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.

[Romans]

Hi Bricklyne, thank you for the very well-written and appropriate reply to Karls's disrespectful and arrogant post. When I have read the post from Karl first I simply was without words.

I think most of the (”fewer”?) permanently active users here in the forum are long-term Archicad users with huge knowledge and insights into the software, There is also a long-time investment in this tool (a lot of money and endless working hours among others). They really care about it and are only interested to make it better (not only for themselves). These people does not deserve such an ignorant attitude (”even if it means losing some of us”). What would it be to lose such dedicated hard-core users? To get a silent community? 

[thesleepofreason]

Quite arrogant post that would be better ignored but since you point in my direction rather demeaningly it merits a response.

I'm under no illusion of GS business decisions being driven by anything other than profits, or ultimately Nemetschek's share dividend and I assume that there already are enough statistical valid surveys in place to that end - although I expect that they are focused on marketing and pricing rather than application functionality. So you miss the point of the request for a proper idea/wish feature - it isn't about providing GS with statistically valid information for their decisions but to make it possible for users to unify and amplify their voices and to establish a reference point for the need and wants of users that are interested enough in AC to be active members of the community. This could of course be done as a separate user initiative but GS not only overtook the old forum which likely would have been a better platform for that but also alluded to the timely introduction of "a feature that will help us process your wishes and ideas in much better way with a proper feedback". Closing in on two years and we still haven't heard a word about it from GS until now when all of a sudden there is this huge statistical/technical/organisational/whatever issue. Yes, in the end it's up to GS if they actually want to contribute to and interact with the community around their product or if they just want to use it as a source of information and target for marketing but it takes some ignorance to be perplexed by invested community members backlash to GS behaviour.

[jl_lt]

Hey! Rex finally got that coveted FBX feature which will benefit many. So why not?    Much more worrysome would be that no one writes anything

Anyway, taking 2 years to process and classify information they already have or should have doesnt sound about right for a technology company of this caliber. Also wasting 4+ years on sub-par features. 

Maybe something else is going on?

[Rex Maximilian]

Haha! I'd like to take credit, but I'm sure the reason for finally having FBX I/O had to do with their eyes finally being opened to the industry standards developing for 3D assets by way of their own research. I'm sure finding out. they're probably the last A-class level 3D software NOT to have it was a bit of an eye opener also. I'd probably say my ranting about it "delayed" it just out of spite! 😂

[mthd]

Hey Rex, you spoke a lot about a clear roadmap being provided by GS to us before it was even out. Did you have an influence on that or was that simply a coincidence ? Whatever the case we are grateful that we actually have one now to look at and see what is coming and what is being developed for the future. It makes a big difference to all of us involved.

[jl_lt]

Probably they got pissed and delayed it just to keep conversations going 😂

Joke aside, i really think it does help to reiterate these kind of things so that no one forgets, whomever it might piss off.   Little plants like the spiny sandbur (Cenchrus Echinatus) stick themselves to an unsuspecting host producing a very unconfortable itch and/or minor lacerations, making the host want to scratch it;  or in this case, hopefully making Graphisoft want to implement long requested improvements.

The roadmap is already there. how long will it take, that is what we dont know

[mthd]

Hi Karl, even if some of us are quite disgruntled at times we still use Archicad and we are still here. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the complaints about the AC26 release being very lean on content. Whether that was a hangover of the pandemic or not ? What if one or more of those coming soon features was put into AC26 like DO’s, would there have been as big a complaint ? If those features were ready on time that is. Maybe some of us will still complain and we probably need a complaints department part of the forum to keep it out of the public eye ? 

Not everything in Archicad is exactly right otherwise the roadmap lists wouldn’t be so big. It’s true that some of the basic functionality needs time and care and have been neglected or traded off for other newer features. As long as we voice our complaints in a nice way and keep on asking for what we really need, we might just get it in time ? I waited 20 years for DG’s and they are finally here. Hooray Hooray !

[Pato99]

I think this is absolute crap and I think this roadmap shows everything wrong with ArchiCADs progress.

People are mad because they were right all these years.

If you want to talk market share. AC is dying in my region, I can't find residential designers because Revit is taking over the market. There is no more value picking AC over Revit for residential design anymore. Revit is a standalone product that will continue to improve while AC focuses on other industries and drops the ball.  

The roadmap bs and all those features might as well be in the idea pool, there's no release version or date. In Progress, Coming Soon, Under Research... What does it mean? Are we getting Coming Soon content in hotfixes or is this V28 V29 V30 and beyond? if that's so the offering is trash and very heavily focused on one industry! If you don't agree with, let the votes talk. 

Take UE5 roadmap and the Microsoft roadmap, both massive with multiple products, massive user base while supporting countless industries. Still, they are able to support a voting system.

At least, drop the 'ideas pool' and make that an upvote system. Top of the list (if feasible) gets into roadmap, but if not, GS dev team explain why.

Found this in the wish list, quickly on it's way to the top. 

ArchiCAD Roadmap - Vote system - Graphisoft Community 

[Rob]

Hi Patrick,

Fair points and I understand your sentiment, knowing the Australian market fairly well. I appreciate that the current Roadmap format is not ideal and definitely needs some interactivity in terms of customer/user feedback. The good news is that we are already working on the concept how we could improve it. The idea is not just to implement some kind of Roadmap voting system, but couple it up with Wishlist and use those two aspects as a driver for our future Roadmap priorities and adjustments. We are in a conceptual stage and we do really welcome any feedback, should it be negative or positive as well as examples of existing and effective solutions. The ultimate goal of our exercise is to introduce more clarity and transparency in this area. However, that requires a lot of consideration in terms of technical and procurement aspects, e.g. connecting our internal systems and establishing processes that could efficiently cater for a swift feedback to our contributing community. The actual (current) content of Roadmap is rather different story, which I do not want to discuss now, I am merely trying to say that we are working on steps to significantly improve this experience for you.

[DGSketcher]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your update. I appreciate you have been around these forums for a while, so hopefully you can relate to the following.

Unfortunately your post simply reads as yet another message from the marketing department to be filed under "working on it" and "coming soon". The novelty of such platitudes is wearing extremely thin round here. We are fed this constant drivel of things being difficult, yet out of the blue we end up with multidiscipline software while architectural development has stalled. We have been promised a new MEP workflow in AC27, the official release date has come and gone and it still isn't currently fit for purpose, we've gone backwards. It's two years since this humble forum was launched with promises of a Roadmap and Wish list voting, but it took 18 months just to declare what was potentially on the Roadmap in a collection of boxes! And some of those "current" deliverables have been grossly overstated when you try to work with them. Experimental features don't really count as new tools.

I'm not sure what the mentality is at GSHQ, but even though I have been a user for 28 years, recently the software has suffered from snail like productivity improvements, it has become hard work, unstable and in many ways irrelevant. In some ways that is reflected in this forum with the lack of / or slow delivery of new forum features.

Sorry for the negative feedback, but I used to brag about using Archicad, now I just seem to be making apologies to my clients for the bugs and frustrations affecting the time it takes to develop my drawings.

B.R.

Trevor

[mthd]

Hey DGS, there is no need to apologize, you are just stating the clear facts about what many of us are noticing with the future development of AC. The focus is on other disciplines that should just be separate applications that we can model share with. Archicad BIMx and BIMcloud Teamwork are all directly related to AC. AC itself needs to have the full focus of improvement and development at least 75%. Till that happens it will be much of the same thing for the future. All the things listed on the roadmap that are directly related to Archicad should be on the coming soon list. If not, slowly but surely there will be an exodus to other CAD solutions that can do the work with minimal fuss. That’s the sad reality as much as we prefer AC over others that can easily and will change in the future to the detriment of AC.

[Rob]

Hi Trevor,

I appreciate that my reply could sound like schmoozing (technical term 🙂 ), but we are seriously looking into this. You are right, I have been around GS forums for donkey years now and that's precisely why I want to get this sorted. It has been and (unfortunately) it still is a pain in the neck that I have experienced as a customer as well as GS employee. The solution is possible but it's complex, so it takes a time, resources and money that I have to take care of... there are so many other projects that need GS's attention... as you can imagine. Anyway, I share your frustration and take your reply as an encouragement to get it fixed in a timely manner. I will keep this community posted with any developments / milestones achieved.

And just a note, I am not going to comment on the speed of product development as I am not really in the position to do so.  

Cheerio,

[DGSketcher]

Thanks for the response Rob. I can but wish you well in your endeavour.

[Rex Maximilian]

It's been six months plus now... Not one thing regarding the interactivity of the roadmap has changed since its inception. Someone could literally make a Notion page in one day that would be more useful than what is there now. Some feedback is better than none.

Graphisoft simply does not want our input there... period. Anyone reading this forum can plainly see the biggest wish/concern regarding future development is to shift the focus back to architectural tools; both new and enhancing/fixing poorly implemented ones (stair/rail). Input to the roadmap from the user base would upset the apple cart with their focus on MEP/S.

We are not blind as to what's going on.

I'll say it again... Six months with "no" development at all.

[Botonis]

This is from a discussion I had with Istvan Toth from Cigraph a couple of years ago....:

He said:

"Graphisoft has a test, where they see as result of the test how much the Architect loves ArchiCAD. We developed a test where we controlled the professional knowledge of the software, and fond out that most users knew ArchiCAD for only 20-25%, but where convinced to know it very well, and estimated to get to 80-90% on the tests."

Archicad is a software which has to fulfill the wishes of thousands of users trying to design different things, with different steps, and different architectural perspective. A bug is not always a bug (with some exceptions" but a conflict to the way the software thinks. A workaround is not just a way to overcome a theoritical bug but the correct way to translate the software process. For me the basic question is "Can I be more creative with Archicad or not?", "Am I the one who sets the Architectural Creativity Level or the software?".

What I can do is to optimize Archicad as a tool and get the most of it based on my Architectural expression. And then this tool becomes an instrument.

Nobody cared if Mozart played with an old, piano......................Only the music mattered. (and Archicad is not an old piano!!)

[mthd]

True and that’s why I try and learn something new to use everyday that I work with the software. It changes from year to year and it can be hard to keep up with. I don’t need to use all the parts of the program in my line of business. Big teams on big projects need to use much more of the capabilities and need to be skilled in many more areas of the program. They need more training as well. They also need to learn how to use other free form modelling applications and how to integrate them with Archicad. Musical instruments however is another big story.

[Eduardo Rolon]

• IIRC on that test the first issue is that a lot of questions are in Hunglish which are a pain to parse and a lot of users are not native english speakers which might skew the numbers to US, AUS, UK.
• Second point is that if the software is harder/difficult to learn and use then obviously users can only learn a fraction of the possible potential. Think how long it took you to learn how to use the new Stair tool.
• Third. Nobody cared what Mozart use to play since nobody could do what Mozart was able to do, the same with architecture. I don't get paid for using AC nor any other software. So software has to help me produce. I still enjoy doing CDs by hand but they are not practical so cannot use them as deliverables. Buying the same piano or a better piano than Mozart will not make me equal to him no matter how hard I try. And thinking that the piano builder is the creative one (like GS sometimes promotes itself) is nuts. Same mistake as to promote oneself as "We are the piano that Mozart uses, so we are the better piano…" as if Mozart couldn't pick another.
• Creativity has nothing to do with the software, as a 20+ year professor I have to constantly remind students that learning any CAD package will not make them better designers. Thinking about Architecture and problem solving will and for that you don't need any computer.
• Is AC a tool for architects or for BIM Managers?

---

AC is a production tool and the main target should be to make it as capable as it could be while making it as easy to learn as possible. If becoming and expert in Revit takes 6 months then AC should target 3 months at a minimum. Workarounds make it more difficult to learn and to remember that particular solution and, in theory, having/saving "Favorites" is counter productive since it doesn't let the user learn how to use that particular tool.

Since R08 I have seen how AC has become more difficult to teach with each new release and I am at the point with my students were the first classes are on how to simplify AC by removing layes, BMats, etc. This year I brought back the old Stair objects since most students cannot and do not have the time to waste learning how to use the current stair tool.

---

Before Revit existed AC was the most productive software compared to Architectural Desktop (easier to use) and regular CAD (faster to create and edit drawings).

This is not the case at this time. AC has shifted to be a tool for specialists.

---

The target should be for AC to become the "SketchUp" of the BIM world. The ideal scenario is for an architect who has "construction" experience should be able to pick AC and produce a schematic set of plans (or recreate one) without external help.

• If you need to hire a BIM Manager for a 3 person office then GS lost. If you need a BIM Manager in addition to the Production Manager (Architect) you definitively lost. BIM Managers should be a luxury not a requirement.
• If a new user needs 4 weeks of training to start using AC, then GS lost.
• If you need workarounds to do something then that is an optimization target.

---

AC can still do this since previous (20+ years ago) decisions have not been removed and they were designed with hardware limitations and by users who valued simplicity. Some examples are: Layer Manager( before the removal of the selection buttons in 26), Organizer, Original Attribute Manager. Examples that need a lot of work are: Stairs, Railings, MEP.

---

The easiest solution I can see is to define Work Environments for:

1. New users: This should as simple as possible for a new user to produce a CD set
2. Regular users: Workflow WE were due to limitations you need more experience with AC in order to produce the CD set more efficiently. GO's and Design Options belong here.
3. BIM Manager mode: Main purpose is not to be used for production but to specifically tailor AC to that particular office. This should be optional. Templates, Attribute Manger and Favorites Creation should be here.

---

Sorry for the rant but GS still keeps pushing me to change piano makers and I prefer not to.

[mthd]

Well explained @Eduardo Rolon, no need to be sorry either. You nailed it with your unique perspective and insight as an AC teacher.

I don’t think in Piano’s but in guitars, for me Fender fits my hand perfectly and some Gibsons and Gretsch guitars do as well. No matter how good my guitar is, if I am not a good player it will not sound good. 

To tell you the truth I don’t use GO’s because creating the rules confuse me. I am happy with MVO’s and layer manipulation. I love the new DG’s because of my first software being CA.

You do not need to use every scale or mode to be a good musician.

However using stairs and railings are a must to learn, no matter how difficult they are to use at present in AC. The problem is that when a stair case becomes more complicated in design you need a more complicated stair tool to get what you want.

The learning curve of jumping from this CAD to other CAD can keep you loyal to the one you learned at first.

Older Archicad was not as complicated as the New Archicad is these days. Everything is gearing towards 3D CD’s and not the old 2D CD’s and that makes things more complex before building actually takes place. MEP is all 3D now so we have to live with change.

[DGSketcher]

---

@mthd wrote:

Older Archicad was not as complicated as the New Archicad is these days. Everything is gearing towards 3D CD’s and not the old 2D CD’s and that makes things more complex before building actually takes place. MEP is all 3D now so we have to live with change.

---

Just to carry on the piano metaphor, there's no point in inviting Mozart to the party if the piano is out of tune and half the keys don't work.

You have kind of hit on the problem there @mthd. AC has at its core some absolutely brilliant 3D coding and I fully commend those who are tasked with making it work. Unfortunately as AC has become increasingly powerful on the modelling front the ability to extract and document that information has fallen behind. Hardware limitations of 10 years ago are very different to now and as a consequence we are all looking to deliver more documents from our models, not only for the wow factor, but also the increasingly complex process of demonstrating legislative compliance with 2D documentation.

So where has Graphisoft dropped the ball?

Well, you could start with the Project Map, the inability to create cloneable sub-folders means you have a choice of having multiple long View Map lists of irrelevant drawings or abandoning the cloning option.

Views should be controlled by Styles not left with loads of individually settings to be checked, copied, transferred between Project Map views.

Why do we need two different elevations in the project map simply because one has shadows and the other doesn't?

You can make a staggered section / elevation views, but you can't do that for plans?

Most View Map views are unique for documenting, but the Story / Plan views we have to juggle layers to avoid conflicting annotations between different layouts. (I also think this directly contributes to the vanishing dimension issue).

The detailing tool is a law unto itself and completely destroys the live section & BIM data workflow.

Have you tried dimensioning an inclined axonometric 3D document recently?

There is no simple workflow to extract a component and create a set of orthogonal 1st/3rd angle projections; instancing would help, but we've only been waiting 20 years for that one. 

We are invited to add annotations to our Schedule Views, but all those annotations will be lost without warning if you make the wrong decision when updating the Schedule. This is the kind of thing that only goes wrong once, because you quickly learn to find a different way to do the job that doesn't hit your profit margin.

So regardless of your discipline or the scale of projects there is plenty to be done at the core of AC if its to have a future. Perhaps @Marton Kiss is following this thread as well, in which case there may be some hope, but there again all these fundamentals may just fall into the "really difficult" or "possibly coming soon" development zones.

[Rex Maximilian]

@DGSketcher wrote: "So where has Graphisoft dropped the ball?"

I'll tell you this; back in the 90s when we would demo ArchiCAD to potential buyers, the motto we would shout from the rooftops was "This software was made by architects, for architects." Since then the attrition of people with a design or architectural background from the Graphisoft offices caused the loss of direction that was so pinpointed before. Industry educated personnel were replaced with people with no architectural background.

Also, for several years when we would have our resellers' meeting (both national and international), we'd have an audience with key departments where R&D and policy makers could hear from those of us in the trenches who KNEW what users wanted; who KNEW what prospective clients wanted that would influence their purchase and use of ArchiCAD.

That has been lost now. Now they concentrate on a few large clients and -- as seen with their ineffective roadmap -- are ignoring the needs and wants from the masses (their core user base).

It isn't sustainable. With the increase of the costs associated to use and stay current with the software, along with the R.O.I. that we no longer have, they'll soon price themselves out of their core market, and as @Eduardo Rolon suggested, it'll become a specialty software.

We all should at least take a Revit course for insurance.