Graphisoft and developers...

[Anonymous]

at least I think so.

1 -The last years, two months or so before GS release BIMx, i developed a tool to translate Archicad geometry to android... and two month later GS release BIMx for iPad, i abandoned the project. Before GS release BIMx I didn't receive any news about GS... except a call phone of GS Spain to ask me how i do it...
2- Today I have read the press note about the new Archicad 16... and well its a very good release at least in the papers. The new version has the morph tool very interesting, i have spend my last two weeks creating a tool to make freeform shells "dragon". I post regulary in this forum and the spanish forum the updates...
3- I sent the contract agreement for developers two weeks ago... I have no news.. no reply...

Update: GS has contact me, now i has my developers ID... and they explain me their policy.
I have developed for Autocad in the past (in the hateful Autolisp) and i have developed for Android, iOS a Mac and never I have more barriers than with GS.
Now i understand why there are so few add ons for Archicad.
I have make a lot of tutorials for Archicad, all for free, and with more than 50.000 visitors in the youtube channels, and every I upload something I post here or in the spanish forum...
And I think, or GS don't looks the forum or GS doesn't care about his developers-customers. Why they didn't send me a email o mp says: "Boy don't waste your time in developers this tools, we are working on it"... I think that sent a email is not too many work.
Now I wonder if it's worth spend time in developers for Archicad... I'm a official beta tester of Revit (before i was beta tester of autocad, autocad for mac and now for quasssar, i was for Archicad 64 bits version of mac too) and with the access of the beta version of his products you know what tools has they developing for the new version and of course I don't want develop the same tools..
Well, sorry for the post but how i think that GS don't read the forums, sure I don't receive any reply.

[Eduardo Rolon]

José, no lo tomes a mal. Basado en los vídeos entiendo que tu herramienta puede existir en adición a los Morphs.
Además es deseable tener mas de una manera de modelar algo.

-----
Don't take it the wrong way. Based on the videos your tool does not necessarily compete with the Morph tool. Sometimes it is a good thing to have more than one way to model something.

Maybe once AC16 is released you could see what its deficiencies are and you could improve on them.

----
/edited the spanish section which I wrote atrociously.

[Anonymous]

Hi Jose Gomez, I understand your frustration. The only excuse I can think of for GS is that they are up against the Autodesk and therefore play it very secret...

I have a Galaxy Note and was just about to ask you if you had advanced with your app for viewing 3d models on adroid? I would be very interested in something like this.
As I understand it BIMx only works on Iphones, is this correct?

merci

[Anonymous]

strawbale wrote:
Hi Jose Gomez, I understand your frustration. The only excuse I can think of for GS is that they are up against the Autodesk and therefore play it very secret...

I have a Galaxy Note and was just about to ask you if you had advanced with your app for viewing 3d models on adroid? I would be very interested in something like this.
As I understand it BIMx only works on Iphones, is this correct?

merci

No news about android because I left the proyect when GS release BIMx for ipad... port apps between platform is no very dificult... i think but i'm architect no programmer and my skills are very limited. Android has a very big problem... the fragmetation... there is android cells for 50 bucks.... and for 500.. a lot of resolutions, with and without phisical buttons... its a little nightmare.
As I say before a was beta tester for Autodesk tools too, and is very easy when you enroll you must sign a confidentiality clause... if you post anything they can go for you...

[Laszlo Nagy]

Don't take it the wrong way. Based on the videos your tool does not necessarily compete with the Morph tool. Sometimes it is a good thing to have more than one way to model something.

Maybe once AC16 is released you could see what its deficiencies are and you could improve on them.

I agree. What I saw from your videos is that your tool does patterns which is not available with the Morph Tool. So I think your Tools are in a niche by themselves.

What I also see is that your tools could do NURBS kind of things in the future. For example you would define two profiles and a path and the geometry would transform from one profile to the other along the path.
Is this what is called a LOFT?
So things like that your solutions could do.

I also agree with the other post regarding GS disclosing it intentions.
I have the feeling guys at Autodesk do follow ArchiCAD's development. You can see some features in Revit 2013 which have existed in ArchiCAD for a long time.
With the size and strength of Autodesk, Graphisoft really need to be and stay ahead so the competition does not know what they are up to to keep their edge, in my opinion.

[stefan]

To be fair, you can not compare GS with ADSK...

I have made an add-on in the past, to export the ArchiCAD 3D scene into Radiance compatible format. But abandoned it, as it was not feasible for me to maintain between the too-current new releases of ArchiCAD (was created in AC8 initially, IIRC, and updated to 9, 10 and 11). A few months ago, I had a hard time to getting it running in AC15... not only because of updates, but also as the Development environment for AC15 is dated (VC 2005 on Windows and XCode 3 on OSX).

In contrast with this, I had an example Revit add-on (and AutoCAD in the past) running and going perfectly well just right after installing the SDK. If there is one area in which ADSK has tons of experience, it is in API and SDK.

That said, don't give up yet. Your tools were showing something that is not like anything that is inside ArchiCAD. The only thing that comes near is the Curtain Wall tool, which at the time was showing a promise of a new underlying architecture for such complex, hierarchic assemblies. But as it stands, no other tool followed this approach (although I was hoping for the roof tool).

[Anonymous]

stefan wrote:
To be fair, you can not compare GS with ADSK...

I have made an add-on in the past, to export the ArchiCAD 3D scene into Radiance compatible format. But abandoned it, as it was not feasible for me to maintain between the too-current new releases of ArchiCAD (was created in AC8 initially, IIRC, and updated to 9, 10 and 11). A few months ago, I had a hard time to getting it running in AC15... not only because of updates, but also as the Development environment for AC15 is dated (VC 2005 on Windows and XCode 3 on OSX).

In contrast with this, I had an example Revit add-on (and AutoCAD in the past) running and going perfectly well just right after installing the SDK. If there is one area in which ADSK has tons of experience, it is in API and SDK.

That said, don't give up yet. Your tools were showing something that is not like anything that is inside ArchiCAD. The only thing that comes near is the Curtain Wall tool, which at the time was showing a promise of a new underlying architecture for such complex, hierarchic assemblies. But as it stands, no other tool followed this approach (although I was hoping for the roof tool).

Thanks for your words Stefan, now i dont spend much time in the tool. For now, its a hobby. I have planned to make it a apx (for better performance) but i have abandoned the idea. Now i send the tool for all the people that mail me and i'm publishing the others tools i have made for free in my web but i stop to develop the others (i had started a lot of: a free coons surface, a tube, a infinite 3d polyline, a loft tool... )
I have received a lot of mails about "dragon" and "medusa" and I think that GS must develope in this way, something like grasshopper or generative components... i think that the last approach i have started its a good way... you can do things like grasshopper but all graphically, we are architects not developers and i think that grasshopper it too much complicated to make a cool roof for a house... and a lot of architects prefer change points graphically that insert a surface equation... i think...
Maybe i direct my efforts into other channels... to write a book in spanish for example...