topic Re: After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed in General discussions

After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed

Dede — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 13:48:57 GMT

Hi everyone,

About three years ago I bought a perpetual Archicad license. One of the main reasons was exactly that – I wanted to own my software, not rent it.

At that time, at least as far as I knew, there was no information about the upcoming transition to subscriptions. I thought I was making a good long-term investment.

I also decided to keep paying for Graphisoft Forward. I wanted new versions, better tools and improvements. I had no problem paying for that.

But after these few years, honestly, I'm quite disappointed.

Since buying Archicad I've been regularly reading this forum and Reddit, and what surprised me most is how many problems have apparently been discussed for years without being solved.

Of course Archicad is improving. I'm not saying nothing has changed. But most improvements seem relatively minor, sometimes almost cosmetic, while the list of really important things stays pretty much the same.

At first I thought, OK, some versions are smaller, but every few years there will probably be a major release with something really useful.

I'm still waiting.

What about the basic architectural tools?

There are so many things that seem unnecessarily complicated, or simply missing:

Why can't I easily hide individual elements on a floor plan, without managing additional layers or complicated workarounds?
Why can't I have properly independent working windows across several monitors, with views updating immediately?
Why is stair editing still so frustrating, especially with more complicated geometries?
Why aren't there more flexible tools for creating custom windows and doors, including elements associated with multiple walls?
Why can't I easily edit individual skins of composite structures, change their renovation status or control their visibility?
Why can't I simply give a mesh a constant thickness? And why are terrain modelling tools still so basic?
Why are calculations, formulas and unit settings in schedules still so limited?
Why is controlling floor plan display, cut planes, wall intersections and graphical representation often so complicated?
Why can't solid element operations be properly represented on floor plans without additional tricks?
Why is managing modules, reference levels and project attributes still so cumbersome?
Why don't we have proper built-in tools for modelling custom furniture?
Why is producing useful graphical schedules of railings or curtain walls still so difficult?

And there are many more.

What's frustrating is that these aren't only my personal complaints. Many of these things are among the most voted requests on Graphisoft's own Wishlist.

Some have hundreds of votes. Some have been discussed for years.

I looked at that list and honestly, it's rather depressing.

I don't expect Graphisoft to implement everything users ask for. But when so many popular requests concern fundamental modelling and documentation tools, shouldn't that tell us something about development priorities?

I also work with existing buildings, renovation and thermal retrofitting. Adding insulation, working with existing structures, controlling individual construction layers, dealing with thermal bridges – these are everyday architectural problems.

Considering how much of the European building sector is moving towards renovation and energy upgrades, I would expect much more development in this direction.

Instead we get AI visualisation, new animal silhouettes and MEP tools.

I'm not saying these things are useless. But honestly, how many architects really needed new cat silhouettes while basic modelling problems remain unresolved?

And MEP? It's nice that Graphisoft develops it, but I don't really understand who it's for. In my professional environment relatively few architects use Archicad, and even fewer installation engineers would consider using it. They already have their specialised software.

Maybe it makes sense for big multidisciplinary offices, but I would much rather see Graphisoft improve the tools that architects use every day.

Libraries and GDL

Another frustration is creating custom library objects.

GDL may be powerful, but for an average architect it's a very complicated way to create and edit objects. Graphisoft's learning resources and support for developing your own libraries also seem rather limited.

Then there's manufacturer libraries.

You can often find Revit families for windows, doors, garage doors and various building products, but nothing for Archicad. So you end up modelling things yourself.

I know Graphisoft can't force manufacturers to make Archicad objects, but shouldn't building a stronger ecosystem be one of their priorities?

Ironically, external AI tools have actually helped me quite a lot with Archicad. Not for visualisation, but for finding workarounds, understanding GDL and generating custom objects.

Although sometimes I spend so much time trying to get AI to create a working object that I wonder if modelling it manually would have been faster.

Our local distributor also develops and offers additional Archicad tools. Some are included with Forward, others are sold separately.

And I keep wondering: if these tools solve common everyday problems, why doesn't Graphisoft introduce similar functionality directly into Archicad?

A nice looking program isn't always a good working tool

I think what disappoints me most is the general impression that nobody on the other side is really listening.

Maybe that's unfair. I know software development isn't simple and I'm sure there are people at Graphisoft doing their best.

But from a customer's perspective, after several years of paying for Forward and reading discussions about the same problems, it's difficult to feel that our needs are really a priority.

Graphisoft is very good at presentation. The website looks great, the graphics are beautiful, the software looks modern and pleasant.

And I appreciate that.

But after many years working with computers, I've learned that sometimes an ugly, old-fashioned, rather clumsy looking tool that does its job perfectly is much more valuable than a beautiful application where you constantly need workarounds.

I don't need my architectural software to impress me with its appearance.

I need it to help me finish projects efficiently.

And then came the subscription

Recently my local distributor offered me a special three-year subscription deal.

I asked whether there was any additional offer for someone who bought a full perpetual license just a few years ago and kept paying for Forward.

I never got an answer.

I was hoping Archicad 30 would finally bring some major improvements and maybe convince me to switch. But the special subscription offer expired before version 30 was released.

Interesting timing, isn't it?

When I purchased my perpetual license, I had no idea Graphisoft was planning this transition. Had I known, I might have made a different decision.

And now I'm supposed to commit to another three years, without really knowing whether the next versions will solve the problems I've been struggling with.

I don't have anything against paying for good software. I just want to see real value for the money.

Why not Revit, then?

I'm not saying Revit is better. I don't particularly like Autodesk's business practices either. Quite the opposite.

But I have the impression that when it comes to parameters, automation and customisation, Revit is ahead in some areas. Creating and editing families also seems more accessible than working with GDL.

And there's the much bigger ecosystem.

More manufacturer libraries, more third-party developers and, at least in my experience, more architectural offices using it.

This also affects finding employees and collaborators.

Young architects want to learn software that helps them find jobs. If larger offices mostly use Revit, students will learn Revit.

And then offices choose Revit because it's easier to find people who know it.

I wonder how difficult it will be to find young Archicad users in another five or ten years.

I've also spoken with students about educational licenses. At least until recently, Graphisoft's approach seemed much more restrictive, particularly with educational watermarks and the separation between commercial and educational projects.

Autodesk has a broad educational ecosystem. Of course their educational licenses aren't intended for commercial work either, but the overall accessibility seems better.

For a small architectural office, taking a student for an internship already means spending time training and supervising them. Having to pay for another full commercial subscription for someone who's still learning makes very little financial sense.

I think Graphisoft should invest much more in making Archicad accessible to students and young architects, and making the transition to professional practice easier.

These people are future customers.

And now, if the subscription price of Archicad is comparable to Revit, if updates don't seem significantly better, and I don't feel there's better communication with users, why shouldn't I choose the more popular platform?

Not because it's necessarily better software, but because the ecosystem itself has value.

Could BIM follow the same path as 2D CAD?

For decades AutoCAD was practically the standard for 2D drafting.

But in recent years cheaper alternatives, including Chinese CAD applications, have become more popular.

I bought a perpetual license for one of them, for a fraction of AutoCAD's price, and honestly, in several respects I find it even better.

Over the last few years the developers introduced some genuinely useful improvements. I'll probably buy another upgrade without much hesitation.

Why? Because I can actually see the value.

I wonder whether BIM could eventually go in a similar direction, especially with AI and LLMs changing software development, automation and customisation.

Obviously BIM is far more complex than 2D CAD. But who knows what the market will look like in ten years?

Perhaps the big software companies should be a little more careful about assuming customers will continue paying increasingly expensive subscriptions forever.

So what now?

After these few years, what disappoints me most isn't even the subscription price.

It's that I bought Archicad believing in the product, paid for Forward because I wanted to keep getting better tools, and now I don't really feel Graphisoft is making the same effort to keep me as a customer.

I see a lot of marketing, beautiful presentations, new features that look great in promotional materials.

But I don't see enough progress where I actually need it.

Maybe my expectations were too high.

But right now I get the impression that Graphisoft is more interested in moving customers to subscriptions than in giving us good reasons to stay.

I don't need Archicad to become another Revit, another rendering application or a complete engineering platform.

I just want it to become a better architectural design tool.

I still like many things about Archicad. And honestly, I don't particularly want to switch to another BIM program and rebuild my entire workflow.

But I wish Graphisoft would give me a reason to be excited about the next version again.

Not just another reason to pay for it.

I'm curious how other long-term Archicad users feel about this. Especially those who bought perpetual licenses and kept paying for Forward.

Do you still feel it's worth it?

Operating system used: Windows 11

Re: After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed

GG_rakurs — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 14:35:13 GMT

You have touched on so many topics and they all point to the same thing - it seems that the architect is no longer the main focus of the developing team, but more of a target by the marketing department. It seems that this software doesn't serve its purpose to make lives of architects easier and in the process to draw financial gain for Graphisoft. It almost feels like Graphisoft's (actually, maybe it's more appropriate to say Nemetschek's) main concern are the shareholders, and we are no longer their clients who they cater to. They treat us as their users and they make their software what they want it to be. If we would treat our clients the same, well, that wouldn't go great for us architects.

Re: After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 15:51:31 GMT

@Dede Exceptionally well written post! I don’t think I’ve ever read every word of any post as long as yours before.

Your mention of the lack of 2D display of solid element operations reminds me that years ago we were told that a new 2D display engine was “coming soon” that would account for that and many other issues. It is surprising that it has not arrived even with version 30.

Re: After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed

Patrick M — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 16:08:29 GMT

I am sympathetic to your frustrations for sure.

I have been dedicated to this authoring platform for over 20 years now... that has definitely given me perspective, not only on the evolution of the tool, but the evolution of the company.
it was a company that used to have a boastful and proud release slogan every year. Catch phrases like "by architects, for architects" and "faster than ever"... Now they may as well recycle the same slogan "what else ya gonna do, switch to Revit?"

It used to be that reports of bugs or issues were dealt with by a phone call, or even an office visit from a reseller/rep. Now, if you shout loud enough long enough, you'll be lucky enough to get a zoom call or email explaining how the bug can't be replicated, and it must be something with YOUR file or YOUR system or YOUR workflow.

...
The list of half baked upgrades that were never fully developed, and left with no attempt at finalizing in the future, seems to be the symptom... chasing the next 'marketable feature' is the illness. A prime example of this covers quite a few of your "why can't I" litany: that is building materials. They were a vast improvement over extruded fills, but only for about half the tools, and only about 75% of the time.

Archicad has always required work-arounds. I suppose every tool does to some degree. One nice thing we can say about the tool; if you can't get it done one way, there are 10 other ways you can try... and that is uniquely Archicad, and always has been.

...
Looking ahead, I don't see moving away from Archicad any time soon. Wether I own a license or lease one, I pay for it every year, regardless of the fine print. I also don't see Archicad OR Revit being the industry standard in another 10 years (maybe less). The notion that we should struggle to design with our tools should never go away; its been the plight of the architect since before time. If we relinquish that struggle to technology, we give up our craft. I don't want a stair tool to 'design' the stair for me any more than I want an AI bot punching out a 'code compliant stair that fits this space'.

HOWEVER, the tools we use in the future MUST resolve issues of graphic consistencies and cleanliness, efficiency of documentation, ease of use, bringing down the learning curve, and becoming more flexible and versatile rather than searching for a new marketable feature every year.

Re: After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed

Bricklyne Clarence — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 22:30:54 GMT

Great post!

A great breakdown of all the many myriad of issues most of us have had with Archicad and Graphisoft's neglectful handling of it going back literal decades now.

Just one nit to pick with it.....

@Dede wrote:

Hi everyone,

About three years ago I bought a perpetual Archicad license. One of the main reasons was exactly that – I wanted to own my software, not rent it.

At that time, at least as far as I knew, there was no information about the upcoming transition to subscriptions. I thought I was making a good long-term investment.

......

Incorrect.

Or at least not entirely true

At the time, the information they DID tell us was that they were NOT going to switch to Subscription, and there's even a name we can attach to that commitment but I'm not going to throw him under the bus again as he may have been misled himself.

But they were asked and they explicitly stated that they would not be making the shift and a lot of people made their firms' decisions on that incorrect information only to end up where we are today.

Ultmitately,.....

"When I purchased my perpetual license, I had no idea Graphisoft was planning this transition. Had I known, I might have made a different decision."

I think they knew that this would be the case for most people had they been honest and upront that their long-term plan was to transition to Subscription.

That most people would leave the software altogether and find other solutions.

Which leads me to believe that that original statement that they wouldn't was .....well..... a lie.

Because I also refuse to believe a company the size of Graphisoft making long-term plans wouldn't know or realize that that was in the offing for its long-term strategy until the moment came.

They've never made the case to justify for customers why they should still stick with them through a shift from Perpetual licensing to Subscription-only licensing.

And to be fair it's not the fact that it's Subscription that is the problem for lot of users I don't believe (most of the other software we use are currently subsription-only as well).

It's the fact that their history - and really their most recent history - suggests that in the case of Graphisoft and Archicad, that subscription money would be a waste and a bad return on investment, just based on what effort they've shown themselves in actually improving the software and being responsive to our request that they improve problem areas.

They've been losing perpetual customers, who've increasingly been opting not to upgrade with every new version they release, because most people didn't see any improvements in those new versions to justify upgrading. So they were forced to have to 'force' everyone onto this model that has us pay whether they improve the software or not.

And that's simply not fair.

Archicad hasn't been worth an upgrade fee for going on almost 10 years now if you're an architectural user.

Most people had been opting to upgrade every other version or every other two new versions just to hope to cobble enough new meager features to justify that upgrade and we eventually got to the point where that simply wasn't working for Graphisoft.

But there's been no change in attitude or approach to fixing the software or new features priotization on their end that suggests it will be any different for people who choose to stick with them through Subscription and I predict they'll keep losing users over the next several years at this rate.

We were all worried about Archicad slowly dying over these past several years and versions, but little did we know or realize that it was already dead.

A walking corpse.

And it was Graphisoft that killed it.

Re: After 3 years with Archicad, I'm honestly disappointed

Dede — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 23:48:07 GMT

@Karl Ottenstein

Karl, thank you! I've been reading your posts with great interest for more than three years now, basically since I started using Archicad. So I'm really glad you joined this discussion!

And yes, my post is terribly long 🙂 But I suppose that's what happens when frustrations have been building up for quite a few years.

Actually, I have to admit something funny. With every new version, and especially with the end of perpetual licenses approaching, I became more and more convinced that Graphisoft was saving something spectacular for Archicad 30.

I really thought they were holding back some major improvements to make us think: "Wow, imagine what I'll miss if I don't move to subscription!"

And then... nothing particularly spectacular happened.

Well, there's the PRO Kit, of course, but from what I understand such tools are more popular in Australia than here in Europe.

@Bricklyne Clarence

Thank you too! I wasn't aware that Graphisoft had previously assured users they wouldn't switch to subscription. That's quite disturbing.

When I bought my license, I didn't know about the transition. I only found out several months later through a Facebook group for architects, where someone shared information received from his reseller.

And I completely agree with you. The problem isn't necessarily subscription itself, but what we get for our money.

Interestingly, when I calculated the cost of my perpetual license plus three years of Forward, the annual cost wasn't that far from subscription anyway. The difference is that I still own my license at the end.

This whole situation reminds me of Nero Burning ROM. Does anyone remember it?

Brilliant name and logo, often bundled with CD burners, and once practically THE software for burning CDs.

At first it was simple, useful and did exactly what it was supposed to do. But with every new version more and more features appeared. At some point, a program for burning discs was also playing music, watching movies, managing photos, editing videos... Things nobody really asked for, and for which we already had perfectly good software.

The installation package became enormous, and I remember wondering why I needed all this just to burn a CD. Today, I don't even know if Nero still exists.

Being the reference software in your field doesn't mean you'll stay there forever.

Sometimes improving five existing tools is much better than adding another five new ones.

And that's really all I wish Graphisoft would focus on.