ArchiCAD 9 is shipping in mid-September!

[Bence Kovacs]

Dear Archi-Talkers,

We are happy to announce on ArchiCAD-Talk that ArchiCAD 9 will be released in September 2004. Shipment will start with the INT, US and GER versions followed by other localized language versions over the coming months. Based on the results of extensive beta testing we are confident that this version will be the most robust version of ArchiCAD ever. Please check www.graphisoft.com for the official press release on ArchiCAD 9! And... enjoy!

Bence Kovacs
Vice President

ArchiCAD Product Management
Graphisoft

[Djordje]

Will skip quoting ...

Yes, a GRAPHICAL interface for the creation of the GDL objects, complete with parameters set up, is sorely needed within ArchiCAD. No, most of the people cannot be expected to know or learn GDL. Yes, the knowledge and expertize of those who do should be properly valued and paid for. I said mine is rusted - for the simple reason that I don't have the TIME to use it. Plain fact.

Long dead VisualGDL (anyone remembers it?) was a first step that due to many reasons died. However, its implications are still valid, more than a decade later.

As for Autodesk bashing - Aaron is quite right, but if you just can't pay, or cannot persuade the ones that sign the cheques, you have to go with the flow. I have been on all the sides of the fence, and riding it, so can understand both viewpoints.

Being a single practitioner or a small office owner is much easier for choosing your software than switching the whole production facility to some other software - and yes, I agree with ejrolon that going to ArchiCAD or Revit from AutoCAD is the same trip, just with a different sticker. It is not an advantage that two million people can't be wrong - millions of flies eat s*** daily so they also can't be wrong - because it is the industry's culture and perceived methods of work that need changing. Which of the great architects of today does the CAD himself? Please ...

The VB software tends to bring the DESIGNER to the computer, not the draughtsmen/women. Which of the principals of a larger company you know are computer savvy enough to read their own email?

Back to the topic - IMHO the bloat will not help ArchiCAD. Adding on to the existing system BY Graphisoft will unneccesarily strain the resources. It is MUCH better to provide a rock solid PLATFORM and TECHNOLOGY so that the more specialized needs - and yes, double curves are not so common on the average - can be addressed by the specialized developers. If you look back at Autodesk, more than half of what is in ADT is NOT developed by Autodesk proper, heck the whole of the Revit is not!

Back to 9 - it does have a corporate dimension to it, that none of the previous versions had. Rolls, yes, but maybe more of a Bentley now, or a high end Audi, BMW or Mercedes - the bells, whistles and the champagne cooler are in, sunroof optional.

[Karl Ottenstein]

rm wrote:
Lightworks while a good step forward was only a half step. Buy making it part of AC, instead of a free standing package like Artlantis is it forces you to put AC away while a rendering task is being performed.

The integration of LW into AC provides a quick, easy solution to obtain quality images for the vast majority of users. There is no export/save-as to an external format (which is itself slow), opening a separate application, and a separate app to learn. Sure, many of us have a variety of external rendering solutions for doing very large images or to utilize more powerful techniques.

But, on a day to day basis, hitting F10 and getting a FAST (faster if you have 2 processors), no-fuss, quality image for review or quick client communication is a powerful time-saver, not a time-consumer as you suggest. If, throughout your day, you are continuously generating huge, complex images, then sure, use your external program.

Most users (I'd wager 99%) will be thrilled with LW. Personally, I want the convenience of an internal solution and am happy with GS's decision.

Karl

[Bricklyne Clarence]

rm wrote:


.............
It is amazing to me that we still cannot extrude along a path, or lathe a shape, or rotate in 3d without learning GDL or buying many additional tools just to name a couple of modeling shortcomings.

In my opinion, 9.0 should be called 8.5. Some perfume and lipstick was added. Yes you should enjoy some efficiencies with this version. Not sure how some have quantified this as 20%, not yet anyway.

But we still don't see any terrain modeling improvements ( oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting the earth is flat, just ask Christopher Columbus, he works at GS ), stairmaker......well we all know what a piece of garbage that is, and adding Lightworks while a good step forward was only a half step. ................ . . . .

Regards.

Its great to see that I'm not alone in some of these observations, rm. Personally, I don't ask for much really (of course , other than ...sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads ). I mean, the ability to rotate an object in 3D or rather the Z-axis would at first glance seem to be an obvious if not necessary requirement. And the extrusion and lathe capabilities that we refer to don't necessarily have to be overly elaborate in terms of the functioning and the detail of objects produced. And I believe you're probably the umpteenth person that observed and mentioned how it should actually be called version 8.5 and not v 9.0 that they are releasing based on the advancements and new features alone. And yes, who would ever imagine that in this day and age we would ever have the need for radiosity in our renderings, right?

On the flip side of things......

Karl wrote:

The integration of LW into AC provides a quick, easy solution to obtain quality images for the vast majority of users. There is no export/save-as to an external format (which is itself slow), opening a separate application, and a separate app to learn. Sure, many of us have a variety of external rendering solutions for doing very large images or to utilize more powerful techniques. .................Most users (I'd wager 99%) will be thrilled with LW. Personally, I want the convenience of an internal solution and am happy with GS's decision.

Karl.

While I wouln't entirely argue the fact that Lightworks will be an improvement ( I mean, given what they had before was it really had to come upwith anything other than an improvement really?) for most users not predisposed to learning a new rendering software or exporting their models, I do have to wonder; if the introduciton of Lightworks is an improvement by virtue of the fact that it reduces or eliminates the necessity to have to export your model or use third party software to obtain quality renders, how then is it that the same reasoning doesn't apply to advanced modelling tasks and having to accomplish those with not just a third party software, API plugins, and of course the almighty GDL script. If convenience is spelled out by having the ability to do all one needs to accomplish vis-a-vis drafting to documentation to rendering, from within ArchiCAD, then why is this not also good enough for modelling and creation of 3D models ( regardless of complexity), which, really, is ( or should be) ArchiCAD at its essence?


Oh well......... the drum beat continues.......

[Scott Davis]

Coming from "the Dark Side", it's been nice to have a rendering engine built in. It's Accurender currently, but we don't have all the features of teh full-blown Accurender engine. Because there is no import/export, it seems to make the rendering process more seamless. Many objects have materials assigned to them from the beginning, (which can be easily changed/modified) or materials can be assigned. I like getting to a point and saying 'what's this going to look like?' and hit the render button. Done!

As far as having a separate renderer allow the user to render and continue to work on the model, my opinion is that if you are rendering, do you really want to move forward modeling? Isn't the rendering part of the design process? I wouldn't wnat to render something, and while it's rendering, make changes, and then re-render again because of the changes. I'll render something, then look at it, and then make the changes based on the discovery of something in the rendering.

I think you guys might like having LW in AC once you get used to it. It's been nice to have AR built into Revit, our only argument is that we need a better engine!

[Anonymous]

For the life of me I don't understand why GS does not takeover Cigraph and integrate their entire Archi-line. There are obviously some very sharp programmers at Cigraph so why re-invent what's been done quite well already?

Then again Most Cipraph apps answer needs any AEC program should have built in. Those at GS are simply not paranoid as they should be since any current AC user enduring these issues must be keeping an eye on Revit development. As a relatively new AC user I keep the latest Revit demo around...

[rm]

Scott wrote:

As far as having a separate renderer allow the user to render and continue to work on the model, my opinion is that if you are rendering, do you really want to move forward modeling? Isn't the rendering part of the design process? I wouldn't want to render something, and while it's rendering, make changes, and then re-render again because of the changes. I'll render something, then look at it, and then make the changes based on the discovery of something in the rendering.

Scott, I agree in part. However, that was not my point. Rarely do we ever concentrate all our effort on one project at a time. The main benefit of having a separate rendering package is while project "A" is rendering, and this may take hours depending on the complexity and size of the rendering, we can model or work on cds for project "B" concurrently making us much more efficient and profitable.

The current implementation of LW into AC precludes you from using AC any further once you start a rendering. While I understand the benefit of not having to track more than one file in more than one program as Karl suggests, and the benefit to a small office or offices that concentrate more on conceptual design work, as opposed to full service architecture firms, I don't see how the "majority" of firms will benefit from loosing the use of AC while producing a rendering.

This suggests to me that if LW is primarily used for quick renderings, as Karl states, then you STILL need a freestanding separate rendering program. So, what is the actual cost benefit of paying for and using the built in LW renderer over Artlantis......seems to be NONE given the ease of use of Artlantis, and its rendering speed. And the word on the street is it WILL have radiosity capability in v5.

Regards,

[rm]

Rashid wrote:
For the life of me I don't understand why GS does not takeover Cigraph and integrate their entire Archi-line. There are obviously some very sharp programmers at Cigraph so why re-invent what's been done quite well already?

Rashid,
Yes the Cigraph folks are very sharp and responsive, Fabrizio always answers any questions or problems you may have with Cigraph add-ons. I would be concerned that GS would drop the ball on further development of the add-ons if they were in charge of them.

But more to the point and importantly, you correctly state:

Rashid wrote:
Then again Most Cipraph apps answer needs any AEC program should have built in.

[Anonymous]

I would be concerned that GS would drop the ball on further development of the add-ons if they were in charge of them.

That's a chilling lack of confidence in GS.. earned with each release.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Rashid wrote:
That's a chilling lack of confidence in GS.. earned with each release.

I view it as an extreme compliment to Fabrizio and Cigraph! 😉 I, too, have found that not only is Fabrizio extremely responsive to questions and problems, but that he fixes his products seemingly immediately (or within weeks) if a problem is found. I don't know of any other software manufacturer who is as responsive as Cigraph... so it would be a hard act for anyone to follow.

Karl

[Ben Cohen]

Bricklyne wrote:
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 quite understanding why profiler will not do that roof. attached is a curve that was done using profiler (it is 250m long). The trick is to always use splines. The resolution of the curves is far superior. Ie splines for the profile and magic wand a path that is a spline as well. Hope this helps, albeit a little too late.
I think it is about time GS took profiler out of the goodies and into the addons folder. It is so powerful but most new users would not even know it exists

Cheers

Ben