Graphisoft public roadmap - Follow-up conversation

[Gordana Radonic]

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.

[Rob]

Hi Torben,

I cannot possibly comment on German community and if that is the case indeed, I agree with you that something needs to be done. I personally prefer direct contact, but sometimes it is not possible. E.g. in UK we have restarted our regular Key User Group meetings in-person (in this post-pandemic world), so you'd better get in contact with someone from GSDE...

Re: Insider program - the idea was to expose local users to each other and remove "national silos" we used have before... as well as keep you involved on continuous basis. It would be interesting to know what doesn't work with Insider program in your opinion...

[torben_wadlinger]

Hi Rob,

there was once a very successful Insider Program. It was called Graphisoft Key Client Conference. There met all the insider from around the world once in a year for three days. There was intensive exchange and real networking.

All I get now are surveys. The last one was about how I feel about Graphisoft Learn. Really? 25 Years of experience of planning, modeling and programing GDL and GS asks me about Graphisoft Learn!

I learn something new every day and most of what I've learned in the past has come from talking to colleagues. Either at meetings or via the forum. Especially via the forum. GS will never see a single euro that I will spend on GS Learn.

I may sound angry, but I'm just disappointed. And I know from many conversations with colleagues that they feel the same way. And when I look here in the forum, I see that I'm not alone. This forum is an important source of information and decision-making for Graphisoft, because this is where the "informed minority" gathers. We are not complaining because Archicad is no longer Archicad, but because there seems to be a worldwide common sense about what Archicad needs. And Graphisoft is ignoring this common sense. 

[torben_wadlinger]

The problems can be summarised as follows:
1. GS develops things that nobody asked for
2. GS is not transparent and behaves like a black hole towards its customers.
3. new errors are added to the old ones that are not corrected (keyword: dimensioning, labelling)
4. instead of real innovation, there is only marketing blah-blah

If you look closely, you will see that many long-standing customers are writing here. If GS believes that the marketing success is based solely on the new business strategy, then you are on the wrong track! It is the long-standing customers who are the multipliers! And GS is losing them right now. That is what we are desperately trying to make clear to you here: you no longer understand us! You are doing things that we don't need! Take care of your core business. Because what GS is doing now is going down the drain. Anyone can see that. Only you can't see it. You're not developing fast enough or comprehensively enough. Archicad is becoming more and more like Allplan. Not good!

[Paul King]

I think the progress we are missing and frustration we are feeling at the sense of near stagnation in ArchiCAD's development  of features for architects is partly because most of the easy & cheap low hanging fruit for architects has already been plucked by the developers, where there is probably now more bang for the development buck in plucking the low hanging fruit associated with other disciplines that had until now been neglected - and partly by the simple lack of price competitive alternative options. 

Revit annual costs are, astonishingly, even more than the obscene pricing we are confronted with each year.  At least where I live.  

I have so far not seen or heard of any paradigm shifting developments from Revit that would justify the extra cost of jumping ship.  For a graduate nowadays (who will not be paying either way), however, picking Revit over ArchiCAD is sadly a no brainer because , irrespective of any intrinsic merit of one platform vs the other, most schools of architecture seem to get better educational deals from Revit (better kickbacks?) , & most BIM tutors coming in from industry  know Revit better than ArchiCAD meaning Revit is what most students tend to start out being most familiar with - and of course most graduate jobs in Architecture are for Revit users thereafter, just as previously in the same large offices they were for AutoCAD users.

Those who are already ArchiCAD users are captive to their existing investment and experience in ArchiCAD - the cost of change is too high and the benefits of change too low, and GS must know this well.  Shareholders tend not to have much long term vision, so even if the developers do have aspirations for architect users, they they are constrained by annual financial performance targets and risk management policy higher up.  Why seek to radically better serve your niche market when there is effectively no serious competition for your niche market.

It would probably take a well resourced third player to enter the market to shake things up to any significant degree, and right now it seems the market is just not large enough to entice that kind of financial commitment from anyone.

But who knows what impact AI assisted software development will have in future years however - both on lowering the barriers to entry for third parties, and on the ossified incumbent players.

[DGSketcher]

I think there's plenty of low hanging fruit to be harvested, but as you have suggested, shareholders (and marketing) don't have the vision to realise that while chasing the new feature set for the publicity, and keeping up with Revit, they have lost sight of usability. It's unfortunate because with usability comes productivity, the job becomes easier and more enjoyable, but I guess having fun while you're working doesn't register on the marketing selling point chart because it's all profits before people these days.

[jl_lt]

I do believe the documentation processes eventually has to change, Like in, no drawings. Focus on a great model and the software will take care of most of documentation with the architect guiding it (or at least the ilusion of control)  The contractor gets a full 3d model and all the info they need is there.  

Until and if that day comes, Archicad is currently stuck between 2 worlds:  the modelling is STILL great; you can do whatever you want with it, but the documentation suffers from a severe stagnation of processes. Its difficult, counterintuitive and in most cases MANUAL to extract and setup all the information one could get from the model.

Dimensioning, annotations, views setup and management and layouts are the main culprits for me.  The problem is exacerbated when projects reach a certain size and complexity,  and even more if little or big chnages still need to be introduced.

If they dont fix this, no matter how many new tools they add, you cannot fully benefit from them without fighting the software.

[mthd]

Primarily catering for the big end of town right now will not guarantee the continued employment of AC with multiple seats in these corporate offices. They have the resources to employ Revit as well if AC becomes too messy to use in certain areas and requires too many work arounds, when Other CAD like this can do these tasks with minimal fuss. You can easily get the sack when you neglect certain parts of your work that should be done correctly and now are taking way too long to complete. So it makes good sense to make sure all areas of the program are up to speed and working correctly and efficiently. Archicad has also become the slave to the corporate world and they are apparently dictating its future development as I see it. Just give the Architects a few things here and there in each successive version and they should stay on hopefully. Will another CAD software fill the market gap created by big BIM ? We all just have to wait and see.

[Rex Maximilian]

Several years ago when I was reselling, the largest firm in town here bought a license of ArchiCAD and paid for me to lead the CAD production of the project while training their team. Once the presentation was declared a booming success, they told me that the process had convinced them that BIM was the way, and they would start the migration from 2D to 3D BIM.

You notice how I mention BIM so much? That's because they promptly purchased Revit. Yup, ArchiCAD's success had convinced them to buy Revit. And yes, I made it extremely clear the success was due to ArchiCAD. They basically said that logistically they went with ArchiCAD only becuase I was available locally to take them through the project as their test case, but no one was with Revit; and that it was always in the plans to stay with Autodesk because they would bundle upgrades to their existing AutoCAD seats with Revit.

Graphisoft cannot compete with the 800 pound gorilla in this market. Yet, they are abandoning their core market to appease the large market, one which they cannot win.

When I asked my sales manager at GS what we could do to compete with that pricing, he basically stated that they weren't equipped to handle those kind of accounts (this was late '00s) in the support arena, so it would be detrimental if they closed these kind of sales. Seriously, that was told to me. I was basically told to stay focused on the smaller markets because they were an easier client to support, and easier to sell to. Now, they're screwing over these markets with their push towards MEP/S, which is a niche sector of an architectural firms worth.

[Rex Maximilian]

---

@mthd wrote:

You can easily get the sack when you neglect certain parts of your work that should be done correctly and now are taking way too long to complete. So it makes good sense to make sure all areas of the program are up to speed and working correctly and efficiently

---

I just spent 20 minutes trying to remove "one" internal post from a railing system.

Also, try changing a stair from the stair tool to be one pen color to another in the 3D windows or elevations. Soooooooooo many tabs and settings to do so. I called this out years ago with specific conversations with Laslo Nagy. He states how all of his reports go to R&D. And simply said, "Nah. we won't fix that. Let's keep making MEP tools, that 10% of our market will use.

[mthd]

@Rex Maximilian Wrote: “Also, try changing a stair from the stair tool to be one pen color to another in the 3D windows or elevations. Soooooooooo many tabs and settings to do so. I called this out years ago with specific conversations with Laslo Nagy. He states how all of his reports go to R&D. And simply said, "Nah. we won't fix that. Let's keep making MEP tools, that 10% of our market will use.”

Extremely Overdue ! Someone needs to create a thread on the priority fixes all of us AC users  need right away that are way overdue.

[mthd]

Spot on @Rex Maximilian “Graphisoft cannot compete with the 800 pound gorilla in this market. Yet, they are abandoning their core market to appease the large market, one which they cannot win.” 

Graphisoft, please look after your Architects and Architectural Technologists/Technicians/Draftspersons first, then you will ensure the continued success of Archicad. Fill the Niche market fully yourselves.

We appreciate the need to work in 3D BIM via 3D model sharing but Focus Focus Focus on Archicad first.

[mthd]

The research and future development of Archicad is obviously controlled by a team of directors who make the decisions on what to develop further and on what to research. Until that team has a member who represents the things we all are needing in the way of fixes and development we are stuck with the current system. This system is focused allot on collaboration and it appears that they would support us using other CAD if we could afford it that is ?

There are certain things on the current roadmap that we would eagerly await but we only have an outline of what they are proposing not any specific details. A team of users in our field of work could help GS greatly and the insiders program could yield some good results for us in the future. Let’s see what happens down the track.

I am hoping that “Editing Down to the Skin Level” and “A Centralized Attributes System” would mean good things for all of us. Like I said, we only have a rough outline at present and what that really means remains to be seen.

Where I come from some of the politicians say “to vote with your feet”, that means that you walk out and employ someone else to provide the services. I don’t agree with that motto in regards to GS & AC. I do think that GS are shooting themselves in the foot by the current direction by focusing on MEP and apparently neglecting core tools inside of AC. 

They need a dedicated team working on the core tools of AC to get them working correctly and to develop them further. Another team on new features and of course a team on collaboration. We do not know the full structure of how GS works at present but we hope for good things to come.

[4hotshoes]

I agree. It could not be possible for the programmers to know how we need to work. We use AC all day and experience what doesn’t work many times over. We know what would make work easier and save time. Programmers and directors could not possibly get to that level as we do. GS needs to listen to users and add them to the process of development and design. 

[Karl Ottenstein]

---

@4hotshoes wrote:

I agree. It could not be possible for the programmers to know how we need to work. We use AC all day and experience what doesn’t work many times over. We know what would make work easier and save time. Programmers and directors could not possibly get to that level as we do. GS needs to listen to users and add them to the process of development and design. 

---

This is the point of the "Insider's Program".  Please apply if you have not done so already:
https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Graphisoft-Insiders/ct-p/insiders

[thesleepofreason]

Unless you are chosen to be a part of the "panel" it seems to be nothing more than yet another way for DS to internalise the feedback process rather than taking feedback at face value. The fact that you need to be part of the panel to have acess to "insiders forum" or being able to "propose topics" is quite telling... and do note that that the requirement for the panel is to be "an expert holding important role in the AEC community". And as always - its covered by a NDA making it impossible to discuss our needs within the community,

So the point of the insider program seem to be marketing - as everything else GS do at the moment.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Perhaps you could have more faith in fellow users, rather than imagine a method for GS to listen to a room with 50,000 voices?  Even I'm not self-important enough to feel like I should be on the panel as my usage is not typical.  I assure you that expert users who have experienced every gripe that any of us have are on the panel.  Having more people say the same thing louder won't change what Graphisoft decides to do with that input.

The bottom line is that GS will do what they want to do regardless of who provides the input for whatever business reasons that they juggle.   None of us should feel hurt or left out by not being chosen.   We are represented.  Personally, I cannot fathom some of the product decisions or prioritizations that GS has made, but I also can't fathom a lot of Apple's, Microsoft's, Adobe's, Google's etc decisions either that seem really dumb to me... but those decisions obviously felt really smart to whoever made them with all of their user input (or not) and business model input.

[DGSketcher]

I can see there is movement on the "listening" front, but the rate of progress is painfully slow when it comes to reassuring those of us making a significant annual investment that we will ever see a return on it. AC is/was already feature rich, the problem is the new features are increasingly niche and for many of us irrelevant, and coupling those with new feature tools that are launched & fail (Param-O, MEP 27) or get parked in experimental (DG, PBR, Dark Mode!) and you begin to wonder how much time is being wasted. Search is one of the few benefits that affect my daily work, but that took two years to develop & implement when all the gaps in the application were highlighted. I have a feeling Design Options is going the same way now the limitations are being challenged by users, you know, the ones I mentioned a long time ago on the other forum for things like phasing and Display by Classification.

ARCHICAD - Designed by ... we're working on it... we'll let you know soon. Meanwhile here's some unstable code to play with. 

[thesleepofreason]

What I aimed to point out was that GS has set up a program which has obvious issues regarding complexity (perhaps even bureaucracy) and transparency while at the same time being heavily marketed. Given the current context this puts the insider program at high risk of ending up being nothing more than yet another mode of veiled validation for GS's decisions. Decisions which, as you point out, ultimately are driven by the preferences and wit of shareholders rather than users.

The enormous effort currently being put into reality detached marketing by GS into a stagnating product is a telltale sign of shareholders wanting more for less and it is understandable that GS are dragging their feet or shying away from doing things that could be detrimental to that - and this to the point that they are not even willing to introduce a voting system for a roadmap which they curate. Not to mention the long promised community wish functionality or a decent approach to bugs.

Remarkable how you ended up reading the post as an expression of self-importance, doubt in other users experience, or feeling of hurt.

[DGSketcher]

You know one of the buried but significant aspects of Karl's link is the list of board members. Try clicking on the names and reviewing their posts, then consider how well represented you feel with regards to future development and the frustrations aired in this forum generally.

[mthd]

Many are already part of GSIP and the few that are on the panel have a serious responsibility. Like I said above, this could yield good results for us but it will take some time to see them. I am very pleased with the work done with DG’s so far and I really like some of things proposed on the RM directly related to AC.

I am certainly not jumping ship or even considering Revit because one, I can’t afford it and two its only because Autodesk who are huge CAD conglomerate that have made it work reasonably well. I can’t see how that program is worth so much money IMO ???

What I do see, is that AC has the potential to be the number one solution with the right tweaks and development on the core functionality. I hope the panel will drive this process to benefit all of us AC mainstream users.

Archicad at present does get messy and time consuming to use when it comes to finding and setting line weights for elements. This is where I would definitely start with the development of the core functionality. That process needs to be simplified and made more direct. I have proposed some wishes in this area. The solution is very simple and I am frankly quite surprised they haven’t seen it or figured out how to correct it ? Any user of other CAD/BIM products can see it quite easily.

“link all you line weights to layers”. Step one: Have doors, windows and other openings on their own separate layers apart from walls. Step two: In the layers tab the ability to set the basic line type and weight for the element displaying on the floor plan (contour line). Step three: have sub layers for each elements other line types and weights ie cut lines and so on. That way you make it much easier to find those elements and to change their display for any view. MVO’s and GO’s can be controlled on an even finer level and making the whole program easier to use for everyone.

Just my contribution to keep ArchiCAD at #1.

[4hotshoes]

Hey Mthd,

Not really related to this thread, but since you brought it up. I have been given a simple way to deal with line weights using GO's and coordinated layer names or extensions. I do like the line weight hierarchy provided by Archicad with items cut. I make all of my fills a dark gray thin line, then use the GO to make all lines that are not annotations to be pen 100, which is .18 mm and black. To me this keeps things simple. But the layer names I use are grouped by numbers for easy reference in the GO. You can reference layer extensions, like ".annotation" to NOT change these. I have a screen shot. 

What I am sharing is adapted from the Shoegnome template, so I may be missing part of the total concept, but so far it is working for me.