ArchiCAD is dying

[Bruce]

I know that's a controversial subject line, but I believe it's true. Not because I want it to be, but because Autodesk is an advancing monster; ArchiCAD firms are switching to Revit, and Revit-based firms are buying ArchiCAD firms...and switching them to Revit.

ArchiCAD is a great program, but if it keeps going the way it is, I fear it will gradually dwindle until it's finally gone. On a level playing field, it comes out more or less even with Revit (I have done a detailed analysis that has been vetted by Revit experts) - but it's not a level playing field.

In my opinion, Graphisoft needs to do a handful of things to even the odds (yes, I will compare to Revit, as that's the main competition):

1. Rebrand & revamp the UI: CAD is an obsolete term. Even though ArchiCAD was BIM way before the term was even coined, I think the "CAD" in the name does it a disservice. Also, the user interface is old and tired. Should it go to the ribbon? No way. Should it be brought into the 21st century? Absolutely - there are plenty of excellent examples out there. Blender, a free 3D program, is undergoing its second UI redesign in about 5 years. If Blender can do it, Graphisoft can.

2. Introduce type-based elements. At the moment, pretty much everything is instance based. If you place 100 doors 900mm wide throughout the project, you have to select and change every single instance (this is an example, so please don't tell me the workarounds - that misses the point). Essentially, this is extending the attributes database to other objects. This makes project-wide changes so much more consistent, with no fear of missing an element.

3. Easier creation of parametric custom content: A beginner user in Revit can create a basic parametric object by using geometry and dimensions. It is intuitive and accessible. This does have its limits, but GDL is completely inaccessible to any but the advanced user with a programming mind...something architects and drafties generally don't have - otherwise they'd be programmers. A mix of the two would be extremely powerful - maybe an interface similar to Visual Basic, or Grasshopper? Not only for 3D elements, but also for 2D labels.

4. Better labelling & keynote tools: At the moment it's one label per element per view. What if I want to tag more than the ID? What about material, thickness, height etc. Revit is excellent in this regard, and also in the ability to create your label format as specific as you please. Key notes are also critical.

These are only four key improvements that I think are critical. There are many others that I could list, but this post is already too long. I say the above not to criticise ArchiCAD, but to try and help (misguided however it may be).

I could be wrong - I would be happy to be wrong...but the Autodesk monster is advancing...

These changes should be done the Graphisoft way: not to match what Revit does, but to equal and better it.

[Anonymous]

Hello everyone.
I just want to express my opinion as i used Archicad before and now i found Revit to be many magnitudes more powerfull.
I think Archicad is slowly distancing himself from Revit..
Archicad is now good for small non-automated-design-driven projects.
Revit has become really parametric and flexible, especially with the development of Dynamo plugin.
There are now aditional plugins which actually creates connections between Grasshopper and Dynamo/Revit and this creates an huge potential of improved workflow.

[Anonymous]

It seems that GDL is not the future...

[Laszlo Nagy]

Coty82 wrote:
Hello everyone.
I just want to express my opinion as i used Archicad before and now i found Revit to be many magnitudes more powerfull.
I think Archicad is slowly distancing himself from Revit..
Archicad is now good for small non-automated-design-driven projects.
Revit has become really parametric and flexible, especially with the development of Dynamo plugin.
There are now aditional plugins which actually creates connections between Grasshopper and Dynamo/Revit and this creates an huge potential of improved workflow.

I totally disagree. What you mention is just one facet of the complete architectural workflow, it is mostly helpful in the Conceptual Design stage. There are a lot of other stages.
By the way, you are aware that there is a Rhino-ArchiCAD connection, right?

[abdelaziz]

yes is aware of the Rhino-ArchiCAD connection,
but why Graphisoft did not develop its own GDL interface? like Zoom GDL ABVENT
I croyer had stopped the project because Graphisoft had proposed the trick

[Anonymous]

laszlonagy wrote:
I totally disagree. What you mention is just one facet of the complete architectural workflow, it is mostly helpful in the Conceptual Design stage. There are a lot of other stages.
By the way, you are aware that there is a Rhino-ArchiCAD connection, right?

I didnt know about the connection. Might be usefull for importing special objects, furniture. But once they are imported they loose any "intelligence" At least its good that it reacts with the cutplane...
As for Revit and conceptual design, it is not limited at all to just this stage of the project. The documentation tools are also strong.

For me i found archicad good in designing small unifamiliar houses for example, with a fast hands-on approach.
But i dont know how it performs in large scale projects

[Anonymous]

I am currently designing and documenting a hospital project with about 25000m2 of floor area in ArchiCAD and have no issues with speed and useability on a workstation that does not even meet the minimum specification for a simple Revit project.
My experience over the past 18+ years of using ArchiCAD for projects from small residential through to whole technical college campus developments is that there is no limit or 'sweet spot' of project size for ArchiCAD.
Scott

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Coty82 wrote:

laszlonagy wrote:
I totally disagree. What you mention is just one facet of the complete architectural workflow, it is mostly helpful in the Conceptual Design stage. There are a lot of other stages.
By the way, you are aware that there is a Rhino-ArchiCAD connection, right?

I didnt know about the connection. Might be usefull for importing special objects, furniture. But once they are imported they loose any "intelligence" At least its good that it reacts with the cutplane...
As for Revit and conceptual design, it is not limited at all to just this stage of the project. The documentation tools are also strong.

For me i found archicad good in designing small unifamiliar houses for example, with a fast hands-on approach.
But i dont know how it performs in large scale projects

If you don't know how it performs on large scale projects, then how can you be so sure that Revit is "many magnitudes more powerfull." (sic), when you haven't even seen a comparison (or done one yourself) on each program with a large project?


Revit is still light years behind ArchiCAD's Teamwork 2.0 system for handling large projects with large teams, even spread out all over the world.

I will grant that ArchiCAD currently lags behind Revit in the area of Generative design (with Dynamo and Grasshopper for Rhino) and it seems soon, Vectorworks as well (with their upcoming Marionette).

[TMA_80]

Just a thought:
Is it the fact that ArchiCAD lacks parametric relationships that make it "faster" and able to handle bigger files ?
As ArchiCAD is implenting slowly but surely some parametric relationships, I wonder how would ArchiCAD respond if it went full parametrics . would it always handle the big projects ?
(is it the same automated vs semi-automated "Boing and the airbus" debate ?! ).

As for the generative design nothing to say more, we've been asking this for years, and even more ( scripting ) . However, the move from GS to implent a bi-directional grasshopper plugin is ( or will be ) , imho, a smart one.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Coty82 wrote:
But i dont know how it performs in large scale projects

Revit will have increasingly more problems as the files get larger and more complex.
This is even acknowledged by Autodesk themselves in a technical Note:

http://download.autodesk.com/us/revit/revit_performance/Autodesk_Revit_2015_Model_Performance_Techni...

On Page 22 you will see their recommendations, which sort of boils down to: create as few complex geometries, as few constraints, as few parametric relationships, as few groups and arrays, as little detailed, parametric, nested families as possible, etc. etc. (there are some more).

[Laszlo Nagy]

TMA_80 wrote:
Just a thought:
Is it the fact that ArchiCAD lacks parametric relationships that make it "faster" and able to handle bigger files ?
As ArchiCAD is implenting slowly but surely some parametric relationships, I wonder how would ArchiCAD respond if it went full parametrics . would it always handle the big projects ?

That is a pretty good question for which I would like to know the answer myself.
In the last several years ARCHICAD had more parametric relationships, while Revit has gradually decreased the number of automatically created constraints, as far as I know.
I would like to see more in ARCHICAD, but maybe, at this point, the answer lies somewhere in the middle (until we have such powerful machines that they can handle projects of any complexity - which is not in the next few years).