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?!

[Anonymous]

as you see 10 years ago the features in AC not present in competitive software was long. AC was steps infront of competition.

Now its not. And this is not my opinion. Pure facts.

The truth is you cannot create a real BIM building in AC. Not just walls slabs etc. But reinforcement, HVAC,.... everything.

[TomWaltz]

oreopoulos wrote:
as you see 10 years ago the features in AC not present in competitive software was long. AC was steps infront of competition.

Now its not. And this is not my opinion. Pure facts.

The truth is you cannot create a real BIM building in AC. Not just walls slabs etc. But reinforcement, HVAC,.... everything.

The bar for BIM is definitely going up. A colleague of mine likes to call Archicad a 3D Drafting program, not a BIM one.

BIM in 2008 needs a lot more intelligence than it did just a few years ago and Graphisoft is not keeping up at all.

Even just simple data entry is often not covered in Archicad, with the need to enter room names manually as text into sections and no ability to assign custom data to elements. Collision detection? Constraints? Formulas in schedules? All a resounding "no."

[David Shorter]

Tom Waltz wrote 'What about them? Do you mean that they would be a great feature if they actually dimensioned the way an architect does?'

Interesting..... work fine in Australia, what's wrong with them?

[Anonymous]

David wrote:

Tom Waltz wrote 'What about them? Do you mean that they would be a great feature if they actually dimensioned the way an architect does?'

Interesting..... work fine in Australia, what's wrong with them?

Well I used them in residential here in US for three years and they worked great. A great time saver. But in large commercial I have not used it too much. Different beast.

[TomWaltz]

David wrote:

Tom Waltz wrote 'What about them? Do you mean that they would be a great feature if they actually dimensioned the way an architect does?'

Interesting..... work fine in Australia, what's wrong with them?

My biggest two complaints:
Can't do one-side-of wall dimensions, commonly used at exterior dimensions or in metal stud building.
Can't do center-line-of-wall dimensions commonly used in residential.

[Anonymous]

With all due respects, centerline dimensioning of interior walls is confusing and in thirty years of drafting/building I have not used it in residential.
Why ask someone to constantly add/subtract (typ) 1.75" inch?
With C-L you would have a line in the center of where wall goes, and not have line to line-up the wall to, or as above, be add/subtracting all over the place.
Just seems like that's asking for trouble.
Bier

[Anonymous]

Bier wrote:
With all due respects, centerline dimensioning of interior walls is confusing and in thirty years of drafting/building I have not used it in residential.
Why ask someone to constantly add/subtract (typ) 1.75" inch?
With C-L you would have a line in the center of where wall goes, and not have line to line-up the wall to, or as above, be add/subtracting all over the place.
Just seems like that's asking for trouble.
Bier

I totally agree. My previous boss with also ~30 years of practice never used them (dimensions to CL) either.

[TomWaltz]

Wow, I'm so impressed that in 30 years you've lived under a rock and never come across with anyone who does business differently.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the practice. Just that some firms do need it.

Not to mention, it still does not address the "one-side-of-the-wall" problem that most firms I've seen want to use.

[Dennis Lee]

I agree also. I think the centerline dimension was because when you are hand drafting - and the pencil gets a little dull - sometimes it's hard to tell where the dimension line is pointing at.
With a super sharp lineweight and the printing quality these days though, you can clearly show which side of the stud the dimension is referring to.

That said, I never use the auto dimension because it doesn't quite dimension it the way it needs to be. I always like to leave one dimension open or have a plus or minus for the less critical dimension.

[Chazz]

Dennis wrote:
I never use the auto dimension because it doesn't quite dimension it the way it needs to be. I always like to leave one dimension open or have a plus or minus for the less critical dimension.

I agree that it is far from perfect or interactive enough or flexible enough to rely on but I do use Auto Dimensions as a starting place. I have found it is frequently faster to start with the auto-generated strings and then delete, duplicate and edit from there. There are lots of folks who do not know all of the ways that dimensions can be edited. But has anyone figured out how to use the autotext features inside the dimensions? I haven't.