AC 13? AC2009?

[Anonymous]

For a long time I have agitated for strategic thinking by senior management in Graphisoft, on the future development of ArchiCAD. Of course, from a user’s perspective, there is very little we can ascertain except by what we see shipped with each successive release.
On the basis of current and pending releases this forum contains much discontent regarding the pace and quality of change and development.



In years past ArchiCAD had a defining set of tools. Now we see significant competitors emerging who are not only cashed up, but are offering newer software with significant new features that are better implemented and more stable. For example:
• Native 3d modelling tools that use a graphical interface, included in the software.
• Parametric objects that can be assembled with relationships to others.
Of course these are but a few of many issues.
So how does one compete?
Given the resources of the competition some lateral thinking is required.



The answer already exists although the potential has been missed.
Graphisoft has developed an add-on strategy for many tools. So, when Graphisoft needed a quality renderer for ArchiCAD, it included a licensed version of Lightworks*. This approach enabled a key feature to be provided, that was beyond Graphisoft’s resources to develop.
So for the future, why not embrace some global partners?** Allow them to share development cost and risk. Build their components into the base software, and let them get appropriate remuneration for their contribution. Why is this win-win?
• ArchiCAD rapidly gets features that are long overdue, or new features that assist in delineating it’s place in the market.
• Graphisoft software engineers can concentrate on core programming, integration and optimisation.
• Partners may get renumerated less (per seat) for their product, but see revenue for every seat of ArchiCAD sold.
• Partners have a vested interest in developing excellent tools, as they play a real role in the continued viability of the software in the marketplace, and see fiscal reward for their work.


Right now, there are a few examples that would make a significant contribution to the next version of ArchiCAD, for example Cadimage’s “Revision Manager”. So let us users all hope that Graphisoft Management are brave enough to take some fundamental steps toward securing ArchiCAD’s future.




* Unfortunately most users will acknowledge that the implementation of Lightworks in ArchiCAD is poor, while experts are even more scathing about how ineptly this has been handled! A rather unfortunate precedent, but one that need not be repeated.

** The new mantra across many industries is globalization. When implemented it also involves risk and investment sharing. My interest in aviation prompts an analogy to Boeing and its 787. (Accepting of course this programme has had some hiccups, it nevertheless is widely applauded as “the future way of doing business”). This precedent shows it is not “too hard” to adopt risk sharing partners and define appropriate rewards in order to beat the competition to market, and create cutting-edge technologies. How much easier when only software is involved?!

[stefan]

While I understand your reasoning, I also see a problem: cost of licensed components.

Many existing CAD applications use several "components", licensed from other vendors:

-- ACIS or Parasolid modeling kernel (e.g. in AutoCAD, MicroStation)
-- Microsoft Visual Basic For Applications
-- LightWorks Rendering (e.g. VectorWorks, FormZ and ArchiCAD)
-- D-Cubed constraint management (almost any MCAD software)

Each of these components might have a different licensing model, but it basically comes down to:
-- a fixed fee to include the component in all your products (around $25.000 for some of the compenents, per year)
-- a cost per shipped/sold/licensed application (e.g. $200 per license).
-- a percentage of the product license (e.g. 7%)

The product vendor needs to pay for this and will probably start to calculate how the end user can finance this. Graphisoft has not changed the price of ArchiCAD when LightWorks was included, but they might do so if these components significantly increase the cost of the product. Other companies embedded more and more of these external components, e.g. 3ds max includes Character Studio character animation, Reactor Physics simulation, Particle Flow, Mental Ray rendering, which were all commercial add-ons, each with a fairly high price. They did not raise their license price, although they all have been introduced during an upgrade version, which does not come for free. It might be an approach to add new features, without the burden of having to develop them completely. It worked for Autodesk 😉

[Petros Ioannou]

Well there is always the option to create modules for an application.
So there can be an AC with or without lightworks - with different prices and target groups.
Someone could argue that you can get 3d party addons in the same way but....
The main problem with the third party addons is that they follow the specifications of their developer (even in their user interface) and do not share the basic concepts and characteristics of AC.
So in every new addon one purchases, he has to learn from scratch some things . So the overall "feeling" and ease of use is lost in the way.
The other issue with addons is that if they where developed and delivered by GS they should work with each other and with the existing tools (For examle no-onr forces Cadimage's addons to be compatible with Cigraph's or vice versa)

[Anonymous]

By the way i always wonder

Why do previous versions addons have to be recompiled EVERY new version.
This has to stop. That way we have to pay money to upgrade our plugins when all its done is a simple recompilation.

[Anonymous]

Regarding developers having their own 'style' to their tools, that is where GS as main integrator would oversee development, especially as these are to be integrated into the core toolset.

As for cost, well if you go and buy (for example) all the Cadimage suites you would add thousands $ to your overall cost. But by adding them to the core program they could be cheaper, and enjoyed by all.
As they would ship with the core product , the management issue for users of updating the core program and then all the add-ons could be avoided.

Finally I agree with the sentiment of the last post - why everything has to be recompiled with every release is a big issue. Surely software can be smarter than that...

[Thomas Holm]

rwallis wrote:
For a long time I have agitated for strategic thinking by senior management in Graphisoft, on the future development of ArchiCAD.

This is a request that has to be directed at Nemetschek AG who own both Graphisoft/Archicad, Allplan and Vectorworks, as well as Maxon/Cinema4D and some construction software brands. Some long-term strategic thinking as well as investments in both marketing and development is definitely needed, as well as making the direction taken public.

[Anonymous]

rwallis wrote:
Finally I agree with the sentiment of the last post - why everything has to be recompiled with every release is a big issue. Surely software can be smarter than that...

It's not the software potential that lacks intelligence. It's the men upstairs that lately seem to be excepting defeat and trying to milk out as much money as fast as possible before they pull out and retire. It's called product push. Many firms don't care if their one version behind. It's when they get two or three versions behind that they feel obligated to upgrade. So if they come out with a new version every three years, many firms would only upgrade every six years. With their current approach it's getting people to upgrade every two. I don't understand how they can finish writing a program, and a week later start working on the next version. I mean, if you already have it, why not throw it in? Years back users used to be excited for a new version. Lately, It seems we are overwhelmed and don't want to be forced to upgrade.

[Anonymous]

I see a patern in the last few releases.

1-2 big features (that require substantial coding) and 4-5 ones that coding would be about a week (for example this years long time wish for dimensioning, nudging etc.)

Archicad is a great 2D tool, but in 3D its below average. You actually cannot draw in 3d. A line does not exist in 3d, interferences do not exist in 3d.

Unfortunately i cannot see AC changing pace of development.
Its also very sad to see GS being totally absent from their forums, never sharing their point of view. Its very sad.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

oreopoulos wrote:
I see a patern in the last few releases.

1-2 big features (that require substantial coding) and 4-5 ones that coding would be about a week (for example this years long time wish for dimensioning, nudging etc.)
.........

........you forget to mention that the 1-2 big features are usually incomplete or half-done -

Like a Complex Profile Manager in AC10 that couldn't do curves, only to be completed in AC11. Or maybe Lightworks rendering without Radiosity in AC9 (still incomplete and frankly speaking, sub-standard by industry standards, to this day).
Hell, I would even argue that SEO's are an incomplete feature from heaven-knows-when; as long as we're unable to intelligently manage and control Boolean operators on hidden layers, their functionality is highly restricted for complex forms and operations.
How about a Curtain wall tool in the upcoming AC12 that can't do profiles or curved profiles in the vertical dimension or Z-axis; - they'll probably add that as a BRAND NEW feature in AC13.....the way curved profiles was a whole brand spanking new feature in AC11.

In fact, looking back to the last 3 or 4 versions, the only major big feature, that I can think of, which was ever introduced in a new version as a more-or-less complete feature has been Virtual Trace. That's it.

........but of course we must have new 2D symbols for a still clunky stair tool - because that's reeally important.

[Dwight]

oreopoulos wrote:
Its also very sad to see GS being totally absent from their forums, never sharing their point of view. Its very sad.

It is not true that GS is not present on this forum.
They correctly don't waste resources in meaningless banter, confining comment to essential announcements or corrections.