topic Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy in General discussions

Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Tue, 09 May 2023 08:17:38 GMT

I peeked at the Public Roadmap and by using the filtering tags, there are more roadmap features for MEP and Structural than there are for Architecture.

If the fee for "Architects" is $975/year for SSA, shouldn't the focus be on developing more tools and features for architects? Why is the focus now outside of our discipline with MEP and Structural?

We need architectural features to drive development. This is ARCHI-CAD. Can someone please explain why the migration to engineering features is dominating the Roadmap?

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Erwin Edel — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 08:21:51 GMT

My thoughts and questions exaclty!

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

mija — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 08:52:43 GMT

Just commented this on roadmap!

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

thesleepofreason — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 09:46:32 GMT

@Rex Maximilian wrote:

We need architectural features to drive development. This is ARCHI-CAD.

I don't think that the future shown by the roadmap will do much to change the calculus for architects decision making regarding their software strategy. Design options could be something that puts AC in a good position but it is worrying that it is considered to be coming soon and we have yet to see any information about how it will work. Schedules and the GDL editor also have potential but need to be part of larger efforts regarding object making and information/text handling.

So yes I agree that we need more focus on features that have an obvious positive impact on the workflow of architects using AC - whether it is implementation of currently missing commonplace features or improvement of already implemented but since abandon features.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

DGSketcher — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:07:23 GMT

If you exclude the BIMx features (it is a linked but separate piece like DDS), the architectural content becomes even less assuring.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:20:44 GMT

Who saw this...?

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:22:22 GMT

True, the amount of BIMx and BIMcloud features makes it seem like less and less new features devoted to the core program.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

DGSketcher — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:29:25 GMT

I saw it. It makes sense to leverage a server if it isn't doing much. If the intention is to make AC a BIMcloud client and strip out stand alone basics for publishing etc then that will backfire. Many wouldn't want to set up a server for a small office.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:36:16 GMT

My fear is that they will require a BIMcloud as a service subscription to do these tasks.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

runxel — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:39:43 GMT

That is something they already mentioned in the last what-ever-it-is-now-called event.

And it doesn't seem to be a "only in the cloud" model, but rather a augmentation, a hell lot of big offices have asked for like eternity. If you want to publish a bit more than a garden shed it takes time. And you can't work while it publishes! So this makes absolutely sense and will crunch the waiting time significantly.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:47:36 GMT

Just the wording was ambiguous. I certainly hope it remains in ArchiCAD, and I can understand the need for having it "outsourced."

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Algimantas Kuprenas — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 11:10:43 GMT

As I understand all things will remain in Archicad just if you have BIMcloud server you can schedule some of time consuming tasks to it. Drawing updating, publishing and similar, so you can work on your local Archicad while BIMcloud is doing publishing tasks, so you don't need to sit in front of Loading screen all day. . .

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Djordje — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 06:55:30 GMT

Well... a building contains the structural and MEP elements, too. Being able to handle them in the same model in the same software is something that the "industry standard" has been boasting for a long time, and had built the following on. You might not need it... as you don't need the 100hp out of 150 in your car's engine, but you still have them, IF you need them.

Archicad is getting better for having the infrastructure, related solutions, and the power, to cater to multidisciplinary offices. From Graphisoft point of view, having 300 individual customers, or a multidisciplinary office with 300 licenses is not the same, as the number of the licenses might be the same, but the client requirements are QUITE different.

So... when commenting, be aware that YOUR perception of what Graphisoft should provide is just that, your perception. I am griping about the structural connections being geared towards Nemetschek family products simply because these products are NOT used, or even heard of, in the region where I work. It is, actually, my problem.

Opinions are not facts. They are opinions. Everyone has one. Including Graphisoft.

Oh, and, BTW... lunch break and leaving the office are the publishing times...

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 07:09:13 GMT

I have to respectfully disagree Djordje. I understand some firms have multi-disciplinary departments, but most of us use consulting engineers for MEP and Structural. I certainly don't feel that MEP or Struc. features should be ignored, but the bulk of new features and improvement of existing features needs to be predominately focused on architecture.

The root of the original post here was addressing the fact that the Roadmap contained "more than half" the features dedicated to MEP and Structural. That is disproportionate to their user base. Unless I'm mistaken and over half the users of ArchiCAD are MEP or structural engineers; and I don't believe that to be true.

...and of the remaining architectural features, most of them were regarding BIMx and BIMcloud integration. Something that would not be presented to basic SSA members. What are we getting for our $975 per year?

Do you feel that it is properly balanced having the majority weight of roadmap items dedicated to MEP/S over architectural?

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Bricklyne Clarence — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:51:12 GMT

Sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly with this opinion.

Architects and architectural designers are the vast majority of Graphisoft's customers and license fee payers.

And most of these architects (a) don't work in multi-disciplinary firms or environments and (b) work in municipalities that expressly bifurcate an architect's role in the design and construction process from those of the structural, mechanical and other engineers and consultatnts.

That latter one is significant in that not only is it an aspect of how the AEC industry works in other countries and regions, but there's a legal and liability issues as well related to an architect or AEC professional not licensed to taking on those tasks and roles, assuming them in their own mandate.

It means that even if we were inclined to or wanted to, it wouldn't be advisable for us to dabble in the structural or mechanical design aspects without the stamp or seal of a registered professional of those fields actually assuming the actual responsibility for them.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that, from the perspective of what most architects (and indeed the sort of traditional kind of customer that Graphisoft use to boast of catering to), these SAM and MEP tools are just a blatant waste of development resources largely funded and financed by my license and subscription fees as the professional whose profession actually forms part of the product's name.

I understand that in some regions architects are expected to provide information like the SAM and other MEP design work as part of their remit, but if the argument is that there's a significant number of these to justify taking the development of the program in this direction for what,....like 3 or 4 straight versions now.....at the cost of developing tools for the rest of us who are actually shouldering the financial burden of them doing so,,...then here's idea.

Split the program, and have an 'ArchiCAD Traditional' that's architect-centered and design-focused, on the one hand, and on the other have an 'ArchiCAD X' or 'ArchiCAD Structural/MEP/Whatever' which, though using the same base engine but with the added MEP/Structural/maybe Enviro analysis or other tools that Architects don't necessarily use as their primary tools.

This way you'll be able to tell from the licenses sold of each exactly how much demand there is for these tools, and see exactly whether it's justified to keep using the license and subscription fees resources of one camp to facilitate the development of tools of the other camp.

I realize I'm simply describing turning ArchiCAD into what their primary competition already currently is (where you have Revit Architectural, Revit Structural and Revit MEP), but I see no other way of making it fair, because right now from our perspective we're paying fees year after year, to see tools added to the program that we'll never need nor use.

And that's simply not fair.

On any level.

Or at least make them separate plugins or addons that you can purchase seprately, and that would be another means to see just how much revenue each camp is actually providing before determining how much development resources shoulld be devoted proportionately to whichever side.

I'm going to posit that Graphisoft already know the answer to this and don't need to conduct this little experiment or go down this route to find out if there really is sufficient demand in the market to justify burdening the rest of us with this 'spread-the-cost' strategy.

I will simply never be convinced that there are enough ArchiCAD-using structural/MEP engineers out there, or Architects requiring these tools that outnumber the traditional sort of ArchiCAD users who feel their needs have been neglected for far too long, to justify going in this route for 3 or 4 straight versions now, and from the looks of that roadmap, for the foreseeable future and future versions as well.

It just doesn't make sense to me as a development strategy to pursue, and just feels more akin to an insult to the very people who've been loyal to this company and program from it's earliest days and help bring it to the level it is in today.

I understand the need to grow your customer-base.

But it should't be at the cost and punishment to the ones that brought you to where you are.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Bricklyne Clarence — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:02:55 GMT

I pointed out the same in the Autodesk 2024 thread I started when someone mentioned the roadmap had been published, and to put more exact numbers on it, from what I recall, in the 'Coming Soon' section or tab:-

- Purely Structural/MEP features (with no Architecture, and not Architecture combos), there were 12 (out of 23 in total)

- Purely Architecture related features were 2, ...as in TWO.....out of 23

Two versus 12 just seems insane to me given the backlash and firestorm that they've been through in the last couple of versions. It's like nothing is getting through.

I want to give them the benefit of doubt and claim that those 'Coming soon' features were probably already set in stone as the next-in-version features for the upcoming version, before they devised this roadmap and therefore their hands were tied, but then how does that explain that it's more or less the same for the other tabs 'In progress' and 'Under research' as well.

Only when you get to the 'Ideas Pool' (which looks like a glorfied Wishlist section, special list), does it start resembling what the development of a program geared primarily towards architects might researching and developing for future versions.

Which begs the ultimate questions;

How far down the road are any of those 'Ideas Pool' features actually going to make it downstream to the 'Coming Soon' tab let along to the actual program?

Is there a timeline?

Will it be before a good number of us actually retire from the profession (I'm very serious about this)?

It just doesn't look good, and I'm hoping for the sake of being partly optimistic that there's some element or level of flexibility in that Roadmap order, that would allow them to reconfigure it and re-prioritize items later on, because that first draft does NOT look good at all.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:41:10 GMT

- -

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:41:28 GMT

This is exactly what needed to be said in detail. Thank you for taking the time to express it! I am going to "Accept as Solution" so it is pinned at the top.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Rex Maximilian — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:45:30 GMT

The fact that after many versions since its inception, the new stair tool and rail tool still take several minutes... several... to create the most simple of stairs or rails because of the interface. Even if you want to simply make the symbol all one pen in 2D or 3D, it takes many, many steps and many tabbed parameter options to do so.

These tools, among others, need to be fixed and improved... as opposed to the current amount of development going towards MEP/S tools.

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Laszlo Nagy — Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:48:43 GMT

Bricklyne,

The point you base your whole argumentation on (separate Revit versions for the three disciplines) is non-factual. It was true at some point in the past, but no longer. This post of mine is about that specific point only.

As far as I know, there are no separate Revit versions for Architecture, Structures, and MEP for several years now. They have been combined into a single product several years ago. If you go to Autodesk's website, this is what you will find:

https://www.autodesk.com/products/revit/overview

So, no separate versions for the three disciplines.

I actually asked ChatGPT about the date of the change, and it answered the following:

"Autodesk Revit Architecture, Structure, and MEP were last offered as separate products in the 2014 release. Since then, Autodesk has combined the functionality of these three disciplines into a single product, Revit."

"The current version of Revit, as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, includes tools and features for architecture, structural engineering, and MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) design. This single version of Revit provides users with a comprehensive set of tools to design and collaborate on building projects, from concept through construction."

This 2014 date may not be accurate (ChatGPT can do that), so I checked another site, and it stated:

https://www.cadtraininginstitute.com/know-all-about-revit-architecture-structure-and-mep/

"Revit Architecture, MEP and Structure are no longer separate products as of version 2017. There are however separate parts of the software platform. Each has its own functions relevant for their purpose."

topic Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy in General discussions

Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Outsource Archicad tasks to BIMcloud

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

Re: Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy