Modeling
About Archicad's design tools, element connections, modeling concepts, etc.

ArchiCAD is dying

Bruce
Expert
I know that's a controversial subject line, but I believe it's true. Not because I want it to be, but because Autodesk is an advancing monster; ArchiCAD firms are switching to Revit, and Revit-based firms are buying ArchiCAD firms...and switching them to Revit.

ArchiCAD is a great program, but if it keeps going the way it is, I fear it will gradually dwindle until it's finally gone. On a level playing field, it comes out more or less even with Revit (I have done a detailed analysis that has been vetted by Revit experts) - but it's not a level playing field.

In my opinion, Graphisoft needs to do a handful of things to even the odds (yes, I will compare to Revit, as that's the main competition):

1. Rebrand & revamp the UI: CAD is an obsolete term. Even though ArchiCAD was BIM way before the term was even coined, I think the "CAD" in the name does it a disservice. Also, the user interface is old and tired. Should it go to the ribbon? No way. Should it be brought into the 21st century? Absolutely - there are plenty of excellent examples out there. Blender, a free 3D program, is undergoing its second UI redesign in about 5 years. If Blender can do it, Graphisoft can.

2. Introduce type-based elements. At the moment, pretty much everything is instance based. If you place 100 doors 900mm wide throughout the project, you have to select and change every single instance (this is an example, so please don't tell me the workarounds - that misses the point). Essentially, this is extending the attributes database to other objects. This makes project-wide changes so much more consistent, with no fear of missing an element.

3. Easier creation of parametric custom content: A beginner user in Revit can create a basic parametric object by using geometry and dimensions. It is intuitive and accessible. This does have its limits, but GDL is completely inaccessible to any but the advanced user with a programming mind...something architects and drafties generally don't have - otherwise they'd be programmers. A mix of the two would be extremely powerful - maybe an interface similar to Visual Basic, or Grasshopper? Not only for 3D elements, but also for 2D labels.

4. Better labelling & keynote tools: At the moment it's one label per element per view. What if I want to tag more than the ID? What about material, thickness, height etc. Revit is excellent in this regard, and also in the ability to create your label format as specific as you please. Key notes are also critical.

These are only four key improvements that I think are critical. There are many others that I could list, but this post is already too long. I say the above not to criticise ArchiCAD, but to try and help (misguided however it may be).

I could be wrong - I would be happy to be wrong...but the Autodesk monster is advancing...

These changes should be done the Graphisoft way: not to match what Revit does, but to equal and better it.
Bruce Walker
www.brucepwalker.com
Barking Dog BIM YouTube
Mindmeister Mindmap
-- since v8.1 --
AC26 5002 INT Full | Windows 11 64 Pro | 12th Gen Intel i7-12700H 2.30 GHz | 64 Gb RAM | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 32 Gb
181 REPLIES 181
Laszlo Nagy
Community Admin
Community Admin
Oh, okay, I did not know that.
Loving Archicad since 1995 - Find Archicad Tips at x.com/laszlonagy
AMD Ryzen9 5900X CPU, 64 GB RAM 3600 MHz, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB, 500 GB NVMe SSD
2x28" (2560x1440), Windows 10 PRO ENG, Ac20-Ac27
Anonymous
Not applicable
I've worked with both Revit & ArchiCAD. And I think the author completely misses the point here.
In my humble opinion, no self-respecting human being would ever work with Revit. It's one of the worst softwares on the planet and its capabilities don't matter as long as its interface makes every step a long and pathetic way.

ArchiCAD never ment to be a competition for this type of software. Neither for AutoCAD. ArchiCAD is kinda what Apple used to be (before it rot) - they have a very very small group of professional users, but that group is very faithful and loyal. There is no way ArchiCAD needs to compete with anybody because there isn't really anything like it.

The offices that are switching to Revit - sometimes switch back (look for stories online and you will find many examples). There is no way people for certain smaller projects will ever work better with Revit - Revit is for big projects and for a certain user - the one that doesn't expect much from its software (or could never really use een 1% of ArchiCADs power.

Overall I would say ArchiCAD is for "small" offices for professionals with IMAGINATION.
Revit is for AutoCAD - "lovers" and bigger projects, and basically for people without imagination (those that won't even expect more that it gives them). Those without the imagination always talk about how ArchiCAD is missing this and that, but it actually isn't - it's just not ment for big projects.

And I think that's beautiful ,that they stay loyal t their rules - I myself hate big monster architecture, and prefer smaller scale projects - and of course - ArchiCAD. In the end, there is no competition, nor will there ever be from AutoDESK- like firms. It's just a different world.
KenMcN
Contributor
CatSophie wrote:
I've worked with both Revit & ArchiCAD. And I think the author completely misses the point here…

Overall I would say ArchiCAD is for "small" offices for professionals with IMAGINATION.
Revit is for AutoCAD - "lovers" and bigger projects, and basically for people without imagination (those that won't even expect more that it gives them). Those without the imagination always talk about how ArchiCAD is missing this and that, but it actually isn't - it's just not ment for big projects…
Hmm, not for big projects? Not convinced 😉
http://www.ama-ltd.co.uk/edinburgh-st-james.html
That's a £850m city centre development we are working on as Design Architects and using Archicad.

We are working with other consultants (including the Technical Architects) who use Revit and perhaps you are right that the number of technical drawings needed is best done in Revit, I haven't used it so can't really comment. But I do know that the ability of Archicad to handle a project of this size is absolutely miles better than it's rivals who have to split models into lots of separate files just to keep working.

Flying round the model with clients to review the deisign, sending prospective tenants links to a BIMx model and showing the Planners what it looks like in the context of a city like Edinburgh—all fantatic stuff and incredibly persuasive.

Archicad dying? Nope.
V25 & 26 (fully patched); Mac Ventura, MacBook Pro M1 Max
Laszlo Nagy
Community Admin
Community Admin
I also agree that ARCHICAD gets more and more miles ahead of Revit in terms of performance as the size of the project increases.
This is a rather well-known fact. If you go to Revit forums you will see threads where people complain about how slow Revit can get with very large models and all the various workarounds they have to employ to cope with it and be able to continue to work.
Autodesk even published a whitepaper that recommends things like "use as few constraints as possible", "keep the parametric level of families to a minimum/to necessities", "avoid groups as much as possible" etc. (Most of which is totally contrary to the whole idea and promise of a Building Information Modeling program).
And I didn't even start talking about the BIM Server/BIMcloud.
I also strongly believe this performance gap will now further increase with the introduction of Predictive Background Processing in ARCHICAD 19.
So in my opinion ARCHICAD is definitely more capable of handling large and huge projects than Revit.
Loving Archicad since 1995 - Find Archicad Tips at x.com/laszlonagy
AMD Ryzen9 5900X CPU, 64 GB RAM 3600 MHz, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB, 500 GB NVMe SSD
2x28" (2560x1440), Windows 10 PRO ENG, Ac20-Ac27
stefan
Expert
I am looking forward to see how ArchiCAD 19 behaves on my not-too-new-anymore laptop.

The Revit models I have been looking at lately where quite taxing. So many view graphics generation to be done for almost everything I want to see. And takes forever to look for an element selected in a Schedule to be found in a view.

Is it still true that the best CPU for Revit is a single-threaded one with high frequency? This clearly indicates that Revit makes little use of multi-core processors.

Read on the Boxx Website:
Single Threaded: Are You Paying For Cores You Don’t Need?

Off-the-shelf computer workstations sold by multi-national commodity builders are not optimized for CAD, and contrary to what you may have been told by a Dell or HP sales representative, most CAD applications, including Autodesk® Revit®, do not benefit from multiple CPU cores when working with interactive content. Your CAD applications are "single threaded" which means that unless you are doing a substantial amount of rendering or simulation (generally highly multi-threaded tasks) your design software is simply not capable of using the full resources of multi-processor workstations. It’s quite simple, really. If your workstation is not optimized for single-threaded performance, you’re paying for processor cores you don’t need and won’t use, as well as missing out on peak performance that will keep you creating instead of waiting. Our Revit workstations are specifically configured to provide you with best CAD application performance possible.
www.boxxtech.com/solutions/architecture-engineering/revit

Their solution: single CPU with overclocking. But this might not work well for ArchiCAD users!
--- stefan boeykens --- bim-expert-architect-engineer-musician ---
Archicad27/Revit2023/Rhino8/Unity/Solibri/Zoom
MBP2023:14"M2MAX/Sonoma+Win11
Archicad-user since 1998
my Archicad Book
Laszlo Nagy
Community Admin
Community Admin
stefan wrote:
Is it still true that the best CPU for Revit is a single-threaded one with high frequency? This clearly indicates that Revit makes little use of multi-core processors.
This still stands as far as I know. I have not come across anything that would indicate that there was any great big new development in that area on Revit's front.
This topic is also covered in this article:

http://architosh.com/2013/10/op-ed-why-the-new-mac-pro-will-rock-for-archicad-but-not-for-revit/
Loving Archicad since 1995 - Find Archicad Tips at x.com/laszlonagy
AMD Ryzen9 5900X CPU, 64 GB RAM 3600 MHz, Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB, 500 GB NVMe SSD
2x28" (2560x1440), Windows 10 PRO ENG, Ac20-Ac27
Anonymous
Not applicable
Graphisoft please stop making stupid objects such a flat panel or bathroom library. Users need new graphical algorithm editor to do their own objects without asking programmers.
Anonymous
Not applicable
I agree, now Revit got Dynamo to boost its shitty core, and visual programming is the future, there is no denying it. So if GS just focusing on getting faster, there is no really competition, the gap between Revit and AC will become bigger and bigger.
Anonymous
Not applicable
Yep
Graphical parametric object programing & math sims is the future,Look around, Grasshopper,Revit,Vws,maplesim...?
A whole new era of customised linked data, design engineering, optimization & details my clients love it... LOL, it shows them that someone (ME) really cares about their projects.
sityu
Booster
Of course the Archicad is not dying.
It has ingenious features and software philosophy.
But GS had some bad decisions in the past, about the development of the software, I think (because of the urge of the yearly new vesions).

Instead of turning archicad a open platform of designing architecture, they introduced some partly perfect new tools (starting from the curtain wall, the shell and the morph tool). New tools, instead of simplifying and reducing the number of the existing tools.
E.g.: I don't know why there are separate tools for windows and doors (both are openings, with almost the same working manner).
And more about the openings: why should I place the doors/windows only in walls? They are same gdl scripts, like the objects... Why there is a different tool for lamps? (with only a few more parameters, than the normal objects; and with the user interface scripts you can do any kind of parameter adjusting panes)
Why there are differencies between the slabs, roofs, and even the 2d fill tool (all of them are closed polygons, with some additional parameters) etc.

And about the open platform of architectural design:
GDL is good. It was revolutionary, when it was introduced. It was the main strength of archicad. The ease of scripting a new object. But it was decades ago. The GDL represents the coding paradigms of the times 40 years ago! If you want to change a single parameter, you have to enter even 50, consecutive, comma separated values; instead of saying what parameters you want to adjust. And the gdl editor doesn't have any syntax highlighting, or any syntax aids.
In the past 40 year many new paradigmatic changes occurred in coding. E.g. the object oriented programming.

I think the GDL needs a complete revamp, according to the followings:
1) the new gdl (NGDL) should control (almost) everything (not being just a closed container);
2) the NGDL should be completely internet based (and web compatible - like: svg, and JavaScript);
3) the NGDL should be object oriented;
4) the backward compatibility should be handled in the archicad, not in the NGDL script language;
5) the NGDL should have a grasshopper-like graphical interface;
6) the NGDL should be an open source platform (with ease of sharing new features, tools, and scripts).

A feature like this could solve some old-old problems, like stair-maker's, and the lack of some features about the existing tools.

I think the main miscomprehension in the GS HQ is that this would ruin their business. And their 3rdparty partners' (like Cigraph, cadimage etc.) businesses, too.
No, it wouldn't ruin them, at all. But contrariwise: it would give a huge strength.
Strength of the community of self driven, volunteering (and for profit, 3rd party) developers. Strength of an universal, open software.

And it wouldn't mean, that they should stop developing Archicad. Absolutely not.
Archicad needs a lot of developments, smaller and major ones, too.
E.g.:
-UI developments, based on UX paradigms (even some special hardware input device development would be great - I don't think that the mouse and keyboard is the ultimate input devices for architects);
-performance improvements (like the speed improvements in the last couple of versions);
-BIM, BIMX, IFC, OpenBIM, and other interoperability improvements;
-minor bug fixes (there are several annoying small bugs - which are really annoying, but small enough, not to report them), it's a hard work to detect and collect these small bugs.

All of these would give enough work to do for the forthcoming 10-20 years; and GS could come up with new features, in every year. The archicad would definitely remain the quasi standard platform of digital architecture; with its outstanding core features of editing, virtual tracing, publishing, teamworking and the open source digital architecture community.
Talmácsi, István, architect (AC user since 1997, ac4.5 - now: ac18)