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.
It certainly can be incredibly frustrating when you need to pay for all the extras that you don’t need and then have to pay extra again for those things that you simply cannot do without.
It would be nice if the PBR rendering solution inside Archicad was complete enough so that you didn’t need to purchase an Enscape or Twinmotion etc. If anything was urgent inside Archicad this would be a good starting point to consider. Redshift has many limitations, maybe they could remove all those limitations and have it fully functional right inside Archicad ?
When you have many user business models to cater for things can and do get complicated. The commercial world is controlling the direction and development of Archicad at present including all the add ons that come with it.
Ok they can do that but just have a bigger team working directly on Archicad and it’s functionality and that may fix things for everyone ?
If we want things to be more simple then we may have to consider other options like Archicad Solo.
Graphisoft's strategy for ARCHIcad needs to change, the current direction of half-baked and irrelevant tools is undermining confidence in the product. They need to change to a simplification of workflow / tools without loosing functionality and deliver tangible user productivity improvements. Whilst versatility is useful, complexity is never a good in a work environment; the job can be stressful enough without constantly trying to remember where those settings were that you changed 2 days ago in your software.
Hopefully if at all possible, most of the users here on the GSC do have enough time to continue to outline what urgent changes, they would like to see implemented in future versions of Archicad.
I know that we have made many wishes here and spent allot of time even detailing what we would like GS and Archicad administration to develop further for us in the software. However if the wish list system is not organized more closely and carefully it’s not really clear enough what they should be working on as a priority to keep us all happy.
It looks like the current system is not working sufficiently for us at present from all the feedback that I have read here. Are we just a minority of users that are being ignored ? If so what category of users are we in when we make these wishes ? Some are too busy to read or even post on the forum.
I like to keep the tone positive and professional and not be sounding like a complainer. Please, all you experienced users please keep making your excellent positive suggestions and don’t get upset if they are not implemented just yet. keep on posting your wishes. I personally appreciate the hard work you all put into help making Archicad an up to date competitive CAD system for all of us users.
I have proposed several times that we need to establish priorities and make a list of the 20-25 more urgent wishes. In fact, i wouldnt call them wishes anymore; i would call them "FUNctionalities Long OVerdue as demanded by the client". Currently its like if the client (we, the people) paid for gray tiles in the bathroom and the contractor (graphisoft) installed a blue carpet... In the porch, and with aditional costs!. These FUNlovs might:
-Aim to bring Archicad to 2020´s functionality standards.
-be divided in categories. Something like: visualization, file handling (modules here), 3d modeling (all tools go here), documentation and publishing, attributes, gdl, integration with other software, and yes, maybe engineering and potentially decades long developments like future integration with AIs
-create the framework for smaller, more adhoc wishes to be also implemented
-aim to allow archicad to handle any kind of project scale without having to use arcane procedures
-aim to reduce workflow complexity while allowing the user to increase complexity if they choose to do so. Integration instead of complication.
-be feasible within current archicad technology and structure. For example, we can wish a nurbs modelling interphase in archicad all we want, but it probably is not going to happen. A more feasible wish might be: better file import from nurbs modelling software. Something like that.
-benefit the largest amount of users given the necesary effort to implement. So things like rebar, while useful, its safe to assume are needed by a very small fraction of archicad users (but its in the roadmap, so...)
-cover all the range from entry level to power user functionalities
-establish an incremental time frame. That is, attack first things that can be implemented as soon as possible and go from there. 1 year, 3, 5 and 10 years timeframe should be suitable for implementations of different complexity. Example: keynotes and other niceties could be added tomorrow if they just bought cadimage. Etc.
This way, archicad growth in time would make some sense, as current roadmap seems completely random and lacks any apparent kind of vision, except for the emphasis on structure and revit wannabe stuff.
Otherwise, the vast array and variety of user wishes gets dilluted, assigned a number and implemented at the pace we currently know.
Anyway, as the roadmap is already here, it might be too late for these kind of efforts, but I hope, and i mean really hope the roadmap still has some flexibility to it and that Graphisoft didnt show everything and actually kept some cards under their sleeve
The prime communicator between us the GSC & GS needs to completely oversee the wish list forum for us. They need to fully organise the wish list forum by asking the questions about what is urgent and then most of us users will need to be contacted for a response for the system to work correctly. How that process works right now from what I have been told doesn’t appear simple enough.
Credit where credit is due, Archicad 25 & 26 have addressed cabinetry and library part maker and if we are involved in interior design, then our ship has come in with these versions. So they are not completely focused on structure and to finish the job with structure they would need to implement reinforcement as you have outlined above.
From what I can tell and from what others have asked for and what maybe urgent to work on, could actually be the “Mesh Tool” first ? (starting from the bottom up of a building).
Obvious Basic Elements Wish List categories:
1) Mesh Tool
2) Slab Tool
3) Wall Tool
4) Column Tool
5) Doors, Window & Opening Tools
6) Cabinets & fixtures
7) Beam Tool (Ceiling Tool if there was one includes MEP)
8 Stair Tool (bracket intentionality left off because it puts a cool 😎 emoji here from my decade old iPad mini)
9) Stories Tool (lift Tool if there was one linked to MEP)
10) Roof Tool
You get my drift. (10 pillars of building development right inside Archicad). What are the urgent wish lists for these basic elements as requested by the GSC Archicad users ?
In Archicad 27 something will be the prime focus and be kept secret until the release. We the GSC AC users should be able to ask nicely what we would urgently like to see implemented in Archicad 28 and so forth. We use the “KISS” method in Australia, that is “Keep It Simple” the final “S” is left off because I like to be professional about it. No one in GS is stupid they are all very intelligent folks. I like to be realistic and I am in total respect for all the wishes made by other professionals who are very intelligent Architects and other users. All professional users need to be engaged and consulted.
here are my top 10 wishes for architect 😊
1_ Freedom of movement of archicad objects rotation on all axes by default no need to add code to rotate an object
2_ a NURBS tool that would allow organic modelling or the use of a NURBS shape as a construction plane
3_ updated wall tool like columns and beams (segmented wall)
4_ segmented polygonal element for slab ,roof and mesh are forgotten slope management in slabs, and variable position of reference line for roofs
5_ curtain wall improvement yes again, still can't make curved panel or curved crossbeam, can't change the surface of a custom panel directly without coding ............
6_ improvement of the beams, we still can't bend a beam with two different altimetries and don't ask me to use the guardrail
7_ improvement of the level dimensioning, in case I use a rotation of my plan view UCS =45° the symbol and the text of the level dimensioning can't stay horizontal
8_ zone display on several levels with a segmentation possibility for a single zone, the segmentation will allow to manage the height of the different parts of the zone which will facilitate the placement of the false ceiling and the calculation of the volume to be heated
9_ the possibility to read the modified information in the model comparator, today the model comparator can show us the modified elements by their information (property) but cannot show the information that has been modified
10_ improvement of the shell tool, for the revolved méthod the possibility to have a starting profile and a second finishing profile, for the Rule method the possibility to have more than two profiles if there is a limit of number of profiles.
graphisoft will sign it and the user will choose the number that suits him
When we list aims to a road map...today, I add just one ting... and this is...
...that in sections and elevation uncut lines in the background doesn't cover any more cut lines of the foreground... too often the case... like her again, and again
Archicad is a vast 3D BIM system and not everything in it is going to be on a par with other CAD systems out there. Other CAD products will have things in them that will appear to be “Dinosaurs” in comparison to Archicad as well. There will never be one CAD product that will outdo them all. That simply is not realistic. What they decide is very urgent to work in Archicad, is not a simple process to determine. It shouldn’t be just because other CAD can do this and that but more about what us as the users require to get our work done simply and efficiently. We will all have our different opinions about that as well.
It shouldn’t be just because other CAD can do this and that but more about what us as the users require to get our work done simply and efficiently.
And that sums up where Graphisoft need to go with their Roadmap. The whole design process hasn't evolved that much since someone drew some lines in the sand. We are in the business of communicating our Client's need to the Constructor/Builder. We don't need three tools to do one task, we need workflows that deliver with as little complexity as possible. Developing software to address an infinite number of modelling possibilities whilst still not having reliable view, annotation & dimensioning tools is kind of missing the point.
I completely agree with you we don't need more tools but more or less generic tools that allow us to solve a wide range of problems in archicad the famous "workaround method" which works fine.
Concerns the introduction of technology in archicad
for example for the NURBS technology (if this kind of technology is planned) I see this technology introduced in all the archicad tools in priority in the shell tool, in the tools option menu we will have two polygonal generation modes "Classic, Automatic (NURBS)" with various possibilities and warnings on the use of both solutions.
it's like having a hierarchical system at the tool code level
I imagine this code-level hierarchy system in Attributes and Properties too 😉
>Timeline (for 4D management)
> Algorithm choice code ( Nurbs or Classic )
>Tool option (according to the previous algorithm)
the automatic method is supposed to completely free the tool from all modeling constraints and a great decrease in performance in return, and it is the user who will choose to sacrifice performance for modeling freedom, and this will allow graphisoft developers optimize the Classic Method to obtain the same modeling possibilities without constraining the user in his modeling 😉
Looks like our plan documentation needs much work from what you wrote above DGS. I didn’t put Dimensions, Annotations, Views or GUI wishes on my list above. Are you able to direct us to a specific wish list that you are pointing to above ? If anything was super urgent it would definitely be in these categories and absolutely everyone of us would benefit from an upgrade addressing these areas.
I don’t know of a 2D wishlist & I have seen enough of how GS develop to know it would be pointless. I have made various suggestions over the years, some detailed, but these days as I have suggested above GS need to carry out a general review of all the CAD basics.
Apart from the unsettling instability of 2D dimensions over the last two versions, it can be hard work doing basic dimensions on 3D Document axonometric views. I HAVE to use this process on a regular basis and it takes significantly longer than in 2D.
Why are the text settings / formatting dialogs all different for text, labels & dimensions?
Why cant we assign font styles on a project that can be updated in all drawings from one setting?
If I want to add to my dimension text I have to make two pointless clicks before I can start editing.
The Detail tool should work as live sections by now.
It should be possible to assign Styles to elevations and sections, instead we are left trying to identify mismatched settings between views.
Elevations and sections should be merged, and they should have a hierarchical tree in the Project map that allows cloning of all or part of the tree.
Why after four years does the macOS still have Dark Mode GUI elements that are impossible or difficult to read?
There doesn’t seem to be logical focussed workflow from the Project Info to Publishing and everything in between, but I don’t think that is one that will be resolved quickly or to everyone’s approval.
Personally I don’t think that the Roadmap - Ideas, even scratches the surface of the many requests that have been made to improve the day to day use of AC over the last 40 years.
Regarding dimensions, I once worked with Chief Architect that had true associativity where editing the dim would change the length of the element associated. I could select a wall and walls connected to it and they would move together in the desired direction by editing the dim. It was very helpful. I am surprised that AC has not yet do that.
Me too CAV6-X10. Also Revit and many other CAD applications work similarly. I have ranted and raved about this being implemented in Archicad for years now. To me, that is the most urgent priority for Archicad above and beyond absolutely everything else.
“I have made a suggestion that they can place Archicad in an automatic measure mode, that is whenever you click an element the measure tracking pallet pops up automatically and gives you a relative measurement to the nearest reference point. Then you just input the new distance and wham it moves to the desired location.”
And yes the dimensions can also be associative and move the elements that they locate as well.
For those not familiar with how Chief Architect works and to help explain what we mean above, please see this video link.
Right now, I just wait one second till the blue location circle (snap guide) decides to show up and then make my moves. I must find out how to get the blue circle to show up faster in the settings dialogue lol.
I'd vote no for the dimensions adjusting the elements, but then I have never used a program that has it.
Just my opinion.
The snap delay is in your Work Environment.
But if you set it to too small a time delay, you might get frustrated the snap references keep appearing all of the time.
Or you can leave a short delay and then just use the keyboard shortcut to activate instantly - best of both worlds.
What would be a more acceptable delay time, 0.5 of a second ?
Excellent tips BTW.
They key for me with Archicad is to work with it and the snap guides from version 19 help out allot. With Archicad we can get down to finer level of 3D & 2D control than you cannot get with Chief Architect.
Chief Architect is faster for cookie cutter homes because it’s built like a modular component building system. As soon as you need to do something like slanted walls and a higher level of complex modelling, it slows down because you need to start using many work arounds to get the shape that you require. You can easily do the more regular shape buildings of the past and present but not to the degree of Archicad.
Sure Archicad has it’s limits but at least we can import from Rhino (NURBS) based shapes, even if Archicad is not a NURBS based system.
I'd vote yes, I have used a program that uses dimension adjustment and it is amazingly fast, effective and intuitive -- no learning curve. It doesn't seem to affect any other feature and certainly does not cutter the plan. It is especially useful in laying out new plans when you not sure of all the dimensions or the affect of one on the other. All this can be done or fixed in minutes or less. Really, the only advantage in Archicad is the multi-story adjustment which I seldom use.
But, to be sure, to add this in Archicad now would involve quite a bit of programing and time. Considering that the present system works OK, even though is quite a bit slower and not very intuitive. it is still acceptable. IOW, Not going to happen
Hi Gerry, I have read your posts on Chieftalk in the past. Yes I absolutely agree about CA being good for a quick concept model up option in the US particularly. Other Archicad users will import a DWG file right from Chief into Archicad to finish up the documentation process. I prefer to just use Archicad now because where I am from the CI tool add ons are specific for my region. I might still use CA here and there when I need to.
I am sure they will speed up Archicad and make it easier to use but in their own special unique way.
Press "q" and snap-point highlights instantly.
I can imagine that with an update of that feature: Distance Guides for positioning elements – Roadmap – Graphisoft
the interactive dims may come.