Archicad+Vectorworks. Please Merge.

[Anonymous]

Archicad and Vectorworks are under the same owner. If they merge these programs then I am a lifelong customer. Otherwise I am switching to Revit, and I have loved Archicad for 6 years now. The main reason being Archicad's weak modeling capabilities.

Things that archicad needs:
1. Image or 2d line work as a filter option to be seen in 3d window.
2. 3d lines
3. NURBS MODELING (sweep, loft) not the damn profiler
4. Curvilinear walls that don't segment
5. 3d editing capabilities such as making a diagonal wall with out creating a roof to cut it to.
6. Manipulate Z axis of bottom mesh points.
7. A pen set which allows you designate color and weight independently

Vectorworks has all these abilities. But it lacks a whole lot more than Archicad.

[Anonymous]

What exactly do you mean by 7.?
As far as I know, you can create as much pen sets as needed with various / different color-weight combinations. Can GS do a better job? How does VW handle this?

[Anonymous]

Joeri,
When I am designing a layout I want to make and see changes instantly. Similar to photoshop or illustrator, how you can draw a line and alter the color then alter the line weight in real time. Without having to go to the element attributes and designate a .3mm with a red color.

[Rob]

Archicad and Vectorworks are under the same owner. If they merge these programs then I am a lifelong customer.

and you think that merging will do the trick... I wish if it was so simple but in reality merging those two could take years to complete (there is no point to contemplate on technical issues here).

Otherwise I am switching to Revit, and I have loved Archicad for 6 years now.

well suit yourself but if you think that Revit is the Holy Grail that has it all... I suppose everyone learns best from their own mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Hi Franky,

Interesting first post which raises some valid points.

I don't think merging them is the answer. I don't even think that it is even possible. They have been independently developed for too long, so there is little chance that they are compatible code-wise. Any new functionality would pretty much have to be programmed from scratch.

Generally though, I agree that it would be useful if AC had some of the functions you mention.

Comments -
1 - Where do the 2d lines live? Are they from the plan, or a section, or a detail, or a worksheet etc? The 2d lines are not really there in the 3d model: they are just a useful way to add further detail which only appears in the view you created them in.

2 - What would a 3d line represent in real life? I want to move away from dumb lines and hatches in a BIM software, and would prefer if the current 3d tools could actually intelligently model what I wanted, rather than having to fake it.

3 - At the moment ArchiCAD doesn't really have the automation to enable proper freeform geometry to be used efficiently for a whole building. Imagine a freeform wall with a freeform floor going into the side. What happens when the wall is reformed or moved? You would want the floor to automatically follow and reshape itself to suit the new shape of the wall, but at the moment this doesn't even happen with a straight wall and a rectangular slab! It isn't realistic to expect to adjust such complexity by hand.

So in order to introduce usable freeform geometry, a complex relationship system would need to be implemented first. Power is useless without control.

4 - Or at least curves to the same radius should segment in the same places so they join seamlessly in elevation!

5 - I don't think implementing just a single straight slope on a wall top would be powerful enough on its own. Personally I'd prefer to adjust the shape of a top of a wall in a similar way as you can adjust and create points on a slab/roof.

6 - I can see the use for having the option of a uniform thickness mode for meshs perhaps, but what would you use the ability to individually create & edit nodes on the underside for?

7 - I can imagine certain instances where separating colour and thickness could be quicker, but not often. You know where you are with a penset. There is no confusion as to what pen number prints out in which colour and thickness!

How about setting up a new penset in some kind of grid fashion (if you haven't already) specifically for layouting purposes; shades of colours going across, and increasing weight going vertically for each shade.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Bad idea.

For a couple of reasons:

ArchiCAD's freeform modeling capabilities and shortfalls notwithstanding, ArchiCAD is a superior product to Vectorworks in many respects and areas; even the most die-hard Vectorworks users will acknowledge this.

That being said, when you merge a superior product with an inferior product, you only risk diluting the superior product to accommodate what you perceive will be the benefits and gains from the lesser product. Vectorworks isn't even a truly BIM software - plans for converting it into a full BIM application are scheduled for the 2010 version and will involve them having to re-write and re-implement the modeling kernel (engine). Which means that merging with Vectorworks now is not just merging with an inferior product but is also merging with an inferior and outdated engine even by their own standards.

All of this does not even consider the likelyhood that it might not even be possible at all to begin with. Just because two products are owned by the same larger firm, does not mean you can easily cross-pollinate or even completely merge them. Remember that they were initially developed by completely independent developers and software companies, following completely distinct philosophies, prior to being bought-out by Nemetschek.

But all this is obviously besides the main point you raise being that ArchiCAD's toolset (particularly the modeling and freeform modeling) needs a great deal of work and upgrading to expand its versatility. Vectorworks may allow one to model more complex forms because of its expanded capabilities (NURBS modeling and all that), but ultimately, the necessity to manage and control all the information to be represented and contained by those forms, falls victim to the separate-parts-clumsily-cobbled-together approach and philosophy of what is VW's current pseudo-BIM engine. No wonder they are looking to completely overhaul their modeling engine.

AC has the reverse problem, having a good information management and information handling kernel (relative to VW, at least) but lacking the toolset robustness and versatility necessary to create more complex non-rectilinear forms, and even more significantly the capacity to handle them reasonably in a modeling and documentation environment. GS obviously needs to bridge that gap urgently, particularly if they are to remain competitive or even relevant - but I don't think that merging with a product like Vectorworks is a viable solution. Hell, even the Maxonform experiment failed miserably, and as we all know Maxonform ( or C4D) both have far superior modeling tools to either AC or even VW.

I think ultimately GS is going to have to develop these solutions to function natively and naturally in the ArchiCAD environment, but my only fear is that in order to achieve this, they would have to be forced to completely overhaul the engine - which they currently are obviously unwilling to do.

And you're also sadly mistaken if you think the solution will be to jump ship to Revit, since they also have their own issues with Revit's capacity to handle complex forms and particularly large complex forms. But at least (from the looks of what the Revit 2010 version will have to offer), they seem to be trying.

[Rob]

ArchiCAD is a superior product to Vectorworks in many respects and areas; even the most die-hard Vectorworks users will acknowledge this.

spot on. I think the non-official Vectorworks 'branding' as AutoCAD on Mac is actually true.

I think ultimately GS is going to have to develop these solutions to function natively and naturally in the ArchiCAD environment, but my only fear is that in order to achieve this, they would have to be forced to completely overhaul the engine - which they currently are obviously unwilling to do.

Yes, IMHO this is the major problem at GS, having existing tools put on the free-form chassis is a very complex tasks (GDL coding, backward compatibility, UI reflecting the free form tool capabilities and you name it...)

[glenn_peters]

All other comments, logic, and difficulties aside, the one major benefit to a merger of the two programmes into one offering would be an immediate increase in market share.

Not a bad thing considering the strong efforts by Autodesk to move more of the AutoCAD faithful to Revit -- I see it more and more with offices that decide to stick with the Autodesk solution in their quest for BIM.

[Anonymous]

frankyvero wrote:
Things that archicad needs:
1. Image or 2d line work as a filter option to be seen in 3d window.
2. 3d lines
3. NURBS MODELING (sweep, loft) not the <b>[censored]</b> profiler
4. Curvilinear walls that don't segment
5. 3d editing capabilities such as making a diagonal wall with out creating a roof to cut it to.
6. Manipulate Z axis of bottom mesh points.
7. A pen set which allows you designate color and weight independently

8. an intuitive to edit block object like sketchup has (and acad, and vectorworks,...): doubleclick - edit -close
not this stupid thing with exploding objects and resave them
9. much better performance in 2D... it can't be that after every click the screen recovers for 1 sec. And it can't be that using some splines (maybe 1000 points) makes the system so slow that you can't work anymore (quadcore 3GHz, 4GB RAM, WinXPx64, geforce 9800)
in ACAD i can use 100 times more splines without any problem
10. no annoying selection flyout for box/ cross selection

frankyvero wrote:
Vectorworks has all these abilities. But it lacks a whole lot more than Archicad.

but only when it comes to the 3D part... 2D is already better in vw

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
ArchiCAD's freeform modeling capabilities and shortfalls notwithstanding, ArchiCAD is a superior product to Vectorworks in many respects and areas; even the most die-hard Vectorworks users will acknowledge this ...

Well I am a hardcore Vectorworks user (14 years) and I have to say that considering where the industry is now ArchiCad is superior - because it is a geniuine BIM application whereas Vertorworks is not, and will not be for some time, if ever. Having said that Vectorworks is absolutely superb at what it does. It also has two important advantages over ArchiCAD:

1- larger user base / community
At the moment Nemetschek seems content to maintain a walled garden approach to Allplan/ArchiCAD/Vectorworks. What I have not mentioned is that I am jumping ship and moving over from VW to ArchiCAD. I think that if it was feasible for Vectorworks offices to seamlessly integrate a few seats of ArchiCAD there would be no turning back. Of the three Nemetschek products ArchiCAD is the one with the best potential growth story. But what we need to see is smooth interoperability between the three, starting with basic (good) file exchange. It amazes me how foreign they are to each other. I have to export Vectorworks to dwg to get it into ArchiCAD!?

2- robust and scalable 3D engine (Parasolid)
Vecotorworks has always been a joy to use with great drawing tools. Parasolid means that it gets even better in the 3D space. Since ArchiCAD is 3D by nature (and not by add-on like VW) it seems a natural step to me for the guys at Graphisoft to incorporate a solid industry leading 3D engine like Parasolid. It would improve 3D modeling and exchange capabilities, not least with Vectorworks.