Archicad 25

[Narska]

Where can I find a list of what new goodies we can expect in the next version of archicad?

[Podolsky]

avava wrote:

Podolsky wrote:
As expected - this is kitchen cabinet (new one). How to make a hole for sink in upper panel if I'm using separate slab for worktop? Because I'm not using built-in worktop (counter), option to select sink is not available. That means I probably need to use SEO after to extract shape of sink from a cabinet. This problem existed ages - and now, after major update of kitchen cabinets is still there. WHY???

To be happy, just use Solid Element Operations.

But this is not the point. What to do if you need to make manufacturing drawings for kitchen cabinets? Where then BIM in all that? Without important updates it's possible then stick to old versions. What the point if new version actually do the same as previous? Then nothing apart new troubles with bugs and crashes new version is not bringing.
I mean really. It's possible to get then version 10 for free and work there. Built there powerful GDL tools, reorganise everything, build software that actually works for your business and rest - then it just not needed noise. If we are not paying for software, programmers and company managers and engineers are not getting salaries. And not able to work. But if they, working and getting paid, constantly do something you would never expect and opposite never do that you are waiting for - why then be bothered about all that.
What usually happens in regular life - if I don't like pizza - I'm returning it. Nobody can force me to eat what I don't like. Why then in software we are forced to use features we are disagree with? Who then know these things better - users or creators?
Another question I'm asking myself, why not to launch special program from Graphisoft, where registered users can take part in developing future versions - as designers of systems, not programmers, similar way how happens registration of Add-ons development?
It's possible to set special online tests about system functionality knowledge, as passing exam. Have internal discussion boards there, access to confidential information... Or even make future development process more transparent and open to public.
Many things can be done in this matter. I understand that this means reorganisation of the company, but even big companies and technologies do that this day - it's like switching new Apple to M1 chip.

[Pink Projects]

I was ecstatic to finally get textures elevations, sections, interior elevations. HOWEVER, as is usually the case—it was not thoughtfully implemented. Having this setting embedded in the actual marker does not allow for toggling between "presentation" drawings and "construction" drawings. This is incredibly short-sighted. Do we now need to duplicate the many, many, many interior elevation markers in a project to be able to have the ability to show both styles? Do we need to make a "jump" at some point in the project to turn off all the textures for our annotated construction drawings?

Bummer.

[Ahmed_K]

I think the "Sink " empty panel is not a real problem, if someone with good GDL knowledge can have a look to the babinet script, he can create a button to activate or disactivate the topper wood panel,
if it's possible, than he can share the script lines ( if he wants of course ) and GRAPHISOFT would add it to it's default library

[Podolsky]

adrian_s wrote:
The textured elevations are fantastic. Well done GS team.

Not so much. I cannot use textured elevation in my project for construction package as good as before. Everyone can agree with me it's better to have just one Elevation in the project. For example I've got North elevation. Then if I'm publishing textured elevation as part of presentation I would like to use the same drawing for construction, but change layer combination, differed MVO, scale and Graphical Override. The point is, that I can change textured fills into another fill - let say white background. But I cannot keep vectoral hatches and shadows. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Another problem that still exists - graphical override fill still not following origin of fill that going to be replaced - like if I want to replace some typical fill with texture fill.
There is no global control to show or hide texture fills through the whole project. I cannot pre-set that all elevations would instantly change their look.
Probably it's worth to introduce MVO parameter to control such a things - having control of MVO of plans, sections, elevations and interior elevations as separate parameters. I guess there it would be possible also to control zone stamps in sections, as it happens now in plans.

[Podolsky]

bouhmidage wrote:
I think the "Sink " empty panel is not a real problem, if someone with good GDL knowledge can have a look to the babinet script, he can create a button to activate or disactivate the topper wood panel,
if it's possible, than he can share the script lines ( if he wants of course ) and GRAPHISOFT would add it to it's default library

No way. Look how complicated interface of cabinets. And how many pages, inserted pages there in UI. If I would write my library I was replacing totally everything. All basic principles how such an object would work.

[jl_lt]

Pink wrote:
I was ecstatic to finally get textures elevations, sections, interior elevations. HOWEVER, as is usually the case—it was not thoughtfully implemented. Having this setting embedded in the actual marker does not allow for toggling between "presentation" drawings and "construction" drawings. This is incredibly short-sighted. Do we now need to duplicate the many, many, many interior elevation markers in a project to be able to have the ability to show both styles? Do we need to make a "jump" at some point in the project to turn off all the textures for our annotated construction drawings?

Bummer.

thats certainly a downer. can graphic overrides override this setting? so one can at least work with just lines by cloning a folder instead of duplicating the markers, which is very inconvenient.

[Anonymous]

So the question for the Mac users is this version (25) fully apple chip (m1 m2 or whatever) compliant?

[Eduardo Rolon]

outpostarc wrote:
So the question for the Mac users is this version (25) fully apple chip (m1 m2 or whatever) compliant?

Nope,

[jl_lt]

so, for the guys that have already downloaded it, is it stable and fast at least?

[Eduardo Rolon]

jl_lt wrote:
so, for the guys that have already downloaded it, is it stable and fast at least?

Yes.