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.

[TMA_80]

blobmeister wrote:
If there is one software that is on the verge of death than that is Revit. Revit 2015 was already a horrible release and Revit 2016, what just came out is even worse, with absolutely no improvements, no new feature or enhancements. They just released Revit 2015 and changed the name to Revit 2016. Can you imagine Graphisoft releasing Archicad 19 that is exactly the same as Archicad 18 except for the name change?

People, count your blessings. Revit is finished and almost gone.

That's the impression I got at first but be aware that some features were already revealed and available as an revit 2015 update(as usual with Autodesk and that killed the suspense). anyway, I agree, our expectations were high...

[Anonymous]

blobmeister wrote:
If there is one software that is on the verge of death than that is Revit. Revit 2015 was already a horrible release and Revit 2016, what just came out is even worse, with absolutely no improvements, no new feature or enhancements. They just released Revit 2015 and changed the name to Revit 2016. Can you imagine Graphisoft releasing Archicad 19 that is exactly the same as Archicad 18 except for the name change?

People, count your blessings. Revit is finished and almost gone.

Fun narrative, but not a true one.

Forum Discussion Refuting this Narrative

3rd Party Review of the Release

But this is off topic really.

[sinceV6]

Hi.

strawbale wrote:

methy wrote:
changing multiple doors is easy if you know how to set up your files correctly
for example using "Element ID" & "Find & Select"
you can do exactly what you want provided you have an ID system set up

And therein lies the whole issue with the current Archicad setup.

If AC was designed to be user friendly you wouldn't need to know or even use these kind of esoteric work around solutions.

And how exactly would you like it to work? If someone asks me "how do you find doors and windows in AC?" I would probably say "Tag your elements using their ID when you are creating them, then use Find & Select to... errr... find and select them". If they say... "oh dear!... that's a workaround" it's probably because they don't understand that is one of the ways the software is designed to work in the first place (because, of course, there are other ways to find them). I think AC could be more friendly in some aspects, but it is friendly enough for people to grasp the whole BIM concept.

----------------------
Back on topic... I don't think AC is dying or will for a foreseeable future, and probably will keep gaining market share at the current slow rate; but I do believe it may come to a halt at some point. New software is emerging based on current technology, with solid grounds, new capabilities and new business models and this might ultimately mean competition (e.g. edificius, a merge between AC and Revit, check some videos; and it is in its infancy), and it looks that GS can't let old things and tech go and move forward.

AC's strong point is its workflow. I think it is amazing, fast and well designed. It is excellent... not perfect. With a lot of workarounds? yes... but gets the job done. Up to a point that is: complex geometry and parametric driven design, which is more common nowadays.

AC is missing more parametric creation tools and constraints (other than floor heights and levels) for its geometry. Intersection priorities and building materials are a godsend for automating a lot of things, but it feels that there's a gap that can be covered with a more advanced approach. I've commented before on the geometry that drives AC, and I still think it should revert back a little to generate everything from points, points that create lines and lines that encompass polygons in a smart parametric way, kind of a smart morph.

GDL you may say? Is great if you can understand it, but it takes so much time to script something correctly that you might as well create some dumb geometry, assign a few IFC tags, and be done with what you need for that specific project. Why do you think Rhino+Grasshopper is a killer combo? Simple: Rhino is nothing more than a math modeling program based on points, curves and surfaces (NURBS, all in all) and Grasshopper lets you drive the basics of these elements to control them how you want. It is missing the rest of the BIM part... but there are plugins for that. I dare to say Grasshopper is the reason Rhino hasn't died under the shadow of bigger apps, like solidworks.

Don't think is doable in AC with GDL? Check out the latest incarnation of 3ds max (sorry to compare to that, but bare with me). It now has what could be called a graphical approach to maxscript (say a GDL comparison). A node based interface (called max creation graph or mcg) where you can build whatever tool you need for the program, a'la grasshopper. It is a game changing feature. It generates the maxscript file that drives what you create. "Parametricity" inside applications is now being tackled with node based interaction, and is nothing new.

It is not that I want to build the next Guggenheim, but when the opportunity comes along to incorporate a complex facade with changing elements according to orientation, or a shading system that takes into account the sun's position, relates to it and allows for design exploration, I would like to be able to handle it with the tools I know have the power, but not the fast way. I would like to spend time evaluating design options, not reading and digging GDL documentation and experimenting first with that, then with the design; then fiddling again with script to change operation, then design again.

This is not a rant. Not at all. Graphisoft does a great job with AC.

I also dare to say that if something of the sort would come to AC, you could forget about scripting and many limitations.

I know. I better start writing my own BIM software.

Best regards.

[Anonymous]

sinceV6 wrote:
Hi.
----------------------
Back on topic... and it looks that GS can't let old things and tech go and move forward.

I do strongly agree, the future is (already here) definitely BIM based server, data rich multiphysics, app drive internet data, delivered to forums,clients, designers, builders, engineers and most importantly to Building Authorities.
Down under it is a bold move and gathering momentum and will require current Govt legislation changes...
As for which software (LOL) michelangelo had nothing to do with Calculus and PDEs, thanks for the link.
AC has the lion share here but I honestly dont know for how long?, it would be in their interest to follow these and other forums very closely.

[Anonymous]

I also think there are some issues that are definitely worth considering when it comes to the usability of Archicad.

Assemblies are an extremely important feature. Creating objects that have a nested structure with subobjects is possible with GDL, yes, but the level of abstraction that forces into the user makes it hardly usable for most. Look at how it works in Sketchup, for example: you just click your way into the tree of nested components and groups and can reorganize it and redefine it with the outliner window... With something like that, man, components / blocks / objects in archicad would be awesome!!. Imagine being able to redefine on the fly a subcomponent of an assembly... Also, the ability to explode objects getting the original componentes (something other threads have treated) comes into play as something fundamental. Again, that outliner window in Sketchup would be fantastic to have within archicad to see the hyerarchical structure of models and objects...
Bentley has a remarkably good xref management in which nesting can be very easily organised. Archicad tools for that are, ehem, mostly non existent. The way it handles it in hotlinks with only one level of nesting is poor IMHO.
The concept of the model as a hyerarchical assembly is getting more and more important as modularity is. The ability to very easily create assemblies, organise them, redefine them, etc., is key. I mean, look at IFC, it's the same tree concept.
Trimble is heavily investing in "BIMming" Sketchup and they are producing remarkable software on it while keeping the usability of SK, I would say that is a good example.
All this "tree" stuff leads - inevitably - to nodes...

Regarding "parametricity", I would say that the best path is interoperability. I don't think that there's one BIM software "to rule them all". We need to be able to talk to the other guys. Grasshopper will find a way to Archicad (geometrygym tools by Jon Mirtschin have been talked about in other threads) when it is needed. Certain parametrical objects are very useful in certain scenarios, I think it's great to have specific tools to deal with them as long as I can bring them into the main model for documentation and submittal.

I think that IFC-centric bim means that whatever you use to produce the models does not matter, as long as the information is there for me to access it, account it, etc. AC role as an architectural BIM should stress the - already very good - interoperability options of the software and the usability of it.

Excuse the length...

[Anonymous]

For anyone else interested in rhino grasshopper checkout VectorWorks Marionette visual scripting directly in the model environment with no baking. Also with script container wrappers for iterative to use. Go to planet Vectorworks. Keeps it in the nemetschek family.

[Anonymous]

Personally, never liked Grasshopper...
Artists might see better organic design tools eg grasshopper, But these tools are designed to be used in building all along the supply chain, eg formwork, steelwork, concrete and parasolid export for FEA.
As a designer/engineer/contractor I would choose VWs over revit every day where possible.Unfortunately AC misses the mark on engineering and analysis

[Anonymous]

Ivan wrote:
I also think there are some issues that are definitely worth considering when it comes to the usability of Archicad.

Assemblies are an extremely important feature. Creating objects that have a nested structure with subobjects is possible with GDL, yes, but the level of abstraction that forces into the user makes it hardly usable for most. Look at how it works in Sketchup, for example: you just click your way into the tree of nested components and groups and can reorganize it and redefine it with the outliner window... With something like that, man, components / blocks / objects in archicad would be awesome!!. Imagine being able to redefine on the fly a subcomponent of an assembly... Also, the ability to explode objects getting the original componentes (something other threads have treated) comes into play as something fundamental. Again, that outliner window in Sketchup would be fantastic to have within archicad to see the hyerarchical structure of models and objects...
Bentley has a remarkably good xref management in which nesting can be very easily organised. Archicad tools for that are, ehem, mostly non existent. The way it handles it in hotlinks with only one level of nesting is poor IMHO.
The concept of the model as a hyerarchical assembly is getting more and more important as modularity is. The ability to very easily create assemblies, organise them, redefine them, etc., is key. I mean, look at IFC, it's the same tree concept.
Trimble is heavily investing in "BIMming" Sketchup and they are producing remarkable software on it while keeping the usability of SK, I would say that is a good example.
All this "tree" stuff leads - inevitably - to nodes...

Regarding "parametricity", I would say that the best path is interoperability. I don't think that there's one BIM software "to rule them all". We need to be able to talk to the other guys. Grasshopper will find a way to Archicad (geometrygym tools by Jon Mirtschin have been talked about in other threads) when it is needed. Certain parametrical objects are very useful in certain scenarios, I think it's great to have specific tools to deal with them as long as I can bring them into the main model for documentation and submittal.

I think that IFC-centric bim means that whatever you use to produce the models does not matter, as long as the information is there for me to access it, account it, etc. AC role as an architectural BIM should stress the - already very good - interoperability options of the software and the usability of it.

Excuse the length...

Before my comment got relocated this was the point I was trying to make about the way that BIM information is currently handled and how it could be improved. Part of my frustration in using AC is that the UI has not been updated to integrate a system using "hierarchical assembly" as you put it or nodes.

"
I would expect that there would be a window that could be open at the same time as the a 2D or 3D window. In this window would be a list of all the building objects and elements in the project, perhaps organized as a tree structure. I could select an item in the list and it would highlight in the plan/3D windows and vice versa.

By selecting a building object or element in the list I would be able to access and change all the settings for that object.

The list would be able to be organized and filtered by element ID, layer, element type, home story, zone etc etc.

So for example I could select to show in the list only the doors and windows in the project, or to show only the doors and windows on a selected story, or to show only Existing doors and windows, or only New doors and windows. for example

It would be an interactive index of all the projects building objects, enabling me to easily filter, sort through, find and change settings. That would work in unison and in real time with the 2d or 3d window. The idea being that I am still working in the 2D or 3D window whilst browsing this index.

AC is a great program and now has a multitude of very powerful features that have been introduced over the years . The problem I have is that the UI has not been changed or adapted to integrate all these features and tools in a manner that is unified and intuitive.
"

[Anonymous]

strawbale wrote:
AC is a great program and now has a multitude of very powerful features that have been introduced over the years . The problem I have is that the UI has not been changed or adapted to integrate all these features and tools in a manner that is unified and intuitive.
"

I couldn't agree more. As someone put it in another thread, Archicad is a friendly modeler but unfriendly object/component creation and managing tool...

[Eduardo Rolon]

So I guess AC just died…


http://www.shoegnome.com/2015/04/30/graphisoft-announces-rhinoceros-archicad-connection/

and the link to the converter

http://www.graphisoft.com/downloads/addons/interoperability/rhino.html