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.

[Gordana Radonic]

Hi all,

Thanks so much for your comments, especially @DGSketcher, @thesleepofreason, @mija, @Lingwisyer, @Algimantas Kuprenas, @Rex Maximilian for your questions!
For a start, I can answer your comments on the voting and interaction: as we mentioned in the announcement, we're planning to introduce voting in upcoming iterations on the roadmap. If you're available, we'd love for you to join our event today.
We'll be sharing more details about the roadmap and answering questions during the Q&A session, so it's a great opportunity to interact with our product team. If you can't make it, we'll be responding to some of your questions here on the forum. Thanks for your interest!

[Rex Maximilian]

I was happy to see FBX in the "coming soon" section. With the announcement of 27 coming in the fall though, I would hope to see it in an earlier hot fix release of 26, as opposed to six more months when 27 is released.

[Romans]

There is the TEC Preview coming in July. So you don't have to wait until fall.

[Nathan Hildebrandt]

Congratulations team. It is great to see this first step taken. 

I am that happy about it, I have already recorded my thoughts about it. 

https://www.skewed.com.au/blog/graphisoft-releases-public-archicad-roadmap#.ZC1R83ZBwmA

[ArchiMind]

Hi all,

I must admit I have mixed feelings about the roadmap.

Don't you guys have some kind of focus group before this kind of announcement?

Since V24, ArchiCAD improvements are mostly based on tools that are not related to architecture. Don't get me wrong, they are needed, but the ratio of development is off. Should be 70/30% in favor of architecture and the rest of 30% other.

It is a good start, but most idea pool  MUST be under the coming soon/ In progress tab.

Hope that roadmap is not closed and is open for change.
A voting system is a must so that YOU as a company knows where to put resources, and we as USERS  get the tool that we need.

Cheers,

Stefan Veselinović

[Jarrod Phillips]

Thanks Graphisoft for taking a step in the right direction! My first impression is that there are too many Structural and MEP features in the pipeline. I am excited about the prospect of a new GDL editor and RVT geometry exchange. As mentioned by others, it would be great to see a voting system integrated into the road map to assist Graphisoft in prioritising planned features.

Cheers!

[DGSketcher]

In-Place Hotlink Management is listed twice.

https://graphisoft.com/product-roadmap/idea-pool

I would hate to see the votes and comments divided between two threads for such an important wish, if/when we get to that stage.

[Noemi Balogh]

It is fixed now, thanks for your report!

[James Murray]

The first thing I did was uncheck the Structure and MEP boxes.

My initial impression is that there's a lot of items, and my second impression is that there's a lot of items missing.

I think this is the first public sort-of wishlist GS has created. Considering how long it took to do this, I assume it is considered definitive from GS' point of view. So when I type 'autotext' in the search and get nothing in any tab, that means autotext is complete as a feature. The mesh tool might get a couple of 2D tweaks, but the 3D is complete and can't be improved. Near-silence on Custom Profiles too, so their indifferent scale handling should be considered locked in for good. There's an 'Idea' that wall intersections, fundamental to the whole program, might get a little better some day. This item, e.g., was apparently considered and rejected in due course: https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Wishes-forum/Hyperlink-Property-Data-Type/m-p/319119 So things that Ming has told the community are On The List are, in fact, not.

I could Go On. I appreciate Graphisoft’s occasional efforts to appear that they are listening.

[Mjules]

The Quebec’s Architects Act stipulates the following: 

“15. The practice of architecture consists in engaging in analysis, design or advisory activities applied to the construction, enlargement or alteration of a building with regard to its siting, envelope and interior layout as well as to the materials and methods used, in order to ensure that the building is durable, functional and harmonious.

The practice of architecture also consists in coordinating the work of persons who, as part of architectural work, participate in the construction, enlargement or alteration of a building.

Respect for the environment and for life, the protection of property, heritage preservation and economic efficiency are part of the practice of architecture to the extent that they are related to the architect’s professional activities.” 

Actually, the integrated design process is a must!

To that end, I think, in the “Coming soon” tab page, the “design options,” the “distance guide for positioning elements,” the “Enhancement: Groups for Graphical Override Rules,” are very interesting for analysis and design, as stated in the law above. Those features have been around in Revit for a long time.

If I were Graphisoft, I would take the “Door/Window Tool,” the “Reflected Ceiling Plan,” the “Ceilings,” the “Early-stage Design,” and the “Early-stage Design to BIM” from the “Idea pool” tab page to add in the “Coming soon” one because those features are more pressing for architects in their architectural practice. I would also work on the “Morph tool” by creating an option allowing users to convert morph drawings into true BIM elements. That option could have helped the architects move more quickly from the schematic design phase to the development one without wasting too much time. 

I would postpone all of the MEP and structural features because they can wait for the future. MEP and structural features mainly concern “advisory activities” for architects as mentioned in the law above.

[Bruce]

This is great.  Kind of like finding out what you're getting for Christmas.  Thank you Graphisoft!

[poco2013]

I liked the idea of the public roadmap. But I note that the descriptions are very sparse. They are so generalized that it would be hard to comment on. More like disagreeing with the concept of "apple pie and motherhood". The proof is in the details and we don't have much,if any. 

If we are given the ability to comment and vote in the future, we need more details, I guess a roadmap with in a roadmap. This is particularly true with the interactive schedules, which in my opinion need a total rework, NOT just a few format changes. Can we get rid of the three schedule types and move to a more modern spreadsheet with access to all data and which would allow the user to configure/format the data within rows/columns.?

I particularly liked the old List schedules but they were so data limited and cumbersome to use to the degree they were unusable? I believe we can do better in that there are many C++ third party spreadsheet AddIns that would be an acceptable quick fix.

[Djordje]

While it is good to finally have the public roadmap, and to see that the product integration and the discipline coverage is increasing, an that the Graphisoft team got much better at presenting, there is one glaring omission:

Cleanup of the existing issues

As us dinosaurs know very well, there are tools, functions, and workflows that had never been DONE. Yes, they work, but at a certain point, it fails, and then... While there is no perfect solution for anything in any software, it would be good to see the item "Arriving beyond 80%" in the "Coming soon" or even "In progress" categories.

You have an extensive existing user base, Graphisoft. Please do not concentrate only on the new users.

+2 for tabbing and voting.

And, fellow architects... the arcane art of architecture is practiced in different ways in different places, and is often (gasp!) inextricably mixed with engineering, so please... stop whining about DDS CAD and structural integration. It is 20 years overdue (look at the "industry standard" and ask why does it look like a complete construction industry package?) and I for one support that direction of development, with one caveat: get out of the Nemetschek family, especially for the structural design, since the family rarely leaves Europe...

[Rex Maximilian]

I have no problem with DDS CAD. I just don't want to see ArchiCAD turned into MEP/S CAD. We're not "whining" that there are MEP/S tools, we're very concerned that it seems to have taken over more than 50% of the development. Why not simply create a sister app?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

---

@Rex Maximilian wrote:

"Why not simply create a sister app?"

---

Because they know it won't sell.

Or they won't get enough sales revenue from it to justify it's continued existence or cost of development resources.

Or at least they suspect it won't.

So to continue to develop these tools that 'THEY' feel are important for ArchiCAD's competitiveness in the market, they're forced to adopt this 'shared cost' approach wherein you have architect licensees and subscribers subsidize the cost of those tools development even when they know that most architects neither need nor use them.

There's a certain cynicism to that approach that I abhor, but that's where we are.

Like you correctly point out, and as I've suggested on many occassions, if they truly feel that this is a niche in the market that has to be addressed, then do it the way your primary competitor (whom they seem to be trying to emulate) are doing it, and make it a completely seperate (though still related) product.

Autodesk don't make Revit a one-size-fits all Swiss army knife for all disciplines.

They have Revit Archictectural, Revit Structural and Revit MEP.

If that's the model they're following, then follow it all the way through and not just half-heartedly like this.

Fact of the matter is that they've already tried this once before, several years ago when there was a brief attempt at an ArchiCAD-based Construction simulation and structional engineering focused spinoff ( I forget the name), but the botton line is that it didn't do well enough to still be alive today.

And it would be the same case today if they tried to go the 'ArchiCAD Structural' or 'ArchiCAD MEP' route.

They'd find tha the market just isn't there.

At least not enough to justify what they're trying to do now, so much so tha they have to burden the rest of us with the cost of pursuing it.

That's why Djorde's sentiment that "This is what the market is like today; just suck it up and accept it.", doesn't quite fly with me and feels more of an insult, because if that's truly the case, then this MEP/Structural/DDS CAD product would be able to support itself in that same market without my license fees revenue to support its development and continue existence.

No?

And at the cost of me getting a better version of the product I'm actually paying for and paying to use.

[jl_lt]

It wont happen, but It would be really interesting to know the process through which they reached to this conclusion, that is, to emulate the competition in such a blatant way. 

In truth, it would have worked if all of it was ready by now in archicad 26, but its far from being reliable and according to the roadmap its still years before they finish.  By that time, AI will be doing rebar for you in revit. 

I also find it very hard to believe numbers justify there is such a big unattended market for structural 3d software, and if there is, there are far better software options TODAY;  So, they either dropped the ball badly on their timelines but there is no turning back now or its just a whim or promise someone made to certain stockholder board "hey! Lets chase revit",     

Would we all like to see an integrated environment in which archicad works well with all of Nemetcschek line of products, like a happy sitcom family?  Sure! But not at the expense of your core strenght which is architectural modelling.   

Happy Architects promote your software with their engineers, not the other around. I hope all these proceedings dont end up alienating the current user base while not catching up on the supossed market they are after

[ArchiMind]

I agree to some extent. Especially concentration on the new user's part. If you make a product that experienced users can appreciate and make them feel satisfied then the good word will follow and new customers will come.  🙂

Developing new tools, and upgrading old ones are exactly what should be the focus for further development. Therefore the current ratio of development is too low for the architectural side of things.

It should remain a tool that was thought by architects for the architects. If there is a need for emulating "industry standard", it should be done in some kind of module system. So if one office needs one platform to rule them all, they can buy all the modules. 

To sum everything.
There is an appreciation for the new tools and features in MEP and the structural part of the things, BUT don't neglect architecture. Either do a 50 / 50 ratio or if it is impossible it should be 70 / 30 for the architecture. 

Cheers,

Stefan 

[mthd]

Cool ! that it was presented simply and easy to understand IMO.

There were allot of generalizations made or the concepts of general ideas. 

I picked up on “Skins Based” something to do with modeling ? If that means that we don’t have to do so much complex profile management, then that’s a good thing.

I also picked up on “Layer Sets” I think that we all spend allot of time on, or at least I do on creating them for all my different views. If that becomes much easier then that’s a good thing too.

More work on Attributes Management to make things better or simpler I hope.

I have said it before but maybe the team focusing on Archicad should be much bigger and more focused than it is now so that you Architects do not get neglected as you are now taking a back seat to Structure & MEP etc. I am just an Architectural Technologists but when you have so many platforms to support something inevitably gets neglected.

I will take a wait see approach for AC27.

[Tim Ball]

Like others, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the road map but as Djordje pointed out in his comments, there are a lot of issues with old tools we have been using for years that are not mentioned. I couldn’t see any reference to:

• Window and door tool upgrades particularly interfaces with wall in section
• Roof and slab edge detailing
• Improvement to render image quality without needing to export to separate render or photo editor
• Integration of renovation filter to complex profiles
• Access to data within complex profiles
• Alignment of the element data listing where it currently differs in layout depending on how you access it

[Steve]

Access to data within complex profiles

Yes, like being able to get the material fill pattern names via a tag especially in section. Ie you tag the fill created by the section and it lists the name of the fill you click on.

[Eric Xue]

是的，我认为需要一个通用标签来标记任何对象的建筑材料和表面，而不仅仅是特定对象，或者列出所选对象的所有建筑材料并选择要显示的。这将大大提高工作效率

Yes, I think there is a need for a generic label to label building materials and surfaces of any object, not just specific objects, or to list all building materials of a selected object and choose which ones to display. This will greatly improve work efficiency