Archicad 15 new features on youtube.

[Anonymous]

Here's some youtube clips on Archicad 15 new features.

http://emuarchitects.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/archicad-15-new-features/

[Anonymous]

Thanks you guys for the reply. I have another question. I have seen that you`v made some improvements to the IFC compatibility. Maybe i dont know exactly how IFC works, but in AC 14 i tried to import some non-standard organic shape made in REVIT and it only recognized the horizontal geometry as slabs the vertical pillars and the usuall horizontal beams.
Will the new Shell Tool make AC 15 recognize all type of shapes and import them with the IFC standard?

[NCornia]

Coty82,

The shell tool will not help ArchiCAD recognize IFC shapes better. The problem most likely lies in Revit's IFC output. You can verify this by downloading Solibri model viewer (Free at www.solibri.com) and import the IFC file there. If the geometry does not appear correctly in the model viewer then either the program that authored the file does not create proper IFC output or the user did not perform the output correctly. For more on this refer to this link: http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=36330

ArchiCAD is the leader IFC and open file formats in the architectural BIM world and Autodesk has shown some commitment to the IFC standard but from a business standpoint I do not believe they are moving forward with it as fast as the rest of us would like. You will notice that as part of AC 15 is that IFC properties are now native to the objects, making it even easier to classify elements properly along with many other improvements seen here: http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/open.html

The only way for IFC to become a universal standard is if there is pressure to have such standards and for software vendors to be willing to cooperate and improve their IFC interchange.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

ejrolon wrote:
ddlstudio: you can do it now by installing all the versions and step down each one a a time losing/removing improvements along the way.

Take in consideration that each new version has improvements that the previous one does not i.e. shells and renovation in 15 and there are also changes in the libraries that have to be taken in account. If you have a Shell with a trimmed Curtain Wall with different tags for "New" and "Existing to Remain" made in 15 how will it work in AC11 which does not have any of those options? It is not the same as saving 2D elements or "dumb" 3D Solids which is the bread and butter of Autocad.

Do you think it is worth it for GS to spend time making sure that the Improvements in AC15 work correctly to do a direct save to AC11 (4 year old version) in addition to the existing workflow?

If I were working with someone who has AC11 then I would install AC11 in my computer and use that one since this is a valid option and it would avoid all the compatibility problems that would arise. If not you will have to save it to 14 first and see what is lost in that translation, then from 14-13 and so on until you reach 11.

I don't see any advantage for GS to spend time, money and effort in going backwards more than one version. I would rather they keep moving forward with as little baggage as possible.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that everybody upgrades to new versions every single year when Graphisoft releases new versions.

Most people I know don't upgrade that way simply because it's not worth upgrading to new versions very year when each new version offers so little in terms of improvements over previous versions the year before.
Most people actually skip a version (or 2 or more) between upgrades because of the cost involved as well as the hassle in migrating all your projects when not all the Addons work and when stability is not even guaranteed until after "X" number of hotfixes, who knows how many months after they release the actual new release.

In this sense you will then have people who are now still working in version 12 skipping versions 13 and 14 (because they see nothing in those particular versions that qualify as improvements that could actually benefit their firms) and then deciding to upgrade to version 15.

So what is someone like that supposed to do with taking their own projects back and forth between AC12 and AC15 in their own office, without having versions 13 and 14 installed?

Most people are not on Subscription (or are opting out) because, like I said already, it's not worth it as a business model, to a small firm seeking tangible substantive improvements between versions before upgrading.
And this is of Graphisoft's own doing.

Hence the reason why the request to have ArchiCAD save backward more than one version is not only reasonable but makes sense for most users.
The current method they have means that users have to not only have all previous versions installed in their machines but that they have to upgrade every single year to new versions, whether they want to or not, and whether it's even worth it to upgrade or not, if they don't want to be left behind and have a lot of projects lost in the wind.
But then again, maybe that's how they wanted it to be, since it's a model that's beneficial to them from a financial standpoint.
But it's not the same for users who have to seriously consider the cost of upgrades and whether they are actually worth it every single year.

And the point about it not being advantageous for them to spend time, money or resources working on something like this, would only make sense if they were actually spending that time, money and resources, working things and tools in the program that their users have been asking them to work on and improve (for example, the Stair tool) instead of going off in tangents to seeking some other larger corporate agendas in terms of what they choose to improve in the program.

Maybe if they actually did that, then it might even be worth it for "smaller" users to upgrade every single year particularly if they saw substantive improvements and enhancements every single new versions instead of every 2 or 3 versions.


I understand, (as do most users, undoubtedly) that when you save backwards, you lose any version-specific improvements and information from the newer versions. But in the same vein, it's unlikely that anyone working in ArchiCAD 15 wanting to save backwards to open a project in ArchiCAD 12 is going to be using the shell tool in AC15 and seriously expecting to be able to use it or manipulate shell objects in AC12 at all.
In the same way it's doubtful that anyone using the Curtain wall tool from ArchiCAD 13 will seriously be expecting to save it backwards to version 10 and successfully open it and manipulate that curtain wall in the previous version.

[Eduardo Rolon]

Brick some quick answers:

1. AFAIK if you jump from AC12 to AC15 you can run AC13 and AC14 without having to pay extra. Therefore you can skip as many versions as you want. You can ask your resellers for the DVDs of the previous versions.

2. IMO. In a mixed version office you should use the most common version and avoid all the hassles of saving backwards. This will let you use TW for your projects. It is like upgrading a project to a new version of AC before finishing, you should not do it. Also I don't understand why would you go into the hassle of using different versions if you cannot use the new tools because of incompatibility.

If you must (running 64Bit in Mac for example) then you can use the latest version as the master file from which you receive information from the other machines running the older version. All the modeling information moves upwards which means that all the objects gain functionality and never loose it. For example saving to IFC from 15 is faster, easier and creates a smaller file than 14 so down-saving the file to 14 to export to IFC should not be an option.

3. Thankfully we don't have a DRM scheme that links the software to a specific machine or user. If you have different users that need access to the new version at different times then they can move the dongle to the different computers.

-----

I understand that there has been too much "emphasis" on the Corporate Market and that the Stair Tool needs a revision badly and that not everyone is on subscription, etc. but the question was to ask AC to create a save as to older versions option. My answer was that there is a way to do that now and hopefully to list some ways to organize your project in a mixed version environment even though I don't see the logic of doing that since AC does not bar you from running the older versions even when you buy a new license.

You disagree and it is ok but I if I had to choose between a new Stair tool on AC16 using as a basis the new modeling options and the Save-As to AC12 option I know which one to pick.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

ejrolon wrote:
Brick some quick answers:

.....

-----

I understand that there has been too much "emphasis" on the Corporate Market and that the Stair Tool needs a revision badly and that not everyone is on subscription, etc. but the question was to ask AC to create a save as to older versions option. My answer was that there is a way to do that now and hopefully to list some ways to organize your project in a mixed version environment even though I don't see the logic of doing that since AC does not bar you from running the older versions even when you buy a new license.

You disagree and it is ok but I if I had to choose between a new Stair tool on AC16 using as a basis the new modeling options and the Save-As to AC12 option I know which one to pick.

But that's exactly my problem with the whole thing.

Does it have to be an either/or situation?
Does it really have to come down to a choice of which tool you would prefer to see improved rather than having them just improve the tools that most need improving without having to resort to some strategic choices?

I understand that they are limited as far as development resources, funds and manpower is concerned, and as such they have to prioritize their efforts.
I get that.

But let's be honest here, the Stair tool (and I'm only using it as a rudimentary and token example here; you could substitute stair tool for any number of tools that people have been clamoring GS to improve for ages now), should have been improved at least on some basic level as far back as 3 or 4 versions ago.
People have been asking them to improve it since as far back as ArchiCAD 9 if not earlier.
Instead they've spent all those "limited resources" in these most recent versions improving tools and areas of the program that not that many people needed nor asked for improvements in (shadows in OpenGL 3D window?? Nice. but was it really a grave necessity?).

So when it finally comes down to it and it gets boiled down to a "choice" between having a tool improved that should have been improved a long time ago, versus addressing a legitimate concern which may not have been an issue before (previous and earlier versions of ArchiCAD could save back further than one version if I remember correctly, so this isn't an old request, unlike the stair tool or any of the other tools in the wishlist section), and then to add salt to the wound, the 'excuse' of "limited resources" gets thrown in, it just gets a little puzzling.

[Anonymous]

Some points on this argument about compatibility between versions:

+ Like it or not we now have yearly updates.

+ Subscription is here to stay. Dunno about pricing elsewhere but here if you skip upgrades and later decide to upgrade you pay for the in between steps you 'missed'. So IMHO if you have to pay for it, why not use it?

+ The biggest issues with subscription is perceived value for money, and how easy to deploy in an office/ move between versions.
- Value for money has had the biggest reaction where upgrades do not appear relevant to the single user (e.g., 13 and 14 - Teamwork). Given limited resources this will always be an issue for GS - where to spend their time..
- Deploying in an office/ version compatibility. IMHO, this is a very big issue that needs some strategic thought, and one that GS have not solved yet. The fact that it is NOT recommended to 'up version' projects in documentation reveals the limitations, and means most offices by necessity need to have multiple versions installed anyhow. (How many times has a user in your office inadvertently opened an old version file in a new release, worked on it and saved before being aware of what they have done?!!). The biggest Achilles heel is library parts...when transitioning between versions. (And FWIW embedding has traps...)

[David Maudlin]

rwallis wrote:
(How many times has a user in your office inadvertently opened an old version file in a new release, worked on it and saved before being aware of what they have done?!!).

ArchiCAD 15 has a small new feature: when saving an older version file in 15, a Warning! dialog box appears alerting the user and providing 3 options (Overwrite, Cancel, and Save As...) with Save As... as the default.

David

[Anonymous]

David wrote:

rwallis wrote:
(How many times has a user in your office inadvertently opened an old version file in a new release, worked on it and saved before being aware of what they have done?!!).

ArchiCAD 15 has a small new feature: when saving an older version file in 15, a Warning! dialog box appears alerting the user and providing 3 options (Overwrite, Cancel, and Save As...) with Save As... as the default.

David

This is not a solution to our problem. it is only a very small help.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Barry wrote:
Why would you want to draw 2D lines in a 3D modelling tool?
And what could be easier the CTRL click to cut off overlapping lines or select and CRTL click to extend.
Or simply grabbing the end node and stretching it.

Can you explain with more detail what you want?
Barry.

This isn't necessarily an argument or case for drawing 2D lines or line-work in a 3D modeling tool as much as it is a case for the inherent benefits of being able to display the same 2D line-work that you see in your 2D windows in your 3D window and model as well.

It's from either a planned or proposed new feature of Bentley architecture but it makes a really good case for the argument of how it would be useful being able to do this.

http://communities.bentley.com/other/old_site_member_blogs/bentley_employees/b/rob_snyders_blog/arch...

The videos (sadly without narration) as well as the powerpoint presentation, show the ability to link and display your 2D sections, 2D details and whatnot exactly where they appear in the model along that other model related data such as images and pictures from existing part of the building.

Granted, ArchiCAD has a similar feature (3D Documentation) but it's not the same and doesn't even come close to comparing. For one thing, the 3D model and 2D linework representation in Bentley is Live and interactive (i.e. you can change your view, pan, zoom , orbit and potentially keep working in 3D as the linework is displayed) as opposed to in ArchiCAD which only just captures a specific view and allows you to document that view in static form.

I think it provides for a more richer (information-wise) modeling and designing experience and possibly even a better documentation experience as you can better coordinate individual and specific Detail drawings with the actual 3D model.

Sadly, I doubt that this kind of functionality will ever be available in ArchiCAD just based on how ArchiCAD currently works.
For one thing, Bentley has live sections and section markers which show up in the 3D window and automatically cut (or marquee) the model at the point there are placed when the user clicks on them.
And then there are other problems with ArchiCAD only allowing one to 3D document using te internal 3D Engine which is vastly inferior in display quality in comparison to the OpenGL display engine and mode.

But in any case, that's just a good example of how 2D linework representation in the 3D window would be useful in the design and documentation process and really putting the "I" for "Information" in the B-I-M acronym by proving that really useful information in the 3D window and allowing one to coordinate it better.


As for being able to actually draw in the 3D window with 2D linework, I guess that's another discussion for another day, but an argument and case can be just as easily made for it as well.


the individual video files.

ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/hypermodel-01.wmv
ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/hypermodel-01.mov
ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/Hypermodel_iPub.mov
ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/Hypermodel-02.mov
ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/Hypermodel-03-campus-city.mov
ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/Hypermodel-04-bridge-road.mov


....and the powerpoint file with images:

ftp://ftp.bentley.com/pub/outgoing/ras/infused design media.pptx

[TMA_80]

Hi,

I've been testing ( quickely) the new shell tool and I must say it is a great addition to ArchiCAD. I've compared a surface generated in ArchiCAD in revit ...and so far, there are two observations:

1- once the shell tool exceeds a certain limit it gives a message about an issue with a twisted profile ... however the same shape in Revit could produce a shell with no problem. (the shell is only a surface in ArchiCAD while it is a shell in revit.)