We're excited to have published our roadmap!
We'd love to hear your thoughts and questions. Please feel free to use this thread for discussion.
Graphisoft Insights announcement: https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Graphisoft-Insights/Graphisoft-public-roadmap/ba-p/375281
Public roadmap on the Graphisoft website.
We all understand that the 3D structural model forms a critical part of the project and that can dictate how spaces are adjusted to allow for structural and MEP components. That doesn’t mean that the Archicad core development should slow down by any respects like it apparently has particularly with version 26. And what other professionals users have observed with prior versions.
Maybe I missed this but I can't help but to notice that there is no sign of Python or Grasshopper anywhere in the roadmap...
It's been a few years since you launched the Python palette, it still feels like a simple marketing scheme. The automation possibilities are completely crippled by the fact that you can neither create new objects nor deconstruct existing ones. Any plans for when you will enable better functionality in the Python palette, so that we can start automating our process for real (like most other programs can, Revit, 3DsMax, Rhino to name a few...).
I get that the Grasshopper live link can do some of this, but since it's release it's always been unstable to use, frequent crashing. With the startup time of Archicad this is not a pleasant ride... Additionally it relies on other software with separate license costs. At bigger companies where many colleagues can't handle Grasshopper, automation with Python inside Archicad would reach an order of magnitude wider.
For a modern professional program, focused on architecture, I think the priorities of development should be in Architectural design, not Structural/MEP. New design related functions, and efficiency improvements (such as automation) is to me what should come first!
So much for Graphisoft's promises. it brings into question the sincerity of the whole "Roadmap". Sounds like just advertising "hype", the end of which is more "hype".
But we'll see if version 27 delivers on any promises, if not, this could be the end of any trust in Graphisoft. Not sure that Graphisoft understands or cares as to what is at stake regarding their credibility?
In the latest ArchiCAD versions, the focus was certainly not put on the architectural part. It was\is that, maybe false impression, of few architectural features\enhancements on a whole more features for other parallel discplines .
As a long ArchiCAD user, I have, as others, a mixed Feeling about this roadmap (while welcomed). As an architect, I have also looked for the architectural features, and skipped all the rest, without ignoring them...I find the in place module editing feature situation just insane and maybe reveiling...
It seems that over 90% of the commenters here are in agreement that the resources and development of future features should go "back" into core architectural tools; both new features AND repairing/fixing/tweaking the bloated ones (the stair tool for instance), and drastically "slow their roll" on the MEP/S tools.
I'm just concerned our voices may be getting lost in this discussion here in the community board. I know Laszlo sends reports, but who reads them when he sends them and what weight do they have? To date, the roadmap hasn't been updated since its introduction. When will we be able to to directly comment on the items themselves, and vote on whether or not we want them, etc.
I have been away from the community since 2014. It appears that not very much has been applied from those previous requests ? I think you are all being heard but most of it hasn’t been applied into subsequent versions of ArchiCAD just yet. For whatever reasons and it’s not good to get behind in those urgent requests from the users here.
Many are describing that some things inside ArchiCAD are left underdeveloped and are “Dinosaurs” or like I said “Archaic” in comparison to what is out there with other CAD software. To be fair all CAD software will have its “Dinasour” components in them. We need to look at what we do have in comparison to others and appreciate it and kindly ask for what we urgently need. Hopefully those urgent things will get applied if the majority of us want or really need them.
The Issue creation on BIMx Mobile would be huge for non-Archicad managers to get into the model and make comments and request changes. That is if it is as easy to BIMx and does not require BIMCloud paid version. It could greatly enhance the project workflow
I'm sure it will require subscriptions to both BIMx Pro and BIMcloud SaaS. This has been an issue in the last few years that many of their feature upgrades to the next version require additional subscriptions... which is why there was pushback on the increasing fees for SSA due to lack of features for SSA subscribers only.
Archicad users have to pay many fees to get Archicad to function fully as it has been designed:
This is the reason why there are so many former Archicad users out there. I have talked with many architects that say that had bought a license of Archicad but never got off the ground with it. They were sold a promise that they could not afford to realize. Archicad should not be parted out into these small functional packages, where users have to pay more and more for one app that is incomplete unless you pay for all of the parts annually. It should all be one. I have been told by GS that the reason that all of these services are separated out is that not all users want to pay for all of those other services. Well I don't use half of the services in the SSA that I am forced to pay for. However, the MEP and Structural should be parted out as packages, because I have absolutely no use for those services. And yet we are all being forced to pay for them if we want to keep working with Archicad. It is simply hypocrisy! The world we all live and work in is bigger than one app (Archicad) we have many other expenses, subscriptions and service to pay for. Graphisoft just makes it frustrating to use the full intended design of Archicad by creating all of these additional expenses. We use to call this "nickel and diming". Clients hate it. I hate it. One fee for one service.
...and don't forget the 3rd party add-ons and external software needed to fill the gaps or provide missing features, like LAND4, Modelport, Din3D, Twinmotion/Enscape, Rhino (Grasshopper), Archiradar and so on....
This is the point I've been making over and over again for several versions now.
That it's simply not fair to keep making Architects and Designers essentially pay for Graphisoft to continue developing tools for other disciplines within the program and ecosystem (MEP/Structural/SAM/DDSCAD etc), that most of us basically don't use nor have any need for - and with no signs of any return on our own investment in license and subscription fees year after year, in the form of tools that we do actually need and use or would like to see improved and fixed.
I don't care what their overall market and planning strategy is at this point.
They've failed to make it make sense for us and I'm not really sure I'd care even if they did try, because at this point it seems like they simply don't care what we think either.
(Consider the fact that they're effectively outsourcing even the simple task of taking in these criticism and comments and having intermediaries and middle-persons do it for them instead. SMDH!)
And yes, "nickel and diming" is the exact correct expression used to describe what's happening here, or at least what most of us feel is happening.
The "Coming Soon" section of the Roadmap tells me that ArchiCAD 27 (And possibly 28 as well) will continue this trend of disappointing version releases that are heavy on tools we don't need (improvements to SAM and his buddy MEP, while Arch(ie) remains the redheaded stepchild.) and piddling tokenistic bread crumbs for the rest of us.
This is exactly the issue I've been harping on for years. The German-speaking region is responsible for at least a third of sales (Germany alone 25%, see Nemetschek AG annual report). In our countries, our planning does not end at a scale of 1:100, but we are also responsible for the implementation planning and detailing. And BIM is really taking off right now. However, Graphisoft has been neglecting our market for a good 10 years and is using the profit generated here to grow globally and develop the other disciplines. Long-needed changes, e.g. in the UI, are sold to us as innovations. The roadmap clearly shows that Archicad is falling further and further behind its competitor. The moment is coming when the top management must realize that marketing and double-digit growth in Asia and North America is not enough to anchor the product permanently in the market. Until now, Archicad has been supported by the loyalty of its customers. Through the subscription model, however, it has been clearly expressed that Graphisoft does not care about the customers and only the fast money counts (and to lead the customer into dependency).
Graphisoft wants to make Archicad a Swiss Army knife without understanding what such a knife is. It reminds of the cheap copies that always fail where the original has its strengths: precision, stability, usability, flexibility.
I would have liked Graphisoft to orient itself more strongly on the former role model Apple. Apple had shown the way with Final Cut: New development instead of continuing to maintain outdated software. I would really like to see an Archicad Next Gen. The previous one is frozen and only bug fixes are made. The new one will be developed from scratch with the latest technology. But unfortunately also here: money: 1 / brain: 0
It would seem wise for GS to provide all training for free. All of it! I say this because this is how you get non-users to become solid users that willingly pay the annual subscription. Otherwise, if you don't help them learn, you lose them to their old way or to new ways that do provide help. Then they stop paying. People will pay if they see value in what they pay for. There is no value for me and my firm to have and pay for MEP/S features in an architectural software. I don't even want free training for MEP/S features. While a small firm of 3 or less users may not care about BIMCloud and just use DropBox as most do, they certainly have absolutely zero need for MEP/S. A large 100 plus multi-discipline firm might, but many of them use multiple CAD apps to satisfy their client requests. I will bet the larger market is the small firm of 10 or less, because there are more of them and so many of them have not yet stepped away from 2D CAD and Sketchup. I know that many of them do think about making the switch. They are the real market. But they need help with feeling safe making the switch by having an abundance of good free training available. They need a reliable safety net. If you can get the little guys secure in AC, you have them for life. Big firms do whatever the trend is, because they can afford to switch. And they will switch away from AC if another begins to show more promise.
I know that GS encouraged this discussion for the new road map. And they must have known that many would be critical. But as we all give deep thoughts and words to what really should happen in the future plans for Archicad and have done so for 20 years. I feel that we are all yelling in a sound-proof box. GS is on the outside and not even looking in. They can't hear us. Or so it would seem, since nothing seems to change much. Why do we keep doing this? Why do we keep hoping that GS will someday peek in the box and notice that there are users with great ideas. Ideas that are even better than what they are working on. Ideas that would make AC a superior product.
When I was a user 23 years ago, we never had discussions like this. We instead helped each other and we were in awe of AC and looked forward to the next release of AC. Now we have all become cynical, even when GS shows us a roadmap of the future. I still hope a little, but I also worry that any new feature will be another half baked feature added to the list of "doesn't really work very well" used to lure future users. It is hard not to think that way considering the last 5 years of development. AC does not need to be like Revit, it needs to be better.