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... 🙄

[Bricklyne Clarence]

---

(paraphrased for emphasis purposes from what...) @Balint Kezer wrote:

..........

The reason we did not just keep iterating [current Archicad] is that its internal structure ha(s) hit a wall: it c(an) not realistically support the kind of documentation, calculation, interoperability [......that a modern BIM Design Application should be able to provide for its customers]. To get there, we ha(ve) to rebuild the core, not just ....[release new versions year after year that build on top an old and clearly over-strained legacy core that's now past the point  of showing its limitations in taking advantage of modern technological computer hardware and OS advancements].

.......

---

I really wish someone at GS HQ had proposed taking this approach writ large with Archicad in its entirety.

If nothing else, at least MEP folks here are getting the benefit of an actual GS person speaking back-and-forth with them and even going as far as taking responsibility for shortcomings being brought up as well as acknowledging them.

And for that, I applaud you Balint.

I'm one of the biggest critics of GS on this board as most here know only too well, but I'm happy to give credit where its due (and even hopefully encourage it).

Imagine if the rest of Archicad/GS operated this way.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

---

@Balint Kezer wrote:

You are right to call out that we took away a toolset in v25 that, while imperfect, let many of you deliver projects, and that the new one might not yet been a reliable replacement for heavy MEP work. That has real cost for you, and that is on us.

---

Was there any technical need to remove the old usable tool in 27 (28, 29)? Because I don't think there can be a point in introducing an unusable tool, however great it may be intended to some day become.

Would it be technically possible to reintroduce it as it was, or as an add-on? 

Because this explanation

---

The reason we did not just keep iterating the old MEP is that its internal structure had hit a wall: it could not realistically support the kind of documentation, calculation, interoperability and dedicated MEP product we are now building with MEP Designer. To get there, we had to rebuild the core, not just patch the old add‑on.

---

justifies stopping development of the old MEP (just as say the Roof Surfacer), and starting development of MEP Designer. It does not justify removing a usable tool, nor introducing an obviously unfinished and unusable tool. 

[Space_Agency]

---

Balint:

@Balint Kezer wrote:

You are right to call out that we took away a toolset in v25 that, while imperfect, let many of you deliver projects, and that the new one might not yet been a reliable replacement for heavy MEP work. That has real cost for you, and that is on us.

---

Thank you for taking the time to respond and also for stating that this has real cost for us and it is on Graphisoft and your team. However, what does that actually mean? What are the repercussions on Graphisoft and your team? In three version releases we have not seen a fully functional implementation and thus see no results of it "being on you." 

---

@Balint Kezer wrote:

The reason we did not just keep iterating the old MEP is that its internal structure had hit a wall: it could not realistically support the kind of documentation, calculation, interoperability and dedicated MEP product we are now building with MEP Designer. To get there, we had to rebuild the core, not just patch the old add‑on.

 I understand the gist of this approach, but frankly that is not a workable plan. Further, as a customer, this should translate into a reduction in cost for a non-working product as opposed to an increase in cost as you are removing a feature set functionality that we are paying for. Having been on the software side of projects, I understand development budgets but going backwards to move forwards is simply not good business for your customers. Instead, the problem to solve is simply this: "how do we enable a stable working product while we create a better one?" The MEP feature set simply does not work for any MEP design, "light" or "heavy". 

---

@Balint Kezer wrote:

For existing projects, the practical workaround today is to keep finishing them in Archicad 25/26 with the old MEP toolset, since the new platform only starts from 27 onward. New projects that want to benefit from the new roadmap need the new core, but that does not change the fact that the transition should have been safer for you.

That is not a practical workaround. Think about what you are asking of your customer: Pay more for version 27, 28, and 29 but the customers are still unable to use the improvements of the entire product because of one module within the product? That is absurd and simply a poor business approach.  

---

@Balint Kezer wrote:

The current focus is on closing the most painful gaps you and others have listed in this thread and in the roadmap items tagged with MEP Designer, so that the new platform is stable and complete enough for day‑to‑day work. If you want to escalate as paying customers, the two paths that actually feed into decisions are: logging concrete issues and blocking cases here or via your local Graphisoft partner / support, and adding and voting for specific MEP Designer items on the public Product Roadmap.

---

At minimum we appreciate you focusing on closing the gaps of the most painful areas to be stable and complete enough for day to day work, at least there is that. But think about what you are asking the customer to do: work for you for free.  We use the product to do our work: architecture and design. We do not use the product to do work to serve as your team's bug/error loggers. That work should be happening internally at Graphisoft and during beta-testing where we use the product at no cost. The local Graphisoft partner aspect has been ineffective with little to no response. Voting for specific MEP items on the public roadmap is something we have been doing for some time and we see no change. Thus what are we left with? A broken product that is increasing in price every year. 

Here is a real request as a paying customer: Get this thread in front of the most effective change maker at Graphisoft. That should be the CEO/President (but perhaps it is not?). Then it should be sent down the line to all departments as an example of how Graphisoft is failing in development (there are other issues similar to this in the product). Do this to help change the approach to feature development and rollout. Yes, we as customers want new features, but we NEED a working product to run our businesses. 

[Space_Agency]

To whomever marked this as solved ( @Balint Kezer  ? and sorry to keep hitting hard on you Balint...)  please do the community justice here and return it to "unsolved", as it is most definitely not a solved issue. The motivation for this is simply to keep the importance level up within the forum and hopefully in front of the eyes of Graphisoft and the archicad community as a real issue which remains unsolved and requires attention to be addressed. Given that there are 192 replies since 2023, I believe there is some justification for the requested change in status. 

[Laszlo Nagy]

I have reviewed the original question and the post that was marked as solution. I removed the "Solution" indication because the post that was marked as solution answered a question in another post, not the issue detailed in the original post of the topic.