Archicad 26 Preview

[Carlos Cordeiro]

UPDATE: registration process is now closed. We will proceed with some administrative tasks and the access links will be sent shortly.

Graphisoft is proud to announce the launch of the product preview phase of our software development for Archicad 26. This is in lieu of an expanded Beta period. This year, we changed our product Beta process to make it more streamlined, efficient, and effective. However, recognizing the need for customers to try our upcoming release in advance and in order to collect your feedback, our product preview will be launched at the start of our Beta period when all languages of the preview software are ready - INT, USA and GER, around April 14th.

If you would like to participate in the preview, please submit your request here.
Feedback regarding the product preview can be provided through the Jira Service Desk, available after registration.

We are looking forward to your participation and feedback in the upcoming User Group - register here .

Thank you very much for your interest!

Sincerely,

Product Success Team

[ArchiMind]

Hey all,

Reading all the comments I must give my 2 cents about the topic. The idea of developing tools for structural engineers is not bad per se, but given that some basic tools such as walls, slabs, windows, doors, mesh etc are in my opinion outdated, there should be a balance between chasing Revit and pleasing a wider audience.

I don't know in rest of the world, but for an example in the Balkan region, many structural designers are still in 2D cad system or a very limited usage of the model as a concept. Having that in mind we still need better support for 2D cad workflow in the sense that we need maybe also upgraded translators.

I hope that  Archicad 26 will be a step in a positive direction. 🙂

Cheers!

Stefan

[jl_lt]

I think you nailed it with the phrase "chasing Revit..."  From what i know and have read, Archicad has always done its own thing and let the chips fall where they may. Not that this is always the best strategy, but it really worries me if this is the actual path they are following. Because, why chase an inferior competitor even if it has a bigger market share?

However, here is another take:  as @ArchiMind says, many structural engineering offices are still stuck in the 2d realm, not only in the Balkans, but at least in latin america that is the case too. The reason might be simple: many reputed engineers that are still working, are old school and havent really migrated to 3d because "thats for kids", as i was once told.

Personally, in the last year i have tried to shove as much Archicad 3d info as i can down the engineers throats;  they like it and they are beginning to ask about what we use.

So maybe Graphisoft is not necesarily catering to the arguably small percentage of architecture offices that need to model rebar themselves. Its too small a market! and anyone who needs to do it, in all probability they already do it with any of the existing software that is capable of it, so its not like these offices are waiting for Graphisoft to come up with a solution or that they will switch when and if they finally do.       But what if GS is actually catering to the aparently vast amounts of engineering offices that STILL AREN´T ON ANY 3D platform? At some point they will have to jump on the 3d bandwagon (before we evolve into 5th dimensional beings of course), so why not Archicad in that case?

Then we architects and engineers will be in the same platform; not because we are forced to, like some other companies do, but because of convenience and choice. Then you increase your marketshare. If that is the case, then im all for it! (For the record, if and when that happens, i will still not give a d*mn about the ability to model rebar, sorry @Martin Jules )

[Martin Jules]

@jl_lt Architectural practice today must be understood in terms of both design and strategies (sustainable, structural, mechanical, etc.)

[ArchiMind]

I have a feeling that you are drifting away from actual point of this topic. Sure in terms design one has to have conceptual and technical overview, but here is problem that conceptual and technical part of architectural practices is being pushed aside for other discipline. For me personally i would like that Graphisoft finally solves issue of junctions for composite wall, when you have more than 2 connection. Maybe also to have better configuration of the wall in Z direction. That would certainly help user experiencen.

On the other hand Introduction of the SAF format is fine but doesn't stricke me as something that helps improving user experience. 

Cheers

Stefan 

[Martin Jules]

@ArchiMind we don't understand or see architecture the same way, that's normal because it evolves differently in each region. 

[ArchiMind]

For sure, each region has its own set of rules, but that doesn't mean that  technical part of architecture is needed to be pushed aside. Archicad is still in its core architectural software.

Cheers!

[Martin Jules]

@ArchiMind To better understand what I said you previously and as I said it to @jl_lt, in the states in which I practice, Architecture is also Structure. The Boards define what architecture is and is not, as well as the role of the architect including the related procedures. Even if we made all our life discuss it, we would not be on a common ground until there could be the possibility of working together according to the same rules, regulations, and laws of my jurisdictions.

[jl_lt]

sure, lets all talk in aphorisms, lets see how far we get.  

[Martin Jules]

It is not about aphorism, but in the states I practice, architecture is also structure. That prevents us from being on a common ground @jl_lt. 

[jl_lt]

One question @Martin Jules do you do the analitical model, structural analisis and structural detailing all by yourself, apart from the architectural design?? If you do, then no, we are not on common ground.

If you dont, and its done by consultants based on the criteria you give them and in constant comunication with them, then yes, we are on common ground

[Martin Jules]

@jl_lt I work on pre-design, schematic design, design development, structural, sustainable, and HVAC strategies including diagrams and related drawings, construction documentations and details. Structural, sustainable, riser diagrams, and HVAC drawings are reviewed by appropriate consultants, I make the related corrections, the senior architect review all of the drawings, return them if necessary for corrections, and finally can approve them if there are no more corrections to make and then put her seal before submitting them to the building department in the City Hall for approval. It could happen that this department at the City Hall sends the drawings back to complete the structural and/or the MEP parts after its review, etc. The process could be very long before obtaining the permit.

As I said previously, architecture is very complicated in the states in which I practice. If it were for me, architecture would be very simple, but the architectural Boards in the sates I practice it, unfortunately, complicate it.

[jl_lt]

We may not have as much regulation enforcement here in Mexico, but those regulations do exist @Martin Julesthe work process you described is exactly what we do here too, and im guessing its very similar in the Balkans too, or in Burkina Faso, who has recently given us the most recent Pritzker laureate, or anywhere else for that matter

So yeah, i think we are all here actually talking on common ground.

[DGSketcher]

@Martin Jules wrote:

Structural, sustainable, and HVAC drawings are reviewed by appropriate consultants, ...

So from this am I correct in assuming those structural consultants are outside your own business, have their own limited scope of liability and are also free to choose their own software and workflow? Do you consider their software needs include the control of doors, windows, fixed / loose furniture, sanitary fittings etc? If not, then why would they invest in structural software bloated with architectural irrelevance?

Just to be clear this is not about coordinated data exchange for collaboration, it is about delivering software that is focussed on the needs of the discipline, which I still believe is carried out by separate legal entities in all but a limited number of practices.

[Martin Jules]

Those consultants work on Revit, the same platform I also work for the firm. They don't use Archicad because it doesn't meet their need. 

[DGSketcher]

@Martin Jules So they don't use the separate Autodesk Advance Steel software package then?

[Martin Jules]

In the firm for which I work, it uses Revit and collaborates with consultants using Revit as well. No one there talks about IFC exchange format, nor does the Autodesk Advance Steel. 

[Martin Jules]

@DGSketcher and @jl_lt I hope you can better have an idea about my frustrations now!

[Martin Jules]

I am now under a confidential agreement with Graphisoft regarding the Archicad 26 preview version. It would be wise for me to give no more comments on Archicad 26 until its official release.

Thanks to all of you for your previous comments. I really appreciate them! 

[jl_lt]

I feel you man. Didnt know you were actually using it.

[jl_lt]

"then why would they invest in structural software bloated with architectural irrelevance?"

you mean, revit? 😂

[Martin Jules]

They use Revit because, according to them, Revit meets their needs by using the same platform. I don't like Revit, and I am the only one who doesn't like Revit.