Roadmap is MEP and Structure heavy

[Rex Maximilian]

I peeked at the Public Roadmap and by using the filtering tags, there are more roadmap features for MEP and Structural than there are for Architecture.

If the fee for "Architects" is $975/year for SSA, shouldn't the focus be on developing more tools and features for architects? Why is the focus now outside of our discipline with MEP and Structural?

We need architectural features to drive development. This is ARCHI-CAD. Can someone please explain why the migration to engineering features is dominating the Roadmap?

[Erwin Edel]

My thoughts and questions exaclty!

[mija]

Just commented this on roadmap!

[thesleepofreason]

---

@Rex Maximilian wrote:

We need architectural features to drive development. This is ARCHI-CAD.

---

I don't think that the future shown by the roadmap will do much to change the calculus for architects decision making regarding their software strategy. Design options could be something that puts AC in a good position but it is worrying that it is considered to be coming soon and we have yet to see any information about how it will work. Schedules and the GDL editor also have potential but need to be part of larger efforts regarding object making and information/text handling.

So yes I agree that we need more focus on features that have an obvious positive impact on the workflow of architects using AC - whether it is implementation of currently missing commonplace features or improvement of already implemented but since abandon features.

[DGSketcher]

If you exclude the BIMx features (it is a linked but separate piece like DDS), the architectural content becomes even less assuring.

[Rex Maximilian]

True, the amount of BIMx and BIMcloud features makes it seem like less and less new features devoted to the core program.

[Rex Maximilian]

Who saw this...?

Outsource Archicad tasks to BIMcloud

BIMcloud can perform complex, resource-intensive tasks (publishing, Hotlink updates, etc.) instead of Archicad. This frees designers to focus on their Archicad model.

Does this seem like they will be taking OUT features from ArchiCAD and putting them in BIMcloud, and unless we pony up EXTRA for BIMcloud, we'll be out of luck?

[DGSketcher]

I saw it. It makes sense to leverage a server if it isn't doing much. If the intention is to make AC a BIMcloud client and strip out stand alone basics for publishing etc then that will backfire. Many wouldn't want to set up a server for a small office.

[Rex Maximilian]

My fear is that they will require a BIMcloud as a service subscription to do these tasks.

[runxel]

That is something they already mentioned in the last what-ever-it-is-now-called event.

And it doesn't seem to be a "only in the cloud" model, but rather a augmentation, a hell lot of big offices have asked for like eternity. If you want to publish a bit more than a garden shed it takes time. And you can't work while it publishes! So this makes absolutely sense and will crunch the waiting time significantly.

[Rex Maximilian]

Just the wording was ambiguous. I certainly hope it remains in ArchiCAD, and I can understand the need for having it "outsourced."

[Algimantas Kuprenas]

As I understand all things will remain in Archicad just if you have BIMcloud server you can schedule some of time consuming tasks to it. Drawing updating, publishing and similar, so you can work on your local Archicad while BIMcloud is doing publishing tasks, so you don't need to sit in front of Loading screen all day. . .

[Djordje]

Well... a building contains the structural and MEP elements, too. Being able to handle them in the same model in the same software is something that the "industry standard" has been boasting for a long time, and had built the following on. You might not need it... as you don't need the 100hp out of 150 in your car's engine, but you still have them, IF you need them.

Archicad is getting better for having the infrastructure, related solutions, and the power, to cater to multidisciplinary offices. From Graphisoft point of view, having 300 individual customers, or a multidisciplinary office with 300 licenses is not the same, as the number of the licenses might be the same, but the client requirements are QUITE different.

So... when commenting, be aware that YOUR perception of what Graphisoft should provide is just that, your perception. I am griping about the structural connections being geared towards Nemetschek family products simply because these products are NOT used, or even heard of, in the region where I work. It is, actually, my problem.

Opinions are not facts. They are opinions. Everyone has one. Including Graphisoft.

Oh, and, BTW... lunch break and leaving the office are the publishing times...

[Rex Maximilian]

I have to respectfully disagree Djordje. I understand some firms have multi-disciplinary departments, but most of us use consulting engineers for MEP and Structural. I certainly don't feel that MEP or Struc. features should be ignored, but the bulk of new features and improvement of existing features needs to be predominately focused on architecture.

The root of the original post here was addressing the fact that the Roadmap contained "more than half" the features dedicated to MEP and Structural. That is disproportionate to their user base. Unless I'm mistaken and over half the users of ArchiCAD are MEP or structural engineers; and I don't believe that to be true.

...and of the remaining architectural features, most of them were regarding BIMx and BIMcloud integration. Something that would not be presented to basic SSA members. What are we getting for our $975 per year?

Do you feel that it is properly balanced having the majority weight of roadmap items dedicated to MEP/S over architectural?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly with this opinion.

Architects and architectural designers are the vast majority of Graphisoft's customers and license fee payers.

And most of these architects (a) don't work in multi-disciplinary firms or environments and (b) work in municipalities that expressly bifurcate an architect's role in the design and construction process from those of the structural, mechanical and other engineers and consultatnts.

That latter one is significant in that not only is it an aspect of how the AEC industry works in other countries and regions, but there's a legal and liability issues as well related to an architect or AEC professional not licensed to taking on those tasks and roles, assuming them in their own mandate.

It means that even if we were inclined to or wanted to, it wouldn't be advisable for us to dabble in the structural or mechanical design aspects without the stamp or seal of a registered professional of those fields actually assuming the actual responsibility for them.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that, from the perspective of what most architects (and indeed the sort of traditional kind of customer that Graphisoft use to boast of catering to), these SAM and MEP tools are just a blatant waste of development resources largely funded and financed by my license and subscription fees as the professional whose profession actually forms part of the product's name.

I understand that in some regions architects are expected to provide information like the SAM and other MEP design work as part of their remit, but if the argument is that there's a significant number of these to justify taking the development of the program in this direction for what,....like 3 or 4 straight versions now.....at the cost of developing tools for the rest of us who are actually shouldering the financial burden of them doing so,,...then here's idea.

Split the program, and have an 'ArchiCAD Traditional' that's architect-centered and design-focused, on the one hand, and on the other have an 'ArchiCAD X' or 'ArchiCAD Structural/MEP/Whatever' which, though using the same base engine but with the added MEP/Structural/maybe Enviro analysis or other tools that Architects don't necessarily use as their primary tools.

This way you'll be able to tell from the licenses sold of each exactly how much demand there is for these tools, and see exactly whether it's justified to keep using the license and subscription fees resources of one camp to facilitate the development of tools of the other camp.

I realize I'm simply describing turning ArchiCAD into what their primary competition already currently is (where you have Revit Architectural, Revit Structural and Revit MEP), but I see no other way of making it fair, because right now from our perspective we're paying fees year after year, to see tools added to the program that we'll never need nor use.

And that's simply not fair.

On any level.

Or at least make them separate plugins or addons that you can purchase seprately, and that would be another means to see just how much revenue each camp  is actually providing before determining how much development resources shoulld be devoted proportionately to whichever side.

I'm going to posit that Graphisoft already know the answer to this and don't need to conduct this little experiment or go down this route to find out if there really is sufficient demand in the market to justify burdening the rest of us with this 'spread-the-cost' strategy.

I will simply never be convinced that there are enough ArchiCAD-using structural/MEP engineers out there, or Architects requiring these tools that outnumber the traditional sort of ArchiCAD users who feel their needs have been neglected for far too long, to justify going in this route for 3 or 4 straight versions now, and from the looks of that roadmap, for the foreseeable future and future versions as well.

It just doesn't make sense to me as  a development strategy to pursue, and just feels more akin to an insult to the very people who've been loyal to this company and program from it's earliest days and help bring it to the level it is in today.

I understand the need to grow your customer-base.

But it should't be at the cost and punishment to the ones that brought you to where you are.

[Rex Maximilian]

This is exactly what needed to be said in detail. Thank you for taking the time to express it! I am going to "Accept as Solution" so it is pinned at the top. 

[Laszlo Nagy]

I have removed the "Solution" from Bricklyne's post for two reasons.

A) This discussion is not about a problem in Archicad for which there is an objective solution that people can apply to solve that specific problem. So, for this and similar threads, a Solution is not applicable. About such a topic, people can mostly voice their observations and opinions.

B) The point Bricklyne bases his whole argumentation on (separate Revit versions for the three disciplines) is non-factual. See my above post:

https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/What-s-new/Roadmap-is-MEP-and-Structure-heavy/m-p/376743/highlig...

[thesleepofreason]

The function is clearly used here and in other threads as a way to highlight what the tread starter think is important for the discussion - isn't that up to the tread starter to decide? If you think that there is a semantic issue then I suggest implementing the ability to just pin replies or completely remove the ability for solutions on forums where you don't think it should be used. Going in and changing the decision of the tread starter simply doesn't look good - especially not on a topic like this.

And if you think there is a factual issue. Firstly, in no way does the reply hinges on whether or not Revit subscription is discipline divided, it is merely a side note that doing what the reply suggest would turn AC into Revit, it might be false but it doesn't matter for the point being made and thus its contribution to the discussion. Secondly, it would be better if you just pointed that out (as in your first post) rather than stating it for a reason for you to take action as an admin. As it stands it is likely to be read as there is something fundamentally wrong with the reply and since there isn't its hard not to see it as suppression of an opinion.

[jl_lt]

Is not easy to argue with chatgpt and google search, but i think wether Revit is /was separated in modules is not revelant. What is relevant is that Archicad is, for all we know, chasing them (at a very slow pace), and apparently almost no one is happy with the current state of Archicad, its developement cycle as expressed in its roadmap, its current leadership and Archicad´s future which gets bleaker by the day.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Thank you!!!!

[Rex Maximilian]

The fact remains that Revit DID start out as separate programs, unlike the way ArchiCAD is doing it. The Revit architecture users weren't necessarily subsidizing Revit Structure developments. Revit Architecture had its own development of features independent of the others. When they did merge, it was simply merging existing softwares with the genesis of development for those other programs already done.

For the past four versions, we've been paying our money and GS has been giving us tools that are either MEP/S based, or needed an ADDITIONAL subscription to BIMcloud SaaS. In version 24 (I believe) the only feature Mac architectural users got for our $800 was Dark Mode... and even that is still not fixed.

You are deflecting the issue by posting about forum policies and ancillary Revit references. You should be commenting on the initial posting, and what has been relayed to GS and what their stance is on supporting architects with architectural features and more importantly, fixes or enhancements of existing arch tools.

I appreciate that you're really the only moderator who faithfully participates, but you missed the mark on this one.