Furthermore, the structural features are not completely integrated in Archicad. No one will waste his/her time on them now. Graphisoft has been told to integrate those features since Archicad 11 as well.
Told by whom?
The whole nub of the frustration and dissatisfaction of this version release (and indeed going all the way back to the release of version 24 where we first got the Structural Analysis Model tools), is that Graphisoft are wasting precious development time and resources (and users' license and subscription fee revenues) developing tools like this that the vast majority of users neither need, want, use nor even asked for.
...all while things that are constantly requested to be improved or integrated continue to be ignored by Graphisoft.
As has been stated even by people who do these kinds of structural components of design as part of their mandates in their localities, they (GS) haven't even done it right or well enough that they would want to use these tools nor would be compelled to abandon whatever tools they now use to now use them.
So who is this "they" you're saying told Graphisoft since Archicad 11 to intergrate structural features?
Because as it stands even their own wishlist forums and the ranking of wishes there does not support the claim that this has been an overwhelming wish that people have been clamoring for.
@Bricklyne Clarence It seems you only focus on 2 market segments: individuals and small firms. How about multidisciplinary firms that use Archicad from prè-design to construction evaluation? Would you like the company to ignore them? You should have a global picture of the market segments that relate to the AEC industry.
That a large multidisciplinary firm would accept an application without proper object-typing and multiple instantiated group functionality but demand a half-harted effort to integrate all AEC disciplines seems somewhat unlikely.
So yes, GS could probably ignore that segment until AC is the best version of itself.
And if they actually consider catching that segment so vital for the continued existence of AC right now that they are willing to throw away almost 40 years of innovation that made it a superior application for architects then they should communicate that clearly, indicating for individuals and small firms that it is time to find a new innovative company to bet on. Or perhaps it's nice to keep them around to fluff sales numbers?
@thesleepofreason I don't agree with you, and it seems that there is a certain hypocrisy in your opinions on this forum. Architecture belongs to the AEC industry. In 2022, it appears impossible to continue developing a BIM software without taking into account the 2 other key disciplines of this same industry.
I don't understand why you'd like that the multidisciplinary companies or firms continue to depend on Autodesk software while you don't like Autodesk and its various products. Archicad must be autonomous as a BIM software to avoid major data exchange complications in the future.
The problem MJules is that they are basically ditching the concept of Open BIM with all this fluff, the same concept that was their flagship strategy for years and kept thema afloat. Why doing it now? Maybe it never worked?
Again, for those who like or need totally integrated solutions, they already exist. Graphisoft WILL NOT catch up. Not at this pace. Why not focus on your strenghts?
Why dispair so much about Revit, and then wanting to become like them?
After some discussion, i said somewhere else that if Graphisoft was trying to catch the engineering segment to expand its market share i was fine with it (like if it matters); Maybe i should have added that it should be done without neglecting the current user base and presententing an at least mildly useful engineering solution. None of those things have happened so far, and from what i read, wont happen at least in the next 2 releases.
By the time those 2 releases come, 5 year will have been wasted with basically NOTHING to show for, save for some sexy promises done to some stary eyed bunch of shareholders, who are potentially the real problem here.
The short answer is that many Archicad users depend, one way or another, on Autodesk products even though they criticize them through this forum. We should work and think about being as autonomous as possible from Autodesk products.
If you are a professional you should use the best tool that you like and thats it. If Adesk is the one that creates that tool then I don't have a problem with that, if it is another small company then so be it. My clients don't give a Sh**T what software I use, they don't even know what it is called and that is as it should be.
AC was best in class at what it does which was produce Architectural Construction Documents. This is still the case by a very minimum but if they keep going this way I don't give them more than 10 years. I want to be wrong, I wouldn't mind to be wrong hoping that all of this is an elaborate specific road that they are following with a nice rainbow at the end but that was what I initially thought during the Beta for 24 and here we are 3 years later.
Being professional in this case means that I need to explore other options to see if there is a better tool that aligns with what my professional practice needs.
Macbook Pro M1 Max 64GB ram, OS X 10.XX latest
What you are saying is contrary to what professionals in the field experience on the ground in North America. The majority of us have to work on Revit, AutoCAD and Sketchup in the firms. We don't need to like these software programs. Be there to work on them, or leave those firms.
This generates pressure both on Archicad users and on Graphisoft itself. Don't think this is just a simple problem!
Unfortunately, you issue exclusive opinions. You prefer excluding professionals who suffer from this major problem in the field by claiming that you identify all the dimensions related to this problem.
Sorry I just noticed that Location is not shown as part of the signature so I removed the first sentence of the post.
I know a lot of architectural offices around the states who use AC and do not use Revit, Autocad or SketchUp. So the "majority" of the ones I know do not have the same experience as yours.
I am sorry that you have to use software that you don't like at your place of work but that does not make it the majority. In your case the principal of the office is the one who gets to choose so my argument is still valid. If he thinks that Revit, Autocad and SketchUp are the tools that he needs to do the best work for his clients he is not wrong.
I would avoid writing these super general statements that have no base in reality.
Macbook Pro M1 Max 64GB ram, OS X 10.XX latest
In marketing, there are not only the strengths of the company to consider, it's also most important to work on opportunities that your product could represent for the various market segments as an alternative.
I have said nothing about isolating architecture as a discipline or which application multidisciplinary firms should use.
What I pointed out was that it seems very unlikely that multidisciplinary firms would be content with ACs shortcomings as long as they are able to do what? Generate live loads? It's rather that in 2022 it seems impossible to continue to develop BIM software without taking into account basic general functionalities. This is evident by the community response.
"So yes, GS could probably ignore that segment UNTIL AC is the best version of itself."
It should also be noted that the pre-emptive strategy you keep pushing as a response to a hypothetical scenario where one other company (Autodesk) decides to make all their formats proprietary is counter to the commitment to OPEN BIM that both GS and Nemetschek has clearly made.
Based on your posts, you support that Graphisoft should exclude multidisciplinary firms in its marketing strategies. Thus, you implicitly encourage those firms to go with the competitors on the market. Why?
So based on my post regarding where I believe AC should focus their (apparently very limited) development resources and why, you conclude what I think about their marketing strategies and hold me implicitly responsible for the success of "the competition"?
I'm sorry to say it but you just seem to ramble and I don't think we will get much further here.
Although it would be interesting to hear exactly what features and workflows you think GS should market to these large multidisciplinary firms, how that would win users over from "the competition" and if you believe AC actually would deliver on that marketing.
"So yes, GS could probably ignore that segment until AC is the best version of itself" posted previously by you, @thesleepofreason
Why do you support exclusive policies in marketing?
Graphisoft does not have to ignore that market segment while the opportunities to also work for/with that segment are possible and these multidisciplinary companies also want to have other alternatives because some of them are tired with certain services received from Autodesk for example.
@Mjules I think you should go read the Nemetschek annual report in this thread that I posted yesterday. You seem to think Graphisoft is centre of the Universe in terms of delivering software to the construction industry. Graphisoft is merely a cog in a much larger vision of where Nemetschek see their future.
I'd like to take advantage of your post to remind Graphisoft that Archicad also represents a heritage for the people of Hungary. The company must protect Archicad against any drift that only aims at capitalism to enrich itself without taking into account the quality of the various services it offers to its users.
@Bricklyne Clarence It seems you only focus on 2 market segments: individuals and small firms. How about multidisciplinary firms that use Archicad from prè-design to construction evaluation? Would you like the company to ignore them? ....
What percentage of total users are those multi-disciplinary firms of the total users who use Archicad?
More than 50%?
More than 20%?
So what sense does it make to focus the development of features in more than three versions now on firms of that kind when most of the customers who use your program are not those kinds of firms and also while the tools and things that those users want improved are likely to benefit the entire customer-base and not just a limited segment.
Archicad (and by extension Graphisoft) aren't what they are today and where they are today because of multi-disciplinary firms.
They are what and where they are today because of those individuals, small and even medium-sized firms that first bought into it and have loyally stuck with them all this time even as they're now trying to pursue a new segment of the market.
It might help them (and people like YOU) to remember that.
@Eduardo Rolon wrote:
The other item that is obvious is that they don't know how to use their software, they don't know about architecture and construction, and that whomever is advising them on their roadmap has no idea what he is doing.
That has been apparent for some time now, and as you've put it is probably the single most distilled truth about Graphisoft and their development of Archicad nowadays.
They don't know their users or how they work (not really), and to be fair that wouldn't be the biggest crime (it would be unfair to expect a Dev to know every aspect of an entirely different profession they were not trained in and how people in it work), if not for how seemingly disinterested and sometimes bordering on hostile they are to getting input from the same folks working in the field they're developing the software for.
And I'm not even necessarily talking about users here on the Talk forum.
Hearing tales from Beta-testers of how frustrating the process is/was for them just makes me wonder, ".......then who exactly do these guys get their feedback from - if they even do ever take any feedback?"
It's pretty clear that nothing that gets talked/complained about here ever sinks in at GS HQ, and they'll do what they want to do anyway.
Even the radio silence now in the immediate aftermath of what can only be kindly characterized as yet another disastrous release (as it was before the actual release), just bespeaks a company that's completely and utterly tone-deaf to a degree I've rarely ever seen before (....ironically, outside of this same company).