!Restored: ¿News about AC 12?

[Anonymous]

Hi all!


¿Anybody knows anything about AC 12, please?


I'm hearing rumours, but nothing concrete...


Thanks a lot and regards.



P.S. Like another user says: "forgive my spanglish..."

[Anonymous]

TomWaltz wrote:

oreopoulos wrote:
1) The need to get updated (recompiled) versions of all plugins.This is total insane. Why do we have to pay to get recompiled versions of plugins.

Because 3rd part developers choose to charge for them. They could offer updates to add-ons for free if they wanted to.

Tom. It is not impossible to have forward compatibility of plugins. The fault is from GS side.

Anyone from GS listening to inform us??

[Thomas Holm]

Steve wrote:
I would speculate that 12 will run slower than molasses in January when a Trace Reference is a being used.

Steve, I think that just as in previous versions, AC12 will slow down if you use Trace Reference with a view from the view map as reference, as this means the program has to handle different layer combos simultaneously. If you trace reference from the Project map, this isn't an issue. Still, I speculate that AC12 will run faster than AC11 in otherwise similar conditions.

[TomWaltz]

Bricklyne wrote:
I'm guessing since it wasn't featured in any of the demo videos, it probably isn't there, but I'll ask anyway. Any chance of the MEP (ala Ductwork addon from version 9 that was supposed to be provided for free to customers last year) tools or MEP-like capability, tools or improvements in this version?

That wasn't discussed that I can remember in the Archicad 12 Beta Test.

[TomWaltz]

oreopoulos wrote:
Tom. It is not impossible to have forward compatibility of plugins. The fault is from GS side.

GS might be able to make add-ons compatible or they might not. Either way, it's not Graphisoft's fault if 3rd party developers chose to charge for recompiled versions. Graphisoft has no control over other company's business practices.

[Anonymous]

They are responsible because they let this happen.
I dont know any software with that policy.

You say GS is not responsible, i say they close their eye to developers saying RIP THEM.

If plugins did not require recompilation, developers will have to substantially develop their products to get our money.

Also if a developer stops developing for AC, you just lost your money, because you cannot use your plugin any more.

Is that logical?

I really cannot understand you.

[stefan]

Tom wrote:

oreopoulos wrote:
1) The need to get updated (recompiled) versions of all plugins.This is total insane. Why do we have to pay to get recompiled versions of plugins.

Because 3rd part developers choose to charge for them. They could offer updates to add-ons for free if they wanted to.

In fact, there are two issues:

Graphisoft might sometimes choose to upgrade their compiler (Visual Studio on Windows, CodeWarrior for PPC and XCode for IntelMac). Dynamic libraries are not compatible between compilers. This is mostly beyond GS's control.

On the other hand, they have developed a system to define objects, properties and whatever is needed to create an ArchiCAD model. They defined specific structures to contain all data. Whatever it is, it's proprietary, but when you use the Software Developers Kit, you do get an insight into the system through the API.
In short, they have decided to not break binary compatibility between intermediate releases, but they do update the structures between full (upgrade) releases.
The result is the requirement to recompile all plugins.

What a third-party reseller charges for that is mostly due to business decisions.

The sad result is that many add-ons from previous versions have been abandoned. And because everybody is creating closed systems, no one has a change to do anything about it. This is the main reason I stopped using add-ons, even if that means workarounds.

[Petros Ioannou]

stefan wrote:

The sad result is that many add-ons from previous versions have been abandoned. And because everybody is creating closed systems, no one has a change to do anything about it. This is the main reason I stopped using add-ons, even if that means workarounds.

and that's why its better to implement new features into the application and not rely on 3d party addons.

[Anonymous]

Chazz wrote:

Djordje wrote:
I am old (fashioned) enough to keep the project in the version that it was started in, unless the new features absolutely demand the switch.

Like me, "once burned, twice shy" But heck, it shouldn't be this way. We never worry about what version an MS Word doc was made in (actually, the new one can be a pain) or the version of our MP3 files. If the new verion of a tool needs changes to the file it should run an update on the file, as iTunes and iPhoto does. To the user it should be all but transparent, even irrelevant.....

Djordje wrote:
Agree ...

Had a slight fight on a forum in native language with an university colleague using Revit. There was a "open an old project in the new version" question from another guy, and my colleague coolly asked "whaddaya mean archives, libraries, etc ... you just open".

Yes, would be ideal. You just open.

As both an ARCHICAD trainer and local seller (no one is perfect), I either meet or am in contact with hundred of architects every year. I've been using ARCHICAD since 2004. I've been training people on ARCHICAD since 2005.
I can't remember any user on training session or just calling, who has not asked me at least once,

1. a question about the MIGRATION from an earlier version to a new one
AND
2. a question about the LIBRARIES MANAGEMENT.

You all know that the answer is never very simple…

These two problems they all come across with using ARCHICAD, and far away from any modeling problem or specific wish, are coming from the same source : the used library parts are not embeded inside the main (PLN) file. And (PLA) files or (LCF) files are definitely not the answer.

IMHO this is THE main problem for ARCHICAD users today, and this is becoming a really big issue that GRAPHISOFT has to solve. They have to find a way for the main file to be abble to embed its own library part IF the user wants. Allmost like you can today chose a drawing to be updatable or not, or like a PMK file could formerly be either included or not in the layout book. And of course on the same hand the GS guys have to find a way for the user, IF he wants, to refresh either automatically or manually these libray parts from an external source.

[Anonymous]

Stefan i have to disagree.

Create for example a gdl object in v7. Then open it in v10 and save it.
You cannot now read it in v7 !!!! This is RIDICULOUS!
You dont even have compatibility with simple gdl code!!
(it does not matter if all the functions used are simple and have not changed.)

Dynamic libraries may change but as long as the sdk and the calling functions stay the same there is no problem.

It is obvious that GS does not want developers to create with the pack for v7 (for example) addons for vXX.
There is practically no compatibility issue. Its there decision to prohibit compatibility, as they do for simple GDL code.

So why should i give 200$ for a plugin to buy it, and then spend money again and again for nothing. Developers may also choose to add a thing or two to justify the price, but if the user was not obliged to pay again, they would have to add important thing to make you pay again.

I wonder if GS will ever speak. I dont ask for a user to answer. This is a very important issue and the forum is the place to talk to their customers (and not just to make announcements)

[greysheep5]

come on...

3dsmax for example is a damn expensive application and autodesk doesn´t even offer you a "save as previous version" option in their new versions of 3dsmax. so don´t talk about graphisoft being the only one out there not thinking about backwards compatibility, thats simply not true! and why would you open a file of the v7 in v10 and then go back to v7? i don´t get it? library compatibility could of course be better, but even for that you have the archicad 10 library extension for archicad 11 and so on. works like a charm, for me at least!

and you have to recompile every script and plugin for most of the new versions of 3dsmax too, thats common if compilers and whatelse change...