been improvement) is rather bleak and ill keep it to myself, yet, I still hope they would focus on these issues before moving onto more sui generis wishes and more advanced stuff.

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Strawbale23 — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 10:55:07 GMT

The terrian modelling in AC is painful. I dread using it. It feels like it has not been updated since AC V 1.0!

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Strawbale23 — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 10:57:11 GMT

Simple things....

In the 3D window, the ability to rotate the angle of the sun without having to go into settings.

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Marton Kiss — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 14:26:22 GMT

@DGSketcher & all thanks for pulling me in into this conversation and also for staying for the Q&A on our digital event yesterday.

I would reflect to the raised points in this thread with reference to what and how we delivered in Archicad 27:

Our public product roadmap was built following all the feedback we received from our user base, combined with the market & technology trends we identified relevant.
We introduced a revamped beta test and an open Technology Preview program, so we could validate the to-be-delivered scope and content through real-life usage. We received an overwhelmingly positive sentiment on the identified scope and lots of usage hours that helped us to fine-tune and optimize our solution ahead of release.
While scoping Archicad 27, many community/wish-list initiated functionality came up winners in our internal scoring, including:
- our headline feature - Design Options, which answers our most popular wish-list item - optioning, design variations and is set up for many other workflows such as phasing support
- our multi-year journey on updating attribute management workflows, where we are mid-way in delivering the full functionality set
- smaller but super useful improvements, such as the dimension text foreground/background control, search, FBX support, tracker calculations, schedule formatting improvements

Public voting on our roadmap - we definitely want to introduce this, but only when we can make it right, to avoid bias and steering effects - so we ask for your patience on this.

As a closing thought for my post: we would love to include all the feature request we receive in our short term roadmap, understanding the relevance of these for your everyday workflows. Our product managers are tasked to perform a careful balancing act on what to prioritize in our product increments, considering existing, formulated needs, market/technology trends and so on.

We hope that through our long time dedication you see our solutions shaping in a direction that helps and supports your existing and future workflows.

Regards form Graphisoft HQ,
Marton

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

DGSketcher — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 16:21:01 GMT

@Marton Kiss

Hi Marton,

First off, thank you for honouring your pledge in the BT event to respond on the forum, that alone should give a sense of hope to those who feel ignored by GS in their requests.

I don't think anyone is questioning the generally successful upgrading to AC27 that you have set out above, but this is also a classic politicians answer that fails to address the root question in the opening post. Was it drafted by Janos by any chance?

I have no doubt in the big picture that your stewardship is delivering significant development on the multi-disciplinary / collaboration front, but there is little point to such ambitions if the day-to-day use of the program is a slog and full of frustrations due to a poorly planned user work environment and unnecessarily complex tools. Perhaps you could assemble a development team to address the frustrations of that much overlooked discipline that is the core user, the one that has to add their annotation with three different ways of editing text, that places section source marks that duplicate their IDs!, that has to produce details with a detail tool that destroys all the BIM data, that produce 3D Documents where dimensioning is best described as difficult, that struggle with groups because over the last 20 years no-one tackled the instancing issue and all whilst trying to use Dark Mode with graphics that are unreadable, (How does that get past QA?). I'm sure there are plenty of other points that could be raised. If that gives you even a glimmer of how frustrating working in AC has become, then perhaps you can begin to understand that something needs to be done urgently to upgrade the core program.

You want to achieve Product Success? Start creating a relevant and accessible environment where people want to work, not one drowning in infinite possibilities of different disciplines that only a minority understand or need.

Thanks again for responding, perhaps you could come back with something a bit more substantive to reassure those following this thread that doesn't rely on long term belief that GS will eventually deliver any core improvements?

Regard from Scotland,

Trevor

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

mthd — Fri, 06 Oct 2023 03:16:00 GMT

Application proof readers could drill down to a more finer level on existing features to make them work as they should. Yes the other products need to be supported but Archicad is the core component and should have at least 75% of the focus from the GS development team. When you get the balance right it works out well for everyone. Yes Terrain is on the list but it should be brought to the top along with other things that should have been addressed many versions ago. Get the tidying up and proof reading work done and the rest will flow naturally.

Re: Building Together 10/2023 - The bits we don't talk about...

Strawbale23 — Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:54:31 GMT

Thank you for your response Marton, appreciated.

How about this then:

Give us, the long time AC users and forum memebers the chance to put together and present to you and GS the top 5 to 10 issues that we have been continously asking to be addressed, and which have not been. Some of them VERY BASIC.

We are not part of the internal scoring, we are on the coal face, using AC as a tool for our professional careers, slogging through the work arounds and clumsily implemented features that get introduced and then never rectified when we give feed back and point out the issues and short falls.