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.

[NandoMogollon]

How about some teleworkers. with spirit and imagination.

Agreed, with BIM Cloud and License Rentals this will hardly get any easier.

[KeesW]

Miki
I was speaking to a Cad consultant on Friday and he confirmed that most large projects by large firms in Melbourne using Revit completed their documentation in Autocad.

Horses for courses. If it works better, why not?

[Anonymous]

Bruce wrote:
I


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.

...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.

Bruce, I do agree with your comments unfortunately for us those improvements are too little too late (TLTL).
We use all 3 (AC,VWs & REVIT) software and soon we will be forced to consolidate it down to ONE.
I think the issues of TLTL run deeper at Archicad to the point of where they have shown lack of respect to All THINGS ENGINEERING & ENGINEERS over the years, where revit has been prepared to listen to engineers.
I say this because I see Engineers are on the cusp of revolutionally Design Apps that are directly targeting the architects/AC clients unfortunately for AC users we are falling way behind Revit and Trimble, TLTL.

[Anonymous]

KeesW wrote:
Miki
I was speaking to a Cad consultant on Friday and he confirmed that most large projects by large firms in Melbourne using Revit completed their documentation in Autocad.

Horses for courses. If it works better, why not?

It must be Australia. I have not seen CDs made in Autocad in years.
I even start seeing civil drawings done in Revit (although I suspect those start it's life in Autocad or Bentley).

[Anonymous]

Even though I agree that Archicad can introduce some features found in revit like the temporary dimensions that appear when you click on an element, it is actually going the other way in my opinion towards Archicad. Running my own Architectural design business in Australia, I have found it hard to generate contract jobs so I decided to apply for a few full time jobs and believe it or not there are more firms requesting Archicad technicians than Revit from the Architecture side of things especially residential. Most jobs related to Revit are for Revit structural and Revit MEP.

I'm also a full time student at university going through Architecture school and we have been taught Archicad time and time again. Frankly speaking I actually like the independent windows and doors because you do not have to duplicate multiple windows to have a variety of different sizes. Just compare the file size of a Revit project to that of Archicad and you will see what I mean.

The only things that I would love to see in Archicad is the introduction of the temporary dimension lines and also a revamp of BIMx to take it to the quality of Lumion but still allow one to walk through the building and share it with their clients. This is a really important thing that Graphisoft need to work on because a project is better explained in 3D even to us Designers and Architects.

[Anonymous]

GTR320 wrote:
Even though I agree that Archicad can introduce some features found in revit like the temporary dimensions that appear when you click on an element, it is actually going the other way in my opinion towards Archicad. Running my own Architectural design business in Australia, I have found it hard to generate contract jobs so I decided to apply for a few full time jobs and believe it or not there are more firms requesting Archicad technicians than Revit from the Architecture side of things especially residential. Most jobs related to Revit are for Revit structural and Revit MEP.

I'm also a full time student at university going through Architecture school and we have been taught Archicad time and time again. Frankly speaking I actually like the independent windows and doors because you do not have to duplicate multiple windows to have a variety of different sizes. Just compare the file size of a Revit project to that of Archicad and you will see what I mean.

The only things that I would love to see in Archicad is the introduction of the temporary dimension lines and also a revamp of BIMx to take it to the quality of Lumion but still allow one to walk through the building and share it with their clients. This is a really important thing that Graphisoft need to work on because a project is better explained in 3D even to us Designers and Architects.

I must totaly agree with you about the temporary dimensions that you can click on and enter a new value to move an element.

This will speed up workflow greatly an make it more appealing to US users to switch back.

I really wonder why they have not done this by now or at least make this option available for us who want to use it and speed up productivity?

[Laszlo Nagy]

mthd wrote:
I must totaly agree with you about the temporary dimensions that you can click on and enter a new value to move an element.

This will speed up workflow greatly an make it more appealing to US users to switch back.

I really wonder why they have not done this by now or at least make this option available for us who want to use it and speed up productivity?

I am not sure I can agree with this statement.
Yes, Revit has temporary dimensions, but I am not sure it always provides faster element creation/editing than ArchiCAD.
Yes, there are probably cases where Revit is faster with its temporary dimensions, but I could find equally as many cases where ArchiCAD is ahead.
It would be very interesting to see comparisons of all kinds of element creation and editing scenarios. I have a feeling that ArchiCAD would be at least as fast as Revit in many cases, meaning either the time or number of clicks would be less in ArchiCAD than in Revit.

[Anonymous]

laszlonagy wrote:

mthd wrote:
I must totaly agree with you about the temporary dimensions that you can click on and enter a new value to move an element.

This will speed up workflow greatly an make it more appealing to US users to switch back.

I really wonder why they have not done this by now or at least make this option available for us who want to use it and speed up productivity?

I am not sure I can agree with this statement.
Yes, Revit has temporary dimensions, but I am not sure it always provides faster element creation/editing than ArchiCAD.
Yes, there are probably cases where Revit is faster with its temporary dimensions, but I could find equally as many cases where ArchiCAD is ahead.
It would be very interesting to see comparisons of all kinds of element creation and editing scenarios. I have a feeling that ArchiCAD would be at least as fast as Revit in many cases, meaning either the time or number of clicks would be less in ArchiCAD than in Revit.

I like to edit using relative positions as well.

I want to avoid dragging around a point of origin when possible.

I like to use one hand on the mouse and my left hand with a number pad.

I use Chief Architect that way to model up simple houses in half the time I can in ArchiCAD.

My editing time is also half of that in ArchiCAD for simple houses.

You guys who started in ArchiCAD can shred allot faster than I can at the moment on simple designs.

The GUI could be made to speed things up even more with touch screen inputs and gestures.

[Rakela Raul]

i picked archicad looking at competition' reports...i guess people sat representing every software... and in my opinion and for what i wanted for... archicad was the best x me...
why they dont do same now ?? otherwise this subject beyond complicated...worst than thinking thru 5 moves plyg chess !!!

i woukd really like the same competion but among lumenrt / lumion / tmotion / a couple more !!!!

please stop this ... archicad is fantastic

[Anonymous]

I like ArchiCAD the best too!

And why should engineers dictate Revit over ArchiCAD?

I still think we have weaknesses in ArchiCAD that we need to fix though?