MEP 27 - The New Feature that never happened

[DGSketcher]

Can someone from Graphisoft please step up and own the current abject failure to deliver the renewed MEP Modeller?

Today I joined the many others who have had to return to using AC26 in order to deliver on our MEP commitments.

We all pay out for GS to deliver improvements to AC, yet here we are 7 months later with a key feature broken & software we can't use. Can someone at least tell us what we can expect in terms of delivery of fixing this MEP debacle and when?

It's bad enough struggling with the 3D screen "grey outs", and the disappointment of new features that suddenly became experimental, but finding a fundamental tool is no longer useable... 🙄

[gpowless]

"What? Don't be silly. Archicad is usable. Most of it works as well as it did in V25 and V26 and there are additional features."

And the essence of the discussion is that most of it still works as V6.0 did. The point is that a hammer is still a hammer and functions as a hammer no matter what. As Archicad developed from the days of 6.0 it became an air-nailer and a cordless nailer which does similar things except in doing so some functions such as as the removing-nails-claws were sacrificed (as well as our ability to open a beer with them). BUT putting a swiss army knife on the end of a hammer or an air nailer or a battery nailer is a big misdirection. When the hammer no longer works like a hammer it is useless to the people that use it every day and after a time will be abandoned for some tool that performs the basic functions and adds to them.

We have a substantial investment in Archicad (calling it ARCHICAD makes no difference) and most would be reluctant to abandon it. However, there comes a time when we have to part ways with non-functionality, bite the bullet, jump ship and move in a new direction. We have been warning Graphisoft of that very risk for many years. Revit has always been an option but to me suffers from the same issues - only THEY have way more capital to suffer the losses before they turn direction. 

As designers and as Architects we must re-examine the usefulness of computer aided design processes. The creative brain to hand to mouse (or pen) to computer feedback and now to AI reduces our ability to weed out creative design disharmony without having to defeat the very software we depend on. Yet the creative brain to hand to paper with instant feedback, is still the most creative design process there is even though it is not the most efficient. BIM does have its place to get our thoughts to market but being forced into a specific industrial computer-driven process to translate our vision is counter intuitive. Archicad 27 is in failure mode. The yellow blinking lights on the massive analog panel are blinking and if someone doesn't address the failures it could bring the entire company down. 

You see we are just pencil pushers at heart and the technology that stole our creativity really isn't necessary to our survival. After all with a hammer, a saw, tape measure and drill we can still build things with our labour and then reserve our minds for thinking. [/rant]

[Jim Allen]

It's not that I don't want to answer points, I don't think there's value in entering into a debate which could fall below the standards of polite debate that we expect to see here.

That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't be critical - I think it's important that we are.

We don't purchase Archicad licences each year purely on the premise of the new features being valuable or functional. No-one forces us to purchase. When new features come out, we can't try them before we pay, and the software is 'sold as seen'. It's common that software is buggy. Usually the issues are fixed.

If we are dissatisfied, we can request a refund.

The notion that a specific version of software can't do something the previous version did is usually silly. You can almost always do something - just not in the same way you used to or that you want to, and if you can't do something the you want to, claiming a fundamental failure of the software is unreasonable.

You can't defend the statement "abject failure of delivering a usable product" - it's defending the indefensible, and that really ought to be self-evident.

If AC 26 had the specific functionality required - use that and request a refund for the AC27 upgrade. If AC26 didn't deliver the required features, then why purchase it, or why not request a refund at the time the failure was identified?

How important are the MEP tools really? Can the usual tools be used to achieve a similar result - albeit less effectively? You can draw or model almost anything in AC. You can use morphs and railings and beams for all sorts of things, and you can tag the geometry as different object types. It's not like AC allows anyone to perform calculations for ventilation rates and cable sizes - it's drawing and labelling stuff.

In answer to your point  "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?" - failure to deliver what exactly?

What did you think was promised, that you paid for and didn't get that you think you are contractually entitled to?

Litigation is generally for when contractual terms are breached.

Did you read the software licence small print? I'm guessing no, because no-one ever does. In effect that will say that "It's not our fault if it doesn't work for what you want, and there's no recourse in any of those instances".

Look up how many successful class actions there have been for software failure. Then look at the basis for them and tell me GS is in the same ballpark. It's just not.

The reason I didn't want to get into the detail is because I think most rational sensible people understand the notion of class action is risible, and don't accept the premise of a failure of basic functionality of the whole software package.

If we want to spend our time profitably - let's do it documenting what doesn't work as well as it ought, how we think it ought to work, and what else would be useful.

DGSketcher has expressed these points patiently, comprehensively and articulately, and expressed his frustration and irritation without any hysterical rhetoric. Don't you think it's better that we have more of that?

[thesleepofreason]

---

---

@Jim Allen wrote:

You can't defend the statement "abject failure of delivering a usable product" - it's defending the indefensible, and that really ought to be self-evident.

---

It should be noted that the full statement that you have gotten hung up on was not "abject failure of delivering a usable product" but 

---

@jfaugustine wrote:

(The abject failure of delivering a usable producrt as advertised could possibly lead to a class-action lawsuit...)

---

and there is certainly a lot of things to say about GS's  marketing, especially if you take into consideration what we are getting fed by local distributors trying to justified the constant cost increase. And yes, the thicket of legal reality might offer GS refuge but that a company that once had a close relation to a thriving user community now has to hide in it is a shame.

[DGSketcher]

---

@Jim Allen wrote:

DGSketcher has expressed these points patiently, comprehensively and articulately, and expressed his frustration and irritation without any hysterical rhetoric. Don't you think it's better that we have more of that?

---

I appreciate your thoughts Jim. Unfortunately my patience has run its course, my willingness to engage in trying to correct the failings of AC have come to an end and my hysterical rhetoric ended a few years ago when it dawned that no one at Graphisoft can see or was willing to address the growing backlog of problems. The comments of @gpowless pretty much sums it up for me, there comes a point when the difficulties outweigh the benefits of being invested in the software. Other options are now under serious review and the clock is definitely ticking on whether I continue to throw money at a failing solution.

[Jim Allen]

Your distinction isn't significant though is it? 

Don't get me wrong - I think GS are sailing in the wrong direction without a map or a navigator just because the direction of the wind means the ride is more comfortable.

I would wholeheartedly agree with observations about engaging with customers. I think there's a fundamental lack of awareness about GS's understanding of what we want, and another lack of awareness of the strength of feeling about what they are doing.

Let's be honest, if Revit introduced the facility to model in a 3d perspective view, how many of us would start to look much more seriously at the application?

I would, and I've spent the last 10 weeks or so learning GDL!

I adopted AC after enduring a lot of pressure to purchase Revit. It was the right decision then, and still is for us. Whether it will be the same decision in 1-2 years however is a different matter.

[thesleepofreason]

The distinction means that no one is arguing what you are refuting - that AC27 isn't useable - turning your argument into a strawman. What seemingly was argued was that there is discrepancy between whats advertised and whats sold and if we look at how GS advertise AC27 there is certainly is some prima facie merit to the claim - at least enough to take it out of "silly territory".

"Give your MEP modeling workflow a boost! Graphisoft MEP Modeler 2.0 is here with a streamlined modeling technology and an updated user interface. Connect your Archicad BIM project to the preferred MEP modeling calculation used by MEP engineers to help them stay focused on their work."

Or do you think that corresponds to what was delivered when users doing MEP work are advised here to stay on AC26?

Or even worse - a feature that unrefutably never happened:

"Map any Archicad object to any high-poly Enscape asset to leverage the best of both worlds."

I don't think that legal claims is going to solve anything - it's not like a court can force GS to deliver the product we need - and I don't express any opinion on the ultimate merit of any such claims. But what is obvious is that GS has become detached from reality and started through marketing conjure a false image of AC that should be hard to square even for the most die-hard apologetics.

[mthd]

All I can say on this topic in behalf of all MEP users is, “GS please ensure that MEP works better than it has ever done before in AC28”.

To the other discussions about which software is better to use than AC, “It doesn’t really matter any more because it’s all about collaboration”. If we are using AC, who would really leave AC behind and fully embrace R or VW ? The reality is that we will probably end up using a combination if our office has the real need for it.

As to AC getting better, it certainly has in my case and it will do so in the future. Architectural tools being neglected, true. They only appear to be getting a quarter of the attention that they deserve in deference to collaboration, MEP and AI etc. I hope that will change in the future.

I also hope that interviews with GSI program will yield good results down the track.

[Jaime-airc_digital]

Seems there is light at the end of the tunnel... MEP modeller is back!

https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Graphisoft-Insights/Archicad-27-2-0-Update-Preview-release/ba-p/...

[Balint Kezer]

Hi @Jaime-airc_digital and others,

Be sure to let us know your feedback once you had a chance to try it out as well.

[thesleepofreason]

According to the release notes: Archicad 27.2.0 introduces enhanced Quick Connections between routes and Terminal, Accessory, and Equipment elements. Is there any information about what this actually entails for workflows? Seem to me that it still is rather unquick to connect things to a route or edit a route with things connected?