2010 GRAPHISOFT Customer Survey

[Brett Brown]

I would be interested in your views of the questions and how they relate to improving Archicad for it's users?

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this the first time Graphisoft has polled it's users?

[owen]

Brett wrote:
For those that haven't surfed the Augi forum,(probably not many) every year Augi list the most asked for features and then every member vote/rate there most wanted from 10 down to 1 i.e. 10 votes for each member. Makes you feel included. Here it is just pot luck.

Exactly.

The ArchiCAD wish (non-)system is a totally broken waste of time. There are fundamental productivity improvements going back over 7+ years that have still not been addressed, or addressed in a really poor (half-baked) way. Aside from the mountain of unfulfilled 'dreams' the lists themselves are a total mess - no way of tracking open/closed wishes, AC versions, multiple copies of essentially the same thing, etc .. total nightmare to find anything, no wonder nothing ever happens if Graphisoft has to look through it.

Graphisoft has to provide an open, managed, trackable (accountable) wish list system. Not only would it go a long way to lessening the feeling of being ignored many users have, I think it would lead to a better product. Currently unless you are one of the big AC users Graphisoft really pays no attention to your feedback regarding the program itself (vs sales). Every now and then someone from Graphisoft local or GSHQ may drop by to (pretend to) listen, but its usually just a marketing or appeasement exercise.

Some people may express their opinions on GS development processes in an inappropriate way, but this does not detract from the validity of their complaints IMO.

cheers,

a-mostly-happy-AC-user

[Anonymous]

owen wrote:

The ArchiCAD wish (non-)system is a totally broken waste of time.

I must agree with that. We already made wishes about wish management many years ago, I do not feed the list anymore.
However, Archicad can cover over 90% of the production of architectural drawings effectively. It annoys me a lot about the remaining 10%, like everyone else. But the overall picture remains productive and significant work is produced with Archicad
It is a fact. And the first criteria a professional should take care. Not the way people listen or not. Period
I think that GS listens primarily those who produce the real and the hard work and not those who spend their time on the forums just for polemics.
Like Neko.

[owen]

Philippe wrote:
I must agree with that. We already made wishes about wish management many years ago, I do not feed the list anymore.
However, Archicad can cover over 90% of the production of architectural drawings effectively. I annoys me a lot about the remaining 10%, like everyone else. But the overall picture remains productive and significant work is produced with Archicad.

Agreed - thats why i signed off 'a-mostly-happy-ArchiCAD-user'

Its just when you are constantly running into that 10% it feels like a lot more than 10%

[Anonymous]

owen wrote:
Its just when you are constantly running into that 10% it feels like a lot more than 10%

I know
But whining every 3 days is just a waste of time.
Better to cheat, hide the junk and... print

About wishes, I think it should be an instrument of work outside the general forum, with a limited number of contributors (sorry to say that) capable of evaluating the real importance of the wishes and interact with a partner of GS, like beta testing.. In fact it may exist already and we do not know ... But, given the results ...

[Anonymous]

I have been using AC since 4.5 and maybe have a slightly different take on things. I really do agree with most of the wishes/complaints that have been posted. I mean, I know you can do a whole bunch with SEO, custom profiles and Objective (a fabulous add on BTW), but why can't we do simple modeling without all have to resort to all these "work-arounds"? And why do things work differently from plan to section to 3d? Really........

Thank being said, I for one am glad that GS has been (and hopefully still is) looking to the future and not being led by user wish lists. Maybe someone with a better memory might comment, but I do know that in the past GS has leap frogged many of the wishes so many users were adamant about, with better and more forward looking tools and improvements.

Anyway, just another view..........

Don Lee

[Anonymous]

Don wrote:
I have been using AC since 4.5 and maybe have a slightly different take on things. I really do agree with most of the wishes/complaints that have been posted. I mean, I know you can do a whole bunch with SEO, custom profiles and Objective (a fabulous add on BTW), but why can't we do simple modeling without all have to resort to all these "work-arounds"? And why do things work differently from plan to section to 3d? Really........

Thank being said, I for one am glad that GS has been (and hopefully still is) looking to the future and not being led by user wish lists. Maybe someone with a better memory might comment, but I do know that in the past GS has leap frogged many of the wishes so many users were adamant about, with better and more forward looking tools and improvements.

Anyway, just another view..........

Don Lee

Yes. I've been using the program since version 3.43 and many of the major improvements have not only incorporated user wishes but gone beyond them, sometimes by orders of magnitude. Not always in their immediate effects but in the long term implications.

Of course that being said I think there are still quite a few "little things with big implications" that have been too long neglected. These are the small improvements that would make big differences to the end user workflow.

My best example of has to do with clean up in section. Not the bigger wishes for full intersection priorities between all the composites, etc. Simply having the separations between fills drawn with a pen other than the section outline pen would dramatically improve the quality and increase the possibilities for automating sections and details.