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... 🙄

[Eduardo Rolon]

@Karl Ottenstein Sadly you only have to go one version back to see the same mistake with Attribute Manager but in that case beta testers were able to force GS to avoid shipping AC without the original AttMan. For 27 there was no time nor that many beta users that were able to put MEP to the test. Also for 27 the removal of "/" as a shortcut for inches is one that is bitting users but not that many.

[Barry Kelly]

---

@Karl Ottenstein wrote:

My jaw is totally on the floor when Balint says that MEP content from 26 will not migrate to corresponding MEP content in 27.... equipment will no longer be equipment, and routes will no longer be routes that can be edited.  Yet, he (Graphisoft) advises that people needing MEP should model that in AC 26 - knowing full well that when, eventually, 27 or beyond has full MEP again, none of that work will be editable as MEP. 

---

27 MEP is a completely new creature, and older MEP systems were never going to convert 100% anyway (my understanding at least).

The old MEP will be there, just not editable as MEP should be.

So any changes in the MEP system may need to be re-modelled in 27 - depending on the changes I guess.

So basically MEP in 27 starts again.

The problem is MEP 27 just doesn't work and can't do what the old system did (yet - I am thinking positively!).

It is a bit like the old stair objects (pre 21?) do not convert to the new stair tool, but at least the new stair tool was usable (although it takes a lot more understanding to use it).

There can't always be a smooth transition from the old to the new, which is unfortunate but necessary if we want new features.

Barry.

[mthd]

If I am not mistaken, MEP was a free inclusion from V24 on but when did you discover that it stopped having the same functionality ? From 26 or before that ? My reason is that you have to downgrade to be able to have full functionality to use MEP now ? 

[DGSketcher]

The change has come in 27. We currently have a half developed new solution that isn’t as complete / bug free as the 26 version, the list of “coming soon” features above confirms that. But the big dilemma for 26 users is there is no forward migration path for their mep work. So if you have a long running project that requires those old mep tools it is now stuck in 26.

Its like having a dwg file but then being told its been “upgraded” to a bitmap scan of the drawing.

[mthd]

Not a good outcome when you have an ongoing project to service. Nobody wants their workflow to be stifled. AC27 is supposed to be an upgrade not a downgrade of MEP functionality. They may want us to get frustrated and go for another 3D MEP option ?

[Barry Kelly]

It is a completely new MEP system in 27, so I don't mind so much that it is not 100% compatible with older versions.

As I mentioned before - the stair tool was the same.

My understanding is the old MEP objects are all still there, just not compatible with the way the new system works.

But the big problem is, the new system should work much better than it does now.

We should not have to back save to an older version, just to be able to use the MEP tools.

Barry.

[DGSketcher]

---

@Barry Kelly wrote:

---

There can't always be a smooth transition from the old to the new, which is unfortunate but necessary if we want new features.

I don't agree with that statement Barry. It's not like we're asking them to take data from another vendor with an obscure database. GS already knows the ins & outs of the existing MEP data structure and should be able to transfer all those data points to a new system. They aren't so different on the surface, even if the underlying modelling processes & calculations are very different. What if every time you upgraded you needed to replace all your object files individually? That's why there are migration scripts in the objects. Imagine if the same thing was done with walls e.g. "in order to use the new automated wall connection function you need to redraw all walls (& openings) prior to AC## with the new version manually".

Part of our investment is entrusting GS to curate our data files to enable us to reopen past projects and recover the data for further development. I have had a client who started a large project 30 years ago and has come back to me with a rolling program of changes and extensions. I doubt that position is unique especially with commercial projects. The ability to go back and reuse old project files goes with the territory of an AEC software developer. DWGs are still openable decades later. Our PLNs (or parts of) should not be treated as bitmap files e.g. frozen in time.

If this is how GS plan on curating our data in the future then literally there is no point in worrying about changing software as your current data could become obsolete at any time and you will need to redraw everything anyway. 🙄

I'm all for GS modernising their code, but they do need to recognise the duty of care that rests on their shoulders to allow past projects to move forward with minimal disruption. Freezing or loosing any data should be a last resort, not an option picked because it's financially a bit challenging to address it.

[Balint Kezer]

I understand that part of the design is going to be hard to achieve, so feel free to let me know anytime you find something you are not able to do and I will try to help.

Just a few answers/remarks to the points you raised:

1. What is missing? There was a unification of Tee and Wye elements are you referring to that?
2. Yes, this is currently missing. We are thinking about the best way to solve this. What makes it a bit complicated is that we will have to retain the correct labels after the removal of the node. What you can do already in Archicad 27 is moving a node to another node, thus making it disappear.
3. Currently it works the following way:
   1. If a route has elements on a story, and the Show on Stories option is set to 'All Relevant Stories', all of the route elements will be displayed on each story
   2. If a route has elements on a story, and the Show on Stories option is set to 'Home Story Only', all of the route elements will be displayed on its current story
   3. If you only want to display elements that are on each story, you should create separate routes for each story. 
4. It is possible that I did not understood this one, so feel free to correct me, but I believe that in the below picture everything is how you described. The branch element is also sloped and after the vertical pipe it also continues in a sloped fashion.
   

[Balint Kezer]

A Knowledge Base article is a good idea to make things clearer and have a more structured communication from Graphisoft about this topic. We will publish one as soon as possible.

Also replying generally to the compatibility between the versions:

• If you started a project with MEP elements in an earlier version of Archicad, you will still be able to continue it in Archicad 27 and versions coming after that
• Elements imported will retain all their relevant geometry, parameters and classifications
• It will also be possible to change the element via the MEP Custom Settings panel
• The MEP system of old elements will be possible to changed to any other system and the visualization will follow suit
• The elements will also be connected to each other how they were in the earlier version, but it will not be possible to convert these elements to the new routing based elements
• Connection between these elements and the new type of elements can only be visual ('Select Connected MEP elements' will not indicate connection)

With the above described it is possible to continue an earlier Archicad project in Archicad 27, but if a bigger change is needed to already placed elements it is suggested to remodel that part entirely as modifying the old elements will take more time. Finally if addition of new elements are needed to the old model (e.g. adding a ventilation system to already existing pipe systems), there will be no issue whatsoever as these will be completely separate from each other.

[Stewie11]

I don't think DGSketcher started this post because he doesn't like it when things get better and he wants to move forward, even if it means some inconvenience. I'd prefer to write "it's been good just keep it up" here, but I can't do that with the best will in the world. MEP users have hit a wall with this change.

In this situation, the worst thing is not that we cannot continue with the networks modelled in 26, but that we cannot model accurate engineering networks in 27, because this MEP system is not suitable. It also makes it extremely difficult to benefit from teamwork. Architectural design is done in team file 27, mechanical modelling in 26...... And it will be even worse in 28. For those who don't use MEP, I could give the example of imagining a beam device where in 27 only "a*a" cross section could be specified, or the stair element could be just plain single arm nothing else. As a user, we were not given any lead time to change, the old version was discontinued and that was it..