General discussions
Posts about job ads, news about competitions, events, learning resources, research, etc.

Graphisoft public roadmap - Follow-up conversation

Gordana Radonic
Community Manager
Community Manager

Dear Community, 

 

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.

 

Thank you.

Gordana Radonić

Community Manager

316 REPLIES 316

Could there not be a user page that users create and list wishes for Archicad, and then vote on the list and present the top 100 wishes as a link here? But it would also be helpful to see what users rank as low priority. It would require planning and coordination and knowledge of systems that help with voting management. It would take time to develop a useful list. I mean useful in that each item would need to be broken down into simple, clear and understandable language without addressing multiple features in a single vote.  Yes, there should be general wishes like “revamping of the door and window tools”, which would need to have its own sub-wishes under that area to help GS and users voting to know what is considered a good feature to be included. Each item would receive an ID and could be discussed here for users input and refinement. 

Certainly the GS Roadmap should be on there. But there is so much more that is not on there. I keep hearing users would like most is that the current tools be fixed to work as intended. 
But even with a comprehensive list and 1000 users voting, would the decision makers at GS look at it, would it cause them to alter the development roadmap? Based upon the trend of Archicad development for the last 10 years most of use are likely doubtful. 

Todd Oeftger
AC27 Mac MacBook Pro 15", 2019, 2.3 GHz i9, 32GB, Radeon Pro 560X 4GB, 500GB SSD, 32" Samsung Display (2560x1440)

Survey Monkey would do it. We could rate each listed item on the Roadmap with 1-5 stars in terms of importance and relevance to what we do.

Todd Oeftger
AC27 Mac MacBook Pro 15", 2019, 2.3 GHz i9, 32GB, Radeon Pro 560X 4GB, 500GB SSD, 32" Samsung Display (2560x1440)

Every CAD/BIM software will have its weaknesses and to be fair we should address those things directly to GS and not make it too public. Here is the right place to make known what is not working quite right for us. People who use other CAD/BIM products or who are new may get the wrong the idea about how good AC is comparison to those others. I think the GSIP will turn out some good results for a future RM.

AC8.1 - AC27 ARM AUS + CI Tools
Apple Mac Studio M1 Max Chip 10C CPU
24C GPU 7.8TF 32GB RAM OS Ventura
DGSketcher
Legend

From the limited Graphisoft authored responses in this thread and after 28 years as a user I can only reach the conclusion that…

 

Common sense has left GSHQ.

Architectural development of ARCHIcad has stalled.

Flogging a dead horse is proving ineffective.

Graphisoft’s Greedflation strategy has been implemented,

And Ransomware has been legitimised.

 

Having a forum with nearly 60k users that relies on support from a handful of unpaid users while Graphisoft agents chip in very occasionally with insincere platitudes, clearly shows they lack any interest in their user base or their needs.

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

DGS, if we make enough noise they might go back to the old recipe ? 

Who remembers when Coca Cola changed the recipe to New Coke in the 80’s ? They were moved to go back to Classic Coca Cola. The reason was that they wanted to keep in front of Pepsi because Pepsi was becoming more popular in the 80’s. I think this is a similar scenario with Graphisoft Archicad & Autodesk Revit. New Coca Cola had a bit more sugar in the recipe to keep up with Pepsi’s sweetness. Less sugar was actually better for Coca Cola and so is less following of the direction of Autodesk Revit.

AC8.1 - AC27 ARM AUS + CI Tools
Apple Mac Studio M1 Max Chip 10C CPU
24C GPU 7.8TF 32GB RAM OS Ventura

I don't think recipes are the issue here. I believe GS are sufficiently deluded that they consider those of us expressing our disappointment here are members of a lunatic fringe or conspiracy theorists, that there are so few of us we are just an irritation. We have a parallel in the UK with Climate activists. Our Government is on a path to opening up new oil extraction, the fringe are rightly outraged and regularly protest, and the rest of the population is less vocal but they are definitely looking for green & better / cheaper energy solutions, but the current government continues on its path of eroding its climate commitments. They are unlikely to be in power at the next election in about a year, simply because they aren't listening to the voters. The same will happen with AC.

 

Having pushed everyone in the direction of subscription there is no longer any tied loyalty, given two similar products with similar price points, yet if one has far greater recognition and market penetration, where are you going to put your money?

 

P.S. I see that the forum now has over 72k registered users, (I was a bit behind in my earlier post), but I bet most of them are probably only here through ID registration requirements. I guess that puts us even further on the fringe, but it also highlights the need for full time engagement by GS on this forum and not relying on self-help. 

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

@DGSketcher wrote:

I don't think recipes are the issue here. I believe GS are sufficiently deluded that they consider those of us expressing our disappointment here are members of a lunatic fringe or conspiracy theorists, that there are so few of us we are just an irritation.


 

Ah yes, the usual  "...12 or 15 same disgruntled" people who are always complaining, as we were once branded by one of their bigger apologists and defenders on this forum.

As a card-carrying member of  that "12 or 15" complainers, I deliberately avoided taking part on this particular thread topic since Rob from GS chimed in, if only because I wanted to guage the level of frustration and from whom it was coming, and look back at it, it's fair to say that while there are some "usual" frequent critics here, there's also quite a few more people who don't usually "complain" or  chime in with criticism, or post at all,  and some you could even say have tended to be complimentary of GS in the past.

 

It's this delusion that they've let themselves be sucked into (GS, that is), that there are only a few of us who are unhappy with the current state of affairs hence why we're always complaining, while the vast majority of non-complainers or non-vocal users are (supposedly) happy with it, and thus they shouldn't change course or course-correct what they're doing.

It's a logical fallacy, that just because someone isn't speaking up, it must be because they're happy with how things are.

Sometimes people just don't have the time.

Most I would imagine don't have any faith that complaining or raising issues or dissatisfaction will lead to anything positive or substantive - a situation and scenario that Graphisoft themselves have helped foster to their advantage.

And then there are those who genuinely don't know that there is a forum where they can take their frustrations to, or who might know about it, but to their understanding ( again, justifiably so), Graphisoft aren't part of it and never pay attention to what goes on here, so why bother?

 

I can think of so many reasons of why people could be silent but not happy at all, rather than to fall into the easy belief (like they do) that everyone who isn't complaining is happy.

 

Well, now you have a data point that shows a smattering of people who don't usually post to complain......well,....complaining, and being unhappy.

What now?

Is it just a "fringe" lot of  us, or is this more evidence of a bigger systemic problem they have that they're choosing to ignore and pretend doesn't exist?

 

Remember that prior to their recent attempts at coming back into the picture, for the longest time we were always of the belief (or at least we were told) that Graphisoft do read this forum, even if they may not seem to respond to individual comments or threads

And then we learned that they don't actually read this forum and that what actually happens is that someone collates posts and responses for them to read, and so they are still nonetheless kept abreast of what's going on here and how people feel.

 

Which is problematic in a whole number of ways, starting with the obvious question of how do we know that what the're actually reading is what we're actually posting here, and not,...say, some sanitized, editorialized, edited and curated version, based on the person collating's personal opinions and feelings of the people posting here? (and we KNOW they do have personal feelings and bias against some of us here, as we've actually seen it in action in some of the threads where voices were either suppressed or downplayed. Sorry to call it as I see it)

 

As far as I'm concerned, that's not Graphisoft reading user comments and posts on this forum, but rather some other person's version of our opinions and posts (based on his personal feelings of both the individuals on the one hand, and their own ties to Graphisoft and the people who work there on the other.).

Ultimately the biggest proof in the pudding of whether they're actually reading or paying attention to what's being talked about, is the output in the final product, and we now have three versions going on to 4, showing that if they're listening to anyone, it's not the people who post  or complain here. And not just here but several other user forums and outlets where the level of frustration is just the same ( Slack, Discord, Reddit,...etc)

 

I'll circle back with my thoughts on this whole (fully predictable) Roadmap kerfuffel that they now find themselves in, but I just wanted to get this out of the way.

 

Anyone could have seen this mess coming from a mile away, given how they've approached this whole situation, and I always warned that if they treat a public Roadmap implementation as (just) another PR exercise and marketing thing instead of an actual tool and strategy to improve the software along with their relationship with users (as in, .....were they really serious about implementing a Roadmap for all the reasons there needs to be one,.... instead of,  simply as a means to shut people up? (as seems to be the case)), they were always going to find themselves in this quandary.

 

And here we are.

Politics and being a specific CAD software vendor do have some similarities when it comes to who wants what included in the future. I am not complaining but simply asking for things that I need to make my work and others here easier to do, if that is at all possible in some cases at least ? After all there is a wish list part of this forum and not all things will get implemented right away and some things may never get done. Some persons will not be satisfied no matter what they do in the future because that’s how they are as individuals and that is their prerogative.

 

If GS was my company then I would have a big say in the direction it takes similar to what we all do in our own personal businesses. In the end if I don’t like the direction GS is taking now with Archicad then I can look elsewhere if I choose to do so and that goes for anybody using this software. I am happy with the general direction so far but would like more emphasis on architectural tools as most of us do. So I make my wishes known and leave it at that and hopefully it may just get looked at and implemented in some way down the track.

Edit: AC28 is definitely stacked with MEP improvements when you read the coming soon part of the roadmap. Had the “ideas pool” been in the coming soon part of the roadmap, that would have been a big win for all of us needing architectural tool improvements. Once most of the MEP work is completed and the many “ideas pool” improvements are made and implemented, I think many of us should be content for a while ? Or maybe not because you always get those few who will never be satisfied lol.

AC8.1 - AC27 ARM AUS + CI Tools
Apple Mac Studio M1 Max Chip 10C CPU
24C GPU 7.8TF 32GB RAM OS Ventura

The GS brief for the roadmap should be quite simple really; we are all paying in to see upgrades that improve our productivity. That productivity is only positively impacted by improving the workflow of repetitive actions, or by simplifying regular modelling processes, not by adding unwanted features or complexity and certainly not by delivering upgraded tools that don't work (MEP27) or upgrades that are a work in progress or even just experimental.

 

Since AC23, GS have delivered very little that contributes to architectural productivity. Yes they may believe they have been busy if you look at the version history, but if you look closely you can see the drop off in architectural development towards cosmetic tinkering while more & more time has been poured into Structures & MEP. That's ok if that's where they see the market going, but don't expect users with no interest in those aspects to be writing open payments and not seeing a return on their investment. The current roadmap offers very little scope for architects to recover their investment and after the previous shortfall, another two years of S&MEP priorities has me wondering whether to continue supporting AC. In two years time will we be looking at AI and conceptual development for large commercial projects while drawing production remains stagnant for the smaller office?

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)
mthd
Mentor

To be honest, for a small solo practice “Archicad Solo” would suffice, that is if it was available in my region. I just wouldn’t use all those extras like bigger companies who take on that sort of work do. 

My plumbing is a drain pipe from the library or gutters and down pipes created from the Cad Image tools. I used to draw my in floor basic plumbing in 2D but it’s all 3D these days. So I can understand the direction taken by GS but they shouldn’t put certain necessary things on the back burner and just focus on MEP. As we all know GS are the salve to the parent company Nemetscheck and they will control what they develop and work on for the future.

 

The basic building elements like terrain, slabs, walls, doors, windows and roofs must have the focus for improvements including 3D physical based rendering. The rest can be easily done in other specialised apps because AC 3D collaboration specifically allows for that. I think GS themselves see that but have to listen to the parent company.

 

All the Architects see that and it’s really a waste of time to ramble on about all the fixes needed in the basic elements because they have to listen to the boss first. In the end whether we like it or not we are forced to take what we get and to be grateful for it. 

AC8.1 - AC27 ARM AUS + CI Tools
Apple Mac Studio M1 Max Chip 10C CPU
24C GPU 7.8TF 32GB RAM OS Ventura

I worked on the big projects for the last couple of years and we never used those MEP or Structural tools in ArchiCAD. There are external advisours for doing their work who send us IFC. And I never seen MEP guys or structural guys using ArchiCAD for their job. Never. 

 

btw It is frustrating how limited ArchiCAD is for big projects. I think Graphisoft is loosing a big market here. Crazy why they do not see it.

On a big project that's what I would expect to happen. But I also think there is scope for a set of basic tools for MEP to cover concept design on smaller projects where 3D model collaboration is not an option. The AC MEP are just a more appropriate version of beams & columns or other Objects, in fact you could view them as generic modelling tools. I'm sure someone will abuse them to create an architectural feature at some point e.g. neon lighting or a space frame structure.

 

I am interested in why you think AC is limited for big projects e.g. where are the "pain points" to use a popular term? 

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

There is definitely a need for the functionality of the MEP modeller but it's a shame that GS doesn't share such generic view of modelling (except as an justification of workarounds in an everything can be anything) as it means that the cost of development won't be fully recuperated but locked away in a niche. Its so obvious that functionality developed for MEP modeller would be very useful elsewhere - eg wall systems with control over corners/edges or tube objects etc.

Hi, same as @DGSketcher , i would also like to know what is the threshold at which you feel Archicad begins to breakdown on big projects.  Is it the project size itself? complexity? many buildings? number of layouts and views to handle? layers?  manually having to annotate hundreds of views and layouts?   being in the documentation process but still having to add little changes that mess up your dimensions and notes?    all of the above?

 


@jl_lt wrote:

Hi, same as @DGSketcher , i would also like to know what is the threshold at which you feel Archicad begins to breakdown on big projects.  Is it the project size itself? complexity? many buildings? number of layouts and views to handle? layers?  manually having to annotate hundreds of views and layouts?   being in the documentation process but still having to add little changes that mess up your dimensions and notes?    all of the above?

 


Sorry guys for my late answer. 
The list of possible improvements that I have in mind is pretty long and most of the wishes have been already extensively discussed on the forum, so I will add links to the respective discussions.

 

For reference, at the moment I am working on a mixed used 70,000 m2 floor area complex (three towers with shared podium) for planning permission. It has been fully developed in ArchiCAD by  4-5 architecture team.

 

In general I think ArchiCAD at the moment has very restrictive capabilities in regards to work automation and flexibility of model manipulation on a global level. Think about global management of attributes (listed on the roadmap link) or elements (creation of instances), limited control of geometrical relation between elements (railing that could be associated with selected stairs should be expanded to other types of elements).

 

 I also think that a better workflow for custom objects creation is needed (making Param-O more powerful would be great). Recently this wish has been expressed here.

 

I would also like ArchiCAD to be a better BIM project management and coordination tool. Think about a central project information repository (link to discussion) and better integration of issue management within Teamwork link. Also some sort of programmatic BIM coordination automation (something as powerful as Blueprints in Unreal) would be awesome.

 

The game changer (from the perspective of working on large scale projects) would be the introduction of elements' visibility control based on classification / properties (replacement for layers system). This function has been proposed a long time ago in this topic link and further discussed in this topic link

Observing which direction Graphisoft is developing ArchiCAD in recent years I have little hope that changes will move in that direction. Let's hope I’m wrong.


Observing which direction Graphisoft is developing ArchiCAD in recent years I have little hope that changes will move in that direction. Let's hope I’m wrong.

If we stop asking for these improvements it will never happen.

 

Thank you for your contribution, it is good to know that those of us who are in smaller businesses share the same struggles as those working on larger projects. I just wish Graphisoft would wake up to that commonality and start acting in all our interests instead of their own.

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

Completely agree with the approach;  Rex showed us the way with the FBX feature.  If we just all agreed in maybe 15-20 key issues and pressed on them HARD, we could get them sooner rather than later.   Then, the rest of the wishes could come.  

 

When i was deciding on wether to use Archicad or Revit, i actually wrote some big architectural offices to ask them about their experience with their software. They all answered, some with very lenghty and detailed responses. Even big time guys like OMA or BIG.  Most were more or less happy back then, but its not like they dont have issues with their preferred solution.  

(And @jl_lt -  I responded to the wrong post...) 

Unfortunately the most important issues are not as small and well defined as the FBX exporter but rather large and diffuse like:

  • distinction between information entities and geometric representation, 
  • instancing/typing, 
  • advanced positioning,
  • fidelity between 3D and 2D,  
  • and criteria based visibility control,

An easy top 5 to gather user support for as all issues are fundamental to all workflows and would have enormous positive effects on productivity. But they are missing from the public roadmap prompting questions if they are mentally or technically out of reach for GS. In either case it becomes futile to press for them (e.g. in Q&As) as the response naturally becomes defensively avoiding - "we have thought about that - but it is so hard to achieve". 

 

And in addition to that GS seem determined to burry any promise of user engagement through roadmap votes or idea/wish functionality by referencing even more technical/organisational/statistical challenges - avoiding any real chance for the community to consolidate their voice against the direction of the current development. In another thread Dataiku was brought up as a reference for GSs implementation of Khoros forum engine - too bad they can't replicate the product idea functionality...

Great items, but many users will differ, hence the need of concensus.  With 15-20 i didnt mean necesarily BIG issues. They could be small things too that enhance day to day operation.

 

As an introduction, i would propose the following criteria for beginning to discuss what these 15-20 items could be:

 

-feasibility within current state of Archicad code. It should be able to be started tomorrow.

-Respect for Archicad philosophy. Wishing Archicad behaved like CATIA is fun, but unrealistic. So items should support Archicad current flow, or represent an evolution of that flow.

-estimated %of benefited users.  A minimum percentage should be set, no matter if its small or big practices. i strife for 80%.

-reasonable timeframes. Even i feasible, if it takes 20 years to turn Archicad into a Nurbs base modeller, its of no real use.  Timeframes should be 1 to 3 years for most items, maybe 3-4 items may take 5 years and one or two on the 10-year timeframe, with the ability to add more 1-3 years items within a 10 year time frame.

-Ability to carry Archicad to the future vs catching up with the past.  For example: should they allocate resources to enhance 2d documentation or more on AI processes? is AI here to stay or is it just a fad? is BIM death?     Personally i think 2d documentation is an outdated artifact of the past and no 2d documentation should be printed ever again, hence no need for archaic things like pensets; there i said it.  But current software and industry practices still leads us in that direction. Is it ever going to change?

-Criticality. Can we or should we keep living like this?

-No Revit wanabe wishes. If you want Archicad to behave like Revit, use Revit. No hard feelings.

 

 

 

 

Reaching any sort of consensus around 15-20 items just won't happen - especially not if they vary in scope and are to be subjectively qualified (quite sure GS have a similar list with short term profitability added when justifying their decisions). For these issues it would be enough to, through user submission and voting, come up with an ordered list but there is not even a proper framework for that and GS sure seem reluctant to partake in building it.

 

If some sort of consensus is to be reached I think it has to be sought for fundamental issues which could be framed as questions if users paying for a modern CAD/BIM application should have to:

  • rely on manual methods of associating geometries with information entities, 
  • manually update placed objects when their definition changes,
  • manually reposition/create elements when references/definitions changes,
  • keep extensive track of how geometries behave/represent based on their creation method,
  • or create an ad-hoc information structure to control visibility.

Ideally GS should provide a clear position statement on these issues so that users can decide if it is worth the investment but unfortunately GS has lost themselves among the smoke and mirrors.

That's far too deep for the current development strategists, they probably consider the prospect of maintaining a much needed focussed & professional architectural design software to deliver documentation to the construction industry as outdated. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them see AC as an Application host, and start pushing more in the direction of the AI Visuals experiment. Why reinvent the wheel when others are doing it for you; even if the required integration becomes a chaotic mess of software failures. It shouldn't be a problem, I mean we're all adequately resourced with IT managers to fix these things aren't we?

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!