So I presume this would be the correct thread to ask where the ability to change the outline line type for ducts has gone? Is this another feature that has gone missing from the AC27 'refresh' of the MEP tools or have I just been unable to find where it is now hidden?
Archicad 26: Can use symbol lines on the floor plan display to change duct outlines
Archicad 27: Appears to be missing a comparable option
Admittedly, I think this was slightly broken in 26, but it achieved the desired end ie. setting an outline line type separate from the centreline type. In 27 objects that are not ducts (eg. a duct branch) seem to use the old settings, but now you need to select 'Override Object's Line Types' to change the outline line type, however this also changes the centreline... A dedicated outline line type should be provided.
On a related note, how do we override the cut fill and pens (eg. on a vertical duct that is being sectioned in plan)? Again, a work around could be found on AC26 by going to the 'All Parameters' page and changing the Connection Symbol Fill and Pens but I am struggling to find anything comparable on AC27. I also suspect it was slightly broken again in 26: After all, why does a connection symbol fill/pen adjust the appearance of a vertical duct that is sectioned in plan?
While I wouldn't go as far as advocating for a class action lawsuit (which I don't believe would ever be successful, in any event), I do understand where he's coming from and the frustration that takes over from having to deal with some of this stuff.
Something that Graphisoft themselves have clearly failed to do or grasp.
So I wouldn't necessarily dismiss him as being silly, because here's the thing,.....
"Archicad is usable. Most of it works as well as it did in V25 and V26 and there are additional features."
And that's the problem there.
ArchiCAD v27 is not that much different from ArchiCAD v26, or v25 and I would even argue versions 24 and 23 as well.
And those "Additional features" comprise mostly of MEP, Structural (SAM), DDSCAD and adjunct improvements that ARCHItects never asked for and don't primarily need.
With the occasional breadcrumbs like 'Design options' (which doesn't work as well as one would hope), and some embarrassing cosmetic improvements like the Attribute Manager upgrade (which had to be completely re-jigged during the beta-testing since it was totally unusable the way they introduced it),....or the other one now that they're bellowing about which NO ONE asked for, 'The AI Visualizer' which they didn't even develop themselves and yet are all over the place taking credit for.
In other words, it works (as well as those other versions), yes, but if the bar is as low as, ...."so long as it works (.....barely...), who cares that the only subtantive difference is the number version",.....then we might as well shut it all down and close shop because this company is dead anyway.
So if you're sitting there with a litany of their under-delivering or outright failures in terms of new tools and feature development (or lack thereof to be more accurate), and consistently falling short of customers expectations, why would anyone be surprised to find some users are advocating exploring a class action lawsuit to get something of a return on their investment?
My question is, at what point for you is it no longer "silly" or out there to advocate holding their feet to the fire in real world terms for this consistent, continuous and continual under-delivery and sub-par output year after year with each new version release?
If,....for example,.....we sitting with a new ArchiCAD v35 release seven years from now, and we hold it up against v24, and the only thing that's substantively changed is the number on the box, are you then justified in demanding to know what Graphisoft have done with all your licensing and subscription fees in those intervening 10 years that has yielded close to nothing in terms of improvements and updates that make your work any easier or brought more value to your practice?
Autodesk had their own "come-to-Jesus" moment not that long ago with that infamous "Letter" that brough a lot of attention to some of the same issues on their side of the fence, and they (seemgingly) took notice and changed course.
But we don't have the "Zaha Hadid's" and the "Foster's" and the likes of big name Starchitect firms that can lend that kind of "muscle" and spotlight to a demand for accountability on our side.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating pursuing a class action lawsuit.
I don't believe it would ever work in any event, and you'll likely end up with the same resolution or option as you have right now -which is to cancel your subscription, cut your losses and seek your remedy with one of their rivals (Which is what a lot of people are doing anyway).
But the only reason people threaten lawsuits in the first place, is that they do (generally) work (even just the threat of them), so while you might dismiss them as an American abherration, let's not forget that American companies have a lot of dominance on the global market and they didn't get that way by producing sub-par products and not being held accountable by Americans, first and foremost, and even by their competitors.
My only hope is that Graphisoft themselves get their own "come-to-Jesus" moment before it's too late (that frog in a slowly boiling pot of water comes to mind), and that it doesn't take an actual lawsuit or something of tha nature to get them to actually start listening to, and responding to their users.
I always love to frame what's happening with GS and these ArchiCAD struggles vis-a-vis their customers, in comparison with how we as architects run our firms and conduct our professions.
And for me it always comes back to this:- that if any of us ran our firms and treated our customers in any way comparable to how they do us and develop ArchiCAD - .....like for example, going on our own tangents to design what we want and ignore their wishes, wasting the fees they pay us to design for them usable workable buildings/homes, ignoring their calls and avoiding any opportunities to meet up with them and hear them out, or get feedback and work on it, and so on and so on - none of us would still be in business.
It's why I continue to be convinced that there are no (longer any) working practicing Architects at Graphisoft or as part of their customer experience as a lens that they can see all of this though.
A client threatening to sue you (and following up on it) if you design a sub-standard building that fails on several fronts is not the most outlandish or "out there" thing in our profession.
In many ways it's the norm.
Another reason why it's important to develop and foster healthy relations with said clients so that it never gets to that point.
It's not about (base) usability.
Or at least that's not the case I was making.
I made the point that from an improvement and actual "upgrade" standpoint, there's virtually no difference between the current release version and the last three versions (....or more).
Particularly if your firm is not invested in the type of features they may claim to have added or "improved" to the program (mainly Structural, MEP, DDSCAD, AI and all that nonsense)
If it was just a question of it being simply usable and not expecting anything more from Graphisoft from our licensing and subscription fees, then we might as well all just revert to using version 21 or 22, no?
Version 22 was the last version that had a significant architectural tool upgrade (The Curtain wall tool revamp)
If the benefit of having the current version is just having a different number on the box (....and a whole load of bloatware masquarading as tool improvements), then what really is the point?
Now, I'm not an MEP tool user, so I can't really speak to what the proponents of the current thread are saying that it's broken and unusable, but if it is and it's a tool that's vital to their firms and businesses, then don't they have the right to be truly and justifiably upset at Graphisoft?
Particularly if the current state of its "brokenness" makes it difficult if not impossible to simply go back down to the previous version and use that one instead?
And actually, I think you should seriously go back and read those Autodesk letters (There were more than just the one).
They didn't go as far as threatening legal action, but they were nonetheless very strongly worded and in much harsher terms than we're currently using here.
And you still didn't answer my question.
At what point is it justified for users to seek more stronger recourse (vis-a-vis even litigious solutions) to Graphisoft's continued reticence and failure to deliver?
5 versions?
10 versions?
In some countries (not named the USA) companies can be required to either refund or redress their customers complaints when they fail to deliver working or properly working products, since from a legal standpoint that would be considered violating a contractual agreement.
In a different response I gave the example of what yours or any of our clients would be expected to do if we kept delivering poorly designed projects despite their constant appeals for us to do better. Would they not also be in their right if they sought to sue us?
Remember that some of the things people are complaining about in ArchiCAD for GS to fix and that they continue to ignore are some of the same things they were complaining about 10 versions ago in ArchiCAD 17 and even 10 versions before that in ArchiCAD 7.2 (when I began using the program).
So should another 10 versions do it?
EDIT :
I should add that I also think that jfaugustine's question was valid and not in any way ill-tempered, or seeking to take the discussion in that way.
It's surprising you didn't want to answer it.
Still looking?
