oreopoulos wrote:It seems to me that you are insisting that this is not an upgrade worth the number. While I might agree on PlotMaker, I definitely do not agree on ArchiCAD.
I think you are falling in a trap. Its obvious that selecting using area and not handles its match smarter and easier, and its obviouS that the minor interface enchancments are great.
oreopoulos wrote:I have never had problems with stability of the final versions; what I said is that the 9 betas were the first ones I DELIBERATELY did not manage to crash as often as before, which means therefore that the prduct as a whole is more stable. I also see your point, but show me any software today that cannot crash? I fondly remember my old XT at 4.77 MHz, that even had a math coprocessor! Wow! Now THAT was computing!
What you are excited about is stability. Am i reading correct? But you are asked to buy stability that OUGHT to be there in the first place? Am i wrong?
You are paying for a very much needed UPGRADE - to quote Dwight, the LigthWorks in itself is worth the number.
So don't cry that the grapes are sour - taste it first
oreopoulos wrote:Like what, exactly?
But ARE WE GONNA WAIT FOR 2 MORE YEARS TO ACTUALLY SEE SOME FEATURES? BUILDING TOOLS!!!
Let me guess some:
Freeform walls, curved roofs, profiled edge slabs and roofs?
Waiting for the rest of your list! If it is alreaduy there in wishes, please provide a link!
Kevin wrote:This sounds soo good
Quite right Karl, the support I've recieved on these pages would be worth ten upgrades!!
Now to the point: the UPGRADE price AFAIK does not include any form of subscription or support, and is extremely country and provider specific. You should always calculate what percent of the initial license price you are paying as upgrade.
The country specific pricing in this small world is not really something that should happen, IMHO. But then - maybe the fees are not same everywhere? If one does get paid by the RIBA scale, that is still way above the fees that you can reach in Estern Europe, where ArchiCAD is not much cheaper ... in fact, I know of a case where a UK based company purchased ArchiCAD licenses for their East European subsidiary in the UK because they were cheaper in the UK?!?!??! Sounds logical? Not really.
During my years with the local distributor for the Middle East, we lost quite a few sales to the clients that brought their licenses from the US where they mostly studied.
And so on ...
Whatever the price might be, you have to calculate it within the real framework of your business. If it pays, OK. If it does not, then there is a fault somewhere.
stefan wrote:I think we all know that ArchiCAD is currently not and never will be a Free-form modeller per se. But consider that over 15 years ago when alternative bona-fide Architecture BIM or Virtual Building modelling software was available, one Frank Gehry had to resort to the equivalents used by the Aerospace/MEC/Automobile and product design Industries (i.e. CATIA and Rhino) to realize his impressive Guggenheim Bilbao, and simply because the architectural equivalents at the time ( AutoCAD included,)quite frankly could not economically nor feasibly handle the breadth of information necessary to accurately document double curving planes and unorthodox forms that describe his project. And also realizing that now almost two decades later, Gehry still uses the same cocktail of alternative free-form modellers, because AEC CAD and BIM software still has not caught up and also that lesser architects of less celebrated stature likewise have to resort to improvised means to realize daring and creative designs ( unfortunately CATIA is just way out of most mortals price range; or at least mortals not named Gehry, Foster etc). And this despite the fact that the Structural Engineering Field is catching up; and to paraphrase Gehry's Engineer from Bilbao, they literally " can build anything we can dream of" today.
...............................
ArchiCAD is still not a freeform modeller and it never will be. But does it have to? GDL is almost unlimited in it's form creations. Would it be cool that GDL-objects could also be classified as being walls or floors? Well, if they would bear the ability to contain openings, that is...
While most of us common folk are not going to go out and design iconoclastic and monumental pieces like the Walt Disney Theatre in LA or Strata at MIT, Structural Engineering ( which for the longest time was the limiting factor to building form design) has definitely advanced far enough to at least allow Joe Average Architect in small town USA( or Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa or whatever) to design a snazzy addition to a night-club or restaurant with a curvilinear canopy, foyer wall or roof, without having to resort to a 3rd party modeller or API gymnastics to have to visualize for the client and engineers what his vision is. Or at least that's what I would hope in the 21st Century it should be.
In ArchiCAD, convential solutions normally consist of either 'faking' it, or exporting the model and getting your free-form done in an alternative bona-fide free-form modeller ( 3DS Max, Rhino, Maya, Cinema 4D), while expending sheets and sheets of CDs to ensure that the design is properly understood by the Engineers.
I am in no way advocating that ArchiCAD should be a 3DS Max, or VIZ or Rhino for architects - or in essence a full fledged modeller. But the fact that more architects resort to those software as opposed to doing it the oh-so-often touted GDL route, should say something about GDL scripting or GDL as a means of realizing unorthodox designs and design forms in ArchiCAD. Or at least, most architects' aversion or inability to learn a programming language as opposed to an entirely knew 3D-modelling software. Most of us simply don't have the time nor resources to invest in learning GDL scripting, and that Graphisoft keeps using GDL to keep from having to improve their modelling tools and interface even at the most basic level, with each passing version, is in my opinion, partly a reason for some of the discontent with this upgrade.
To illustrate my point, I have attached an image of a proposal for an addition, that our firm did for a University building to expand the current seating capacity of the Football ( that would be the American (or rather Canadian eh) variety)) Stadium. The addition is of corporate boxes and the roof is a double-curved roof (curving laterally and in plan)- ignore the team logo. In order to accurately present the shape and form of the roof, I was forced to resort to the painful and painstaking method of the mesh-tool. Anyone who has tried the curved roof tool over large areas or worse yet, Profiler; probably feels my angst regarding going about something of this nature in ArchiCAD. Now I know that someone is going to retort that this would have been much more easily accomplished in GDL, but given the time-frame of this project, and the impending deadlines, this simply was not an option. So I had to do with the mesh tool what would have (should have) taken about 10-15 times less time with the curved roof tool or Profiler were they working as they should be. This despite the fact that such a form as this, is nowhere near as outlandish or eccentric as some of the stuff you would find within Gehric vicinity.
I don't mean to ramble any longer, but my basic point and personal feelings are that this is one of the things that at the very least should have been addressed and seems to have been totally ignored from the user wishlists - in the interest of improving stability and knocking out the bugs. From a small ( in terms of firm size) users point of view, you will excuse my saying, but Lightworks and a prettier user interface does not, an upgrade cost and purchase, justify. And I know that I can only appreciate the improvements having once I use it, but like Kevin said before, the only real value observed in trial runs, is during the course of real-world projects and not in 'save-disabled' user trial periods which are essentially useless to the time-constrained architect. This is but one example of a few of the improvements that were hoped for in the ArchiCAd modelling engine, which I fear we shall slowly begin to observe creeping into other BIM solutions ( Revit 7,8..., Microstation 15,20?) while ArchiCAD goes into hiatus for 2 years before releasing version 9.1 circa 2006 to fix the bugs from version 9 and forcing us to fork out another mortgage for that "upgrade".
just my 2 cents
Let the clubs rains.....
OK, I've updated my web site to indicate some of the wishes that are coming in AC9 - that have been outlines above.
There's still a hell of a long way to go though. I do think AC9 is a good update but it tend to be the fluff. Like a new rendered. Yes, the fluff is good (ok, maybe using the wrong word here) but the fundamentals are more important in my mind. AC9 is on it way.
Oh, the web site is:
Yes, I'm very geeky that I registered a domain for it. But it's fun
There's still a hell of a long way to go though. I do think AC9 is a good update but it tend to be the fluff. Like a new rendered. Yes, the fluff is good (ok, maybe using the wrong word here) but the fundamentals are more important in my mind. AC9 is on it way.
Oh, the web site is:
Yes, I'm very geeky that I registered a domain for it. But it's fun
Still looking?
