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.

[gpowless]

metanoia wrote:
I don't even know if or where it used any more in the great white north.

Count me in as a loyal user since 6.0.

I do know a few Universities in southern Ontario are at least introducing Archicad as an option. But it is the firm mentality that AutoCad is still the defacto standard and ~anything~ connected with AC must be good.

Cross platform / software bridging / direct collaberation must be the future for Archicad or else I can't see how it will continue here. I mean the company that a carpenter works for does not dictate the type of hammer he must carry or his brand of power tools. Tools are just that. We must be able to carry them wherever we go and not have to worry if an Estwing can do the same job as a Stanley (except the Estwing opens beer caps way better).

[Anonymous]

Specialization is a problem for the whole nemetschek group and industry as a whole.why?
1. The high cost of software and associated costs and on site implementation
2. There is a whole generation of BIM software experts and trainers that are whole project illiterate, That is they can build it in a computer and don't even know the first thing about building it in the real world (eg roof framing,cuts,pitching points are classic examples)
3. In the old days we did everything from design,engineer and construct on site (LOL, swing from rafters),now project owners have to hire a swag of (so called) experts that cant do anything without specific software...go figure
4. Hiring a layperson and using BIM to show them is a false economy.
All I can say to AC is my business is booming and clients love the fact that I can deliver everything with whatever tool I require..specialization is dying.
Sorry for the rant!

[gpowless]

DesignEngineerBIM wrote:
2. There is a whole generation of BIM software experts and trainers that are whole project illiterate, That is they can build it in a computer and don't even know the first thing about building it in the real world (eg roof framing,cuts,pitching points are classic examples)

Don't I know it. I trained as a carpenter / cabinet maker became a contractor, went to college to get a diploma in Architectural Technology, then spent 20 years as a federal municipal building inspector only to come full circle as a designer - homes, HVAC and on-site sewage.

Not only are there alot of software hoodies that are project illiterate but there are a whole generation of engineers, architects and building inspectors that have no practical experience to provide reasonable solutions to tricky problems. For most young inspectors, if it isn't in the Code they don't have a clue otherwise and even when they know where to find it they have no inkling of a clue why it is in there in the first place.

Fortunately, in my years I have dealt with more practical architects and engineers but even that comes at a cost. I remember a number of older architects when they were instructed to incorporate barrier-free design requirements (ADA) into their plans after the fact, I received all kinds of flack. And engineers who were stuck on member by member load calculations when asked to consider load-sharing principles just looked at me kind of dazed.

In my opinion the world would be a much better place if architects, engineers, inspectors and other designers had to article with contractors in their respective fields at least 5 years before they could be independently licenced. Having an understanding to principles of design is a far cry from having the practical knowledge of building science and construction. [/END/Rant]

[Anonymous]

Computer Geek Model Builders are fast, even with little or no onsite experience. They challenge the engineers and the onsite builder to connect thier odd design concoctions. Most of them could not work out a connection detail without the help from the others mentioned above. In the end I don't see what this has to do with ArchiCAD dying. Revit is more popular because of it's affiliations with Autodesk and it's use by engineers as tool of choice as we all know. The direction taken to work properly with other complex modeling apps will not only keep ArchiCAD alive but it should make it the choice building in app in the future maybe?

[Anonymous]

Fast Computer Geeks are being replaced by parametric automation while Little or no onsite experience means NON-COMPLIANCE which is now a major issue for all clients. BIM/DATA Certification is now dealt with by engineers...not Graphic ARTISTS/DESIGNERS.
Its time for GS & NEM to move Beyond Renderings otherwise on the REAL projects that matter you'll be asking " Do you want fries with that.."
LOL,That's the Funny side if there is ONE?

[Martin Jules]

No, it is not, but the Graphisoft marketing plans are (dying)!

[Karl Ottenstein]

---

@Martin Jules wrote:

No, it is not, but the Graphisoft marketing plans are (dying)!

---

Why are you replying to an 8 year old topic, and why do you care how Graphisoft markets its products? 

[Martin Jules]

The short answer would be simple, @Karl Ottenstein. 

The more powerfully Graphisoft markets its product, the more firms will use Archicad, the more I will have to use it in these firms. In other words, the return on investment (ROI) would be more appreciable! 

[leceta]

the more money in marketing, the less in development...

"The answer, McNeel muses, comes when you look closely at the sales and marketing models of today’s leading CAD firms. In the last five years, he says, CAD users spent $50 billion, helping the CAD industry achieve $5 billion in market capitalization. That’s $10 billion a year, divided into a few key markets (various manufacturing segments, construction, plant, geospatial). If you add in various small markets such as product design, facility management, and digital content creation using CAD tools, you might be able to double the sales numbers.

Most of that $50 billion came from existing users, who long ago made their software choice. McNeel says that new users provide little revenue to most CAD companies. When compared to selling into existing accounts, selling to new users is like trying to make water run uphill. McNeel says most CAD firms spend 15% of their revenue on research and development, 15% goes to net income, and 70% goes toward sales, marketing, and administration (S/M/A). The money they get from existing users is needed to fund the expensive work of finding new users. It is little wonder, then, that the 3D CAD market has not settled on a standard. A variety of choices all hit the market at about the same time, and each has found a niche. NX is strong in automotive, CATIA is strong in aerospace, and Pro/ENGINEER has a foothold in general product development. But each of these big three also has a toehold in each other’s markets. The amount of money spent by these three and all the other 3D CAD firms continue to cancel each other out in the marketplace as they throw big bucks after a small number of new users. It may be OK for typical CAD companies to spend 70% of revenue on S/M/A, but for a company that thinks like a professional services firm—as Robert McNeel and Associates does—it is anathema. So they don’t."

https://gfxspeak.com/2010/11/29/the-way-of-rhino-part-2-behold-the-cad-whisperer/

[Laszlo Nagy]

leceta,

That article is over 11 years old.