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?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

---

@Rex Maximilian wrote:

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. ......

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.

......

---

Why would he?

He clearly doesn't care about that.

If he had an opinion to offer about it he would have done so instead of resorting to this fact-checking nonsense and proper forum posting rules and policies schtick.

How much do you want to bet that if you go to the posts with people asking about problems in the program and with solutions posted and accepted as solutions,  that among those "accepted solutions" (and still standing), are posts that have in them non-factual and incorrect information, but which still haven't been "demoted" from accepted status for having "non-factual" or incorrect information?

This is just a commentary that he (or they) wanted to make about this thread, and he made it.

It's the sort of thing a person does when you're arguing with them and they start spell-checking you or grammar-checking you instead of actually addressing your point.

[Rex Maximilian]

And that was NOT cool removing his post as a Solution, for lack of pinning features. His post expressed in great detail exactly what my initial post intended and as the originator of the post, I felt it was important to highlight his post so that it was read not only by forum members, but highlighted for GS.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

And what's even more ridiculous about what he just did was the justification he's using for doing so, which in itself is not only ironically non-factual but a lie as well.

He claimed that he did what he did because (....and I want to make sure I get this right with his exact words so I'm not "non-factual" again...)..

"The point you base your whole argumentation on (separate Revit versions for the three disciplines) is non-factual. "

And also,:......

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

(bolded part mine for emphasis)

That's a lie.

My "whole" argument wasn't predicated on a single throwaway example I gave regarding how Autodesk apparently used to do it with Revit and seemingly now don't any longer.

The easiest way to test this is simply remove that example from my post - or even the entire paragraph wherein I mention Revit, and see if the argument still stands.

It does.

So it's clearly not what my "whole" argument is predicated on.

I don't even know where he got the notion that it was.

It just happened to  be a convenient point for him on which he could pick his fact-checking nit and then base his ensuing action on, and to go on his little beaurocratic tick about forum policies and posting rules.

That's another way in which you know he didn't care about the argument or discussion being had.

He never asked himself whether any of the points being raised were still valid DESPITE that piece of Revit "non-factualness", or even in the absence of it.

But at least now you know that if you wish to have a "pin" function to their forum format in lieu of designating comments as solution, you can simply make that wish and have it forwarded to GS and they'll get right on it.

Because as we all know so well, they're so soo sooo very  great at responding to user wishes.

(**insert eyeroll emoji here**.........

....or do we have to wish to get those functionalities as well?)

[Laszlo Nagy]

I re-read your post. I agree that me saying "your whole argumentation" is not appropriate.

So, let me rephrase that paragraph: 

"You argue that Archicad should have discipline-specific versions. You then state that there are separate Revit versions for the three disciplines. This latter statement is non-factual as there is only a single Revit version. It was true at some point in the past, but no longer. This post of mine is about that specific point only."

About me chiming in: I try to not provide my personal opinion in such discussions because I work for Graphisoft (as an external contractor) and what I would say could be interpreted as something coming "from Graphisoft", so I try not to do that. That is not my role on these forums. 

[Laszlo Nagy]

Bricklyne,

The point you base your whole argumentation on (separate Revit versions for the three disciplines) is non-factual. It was true at some point in the past, but no longer. This post of mine is about that specific point only.

As far as I know, there are no separate Revit versions for Architecture, Structures, and MEP for several years now. They have been combined into a single product several years ago. If you go to Autodesk's website, this is what you will find:

https://www.autodesk.com/products/revit/overview

So, no separate versions for the three disciplines.

I actually asked ChatGPT about the date of the change, and it answered the following:

"Autodesk Revit Architecture, Structure, and MEP were last offered as separate products in the 2014 release. Since then, Autodesk has combined the functionality of these three disciplines into a single product, Revit."

"The current version of Revit, as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, includes tools and features for architecture, structural engineering, and MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) design. This single version of Revit provides users with a comprehensive set of tools to design and collaborate on building projects, from concept through construction."

This 2014 date may not be accurate (ChatGPT can do that), so I checked another site, and it stated:

https://www.cadtraininginstitute.com/know-all-about-revit-architecture-structure-and-mep/

"Revit Architecture, MEP and Structure are no longer separate products as of version 2017. There are however separate parts of the software platform. Each has its own functions relevant for their purpose."

[Bricklyne Clarence]

So is your suggestion or point that Graphisoft should stay the course and keep intergrating these kinds of tools into ArchiCAD at the cost improving tools for Architects and architecture-focused concerns?

Oh wait, 

You said you don't really have an opinion on that (.....one that you're offering,

at least), i.e.....the ACTUAL discussion at hand,..... other than to fact-check me.

My point in bringing up that suggestion (based as you claim that it was factually wrong) was to point out that in doing so (splitting them up) it would reveal just how much of a demand there is (or not) for these tools that Graphisoft are insisting on intergrating into ArchiCAD  - just based on how many licenses of those discipline-specific versions they would be able to sell.

(....again,.....or not)

That way we would know to what degree the rest of us that are paying these subscription and license fees year after year and version after version (while not getting our money's worth) -  are actually being burdened with subsidizing the support of development of tools that we don't need nor use nor are clamoring for, all  at the cost of improvement of the ones that we actually do use.

But thank you for the fact-check.....

.....and also for COMPLETELY missing (or ignoring) the larger point and thrust of the argument and discussion here, even as you entirely didn't address it at all.

You sure told me.

I'm certain we're all better off today with that piece of factual knowledge ......and a continued diluted ArchicAD.

And for the record, I don't really care that you undesignated my response as a solution as the original poster decided to do so.

I didn't even know that such a functionality existed for thread-starters in general, nor did it matter to me whether any comment I contributed here was designated as such or not.

But it certainly seemed to matter to the person who started the thread.

As it also mattered to him what the really important and significant pertinent point of the discussion was (and I would imagine it wasn't fact-checking).

As thesleepofreason has pointed out and alluded in his post, taking the action you did in the way you did it (which indeed is in your right and power as admin or moderator) seems to come off as pointlessly petty and derailing of the discussion as opposed to the supposed spirit of openness that Graphisoft is supposed to be adopting now.

thesleepofreason put it far much better than I did.

But what do I know?

You guys can run this place as you see fit.

You're doing a bang-up job of it so far.

In that spirit I  fully expect this response to be deleted for its bluntness and 'snarkiness' .

[Bricklyne Clarence]

I pointed out the same in the Autodesk 2024 thread I started when someone mentioned the roadmap had been published, and to put more exact numbers on it, from what I recall, in the 'Coming Soon' section or tab:-

- Purely Structural/MEP features (with no Architecture, and not Architecture combos), there were 12 (out of 23 in total)

- Purely Architecture related features were 2, ...as in TWO.....out of 23

Two versus 12 just seems insane to me given the backlash and firestorm that they've been through in the last couple of versions. It's like nothing is getting through.

I want to give them the benefit of doubt and claim that those 'Coming soon' features were probably already set in stone as the next-in-version features for the upcoming version, before they devised this roadmap and therefore their hands were tied, but then how does that explain that it's more or less the same for the other tabs 'In progress' and 'Under research'  as well.

Only when you get to the 'Ideas Pool' (which looks like a glorfied Wishlist section, special list), does it start resembling what the development of a program geared primarily towards architects might researching and developing for future versions.

Which begs the ultimate questions;

How far down the road are any of those 'Ideas Pool' features actually going to make it downstream to the 'Coming Soon' tab let along to the actual program?

Is there a timeline?

Will it be before a good number of us actually retire from the profession (I'm very serious about this)?

It just doesn't look good, and I'm hoping for the sake of being partly optimistic that there's some element or level of flexibility in that Roadmap order, that would allow them to reconfigure it and re-prioritize items later on, because that first draft does NOT look good at all.

[Rex Maximilian]

- -

[Rex Maximilian]

The fact that after many versions since its inception, the new stair tool and rail tool still take several minutes... several... to create the most simple of stairs or rails because of the interface. Even if you want to simply make the symbol all one pen in 2D or 3D, it takes many, many steps and many tabbed parameter options to do so.

These tools, among others, need to be fixed and improved... as opposed to the current amount of development going towards MEP/S tools.

[Laszlo Nagy]

It seems that we may need to amend the Forum Rules to make it disambiguous what the "Accept as Solution" button should be used for and when it is relevant so it is not open to interpretation. We plan to discuss this at our next end-of-month meeting.

If you wish to have a Pin functionality on the Forum, I would suggest that you make a wish for it so we can forward it to GS for consideration.