The increasing complexity of ArchiCAD

[Richard Morrison]

On another post, I noted how complicated ArchiCAD had become. I got curious and went back to AC12. Its Reference Guide (for the U.S.) was 541 pages. The Reference Guide for AC23 is now 3,744 pages! (Almost 7X the size of AC12's.) While I have my own opinions about this, I'm just noting this here for others who also may be getting weary of feature bloat. It's a real thing and far larger than I might have imagined.

[Ahmed_K]

you won't read an entire manual to use a software, i always check the manual, but i only search for what i need, simple and fast

[jl_lt]

It would be interesting to know from longtime users if this increased complexity has allowed to do things that could not be done before or at least if some processes have improved; or if all this complexity is just bloating while leaving some basics unattended. At least materials priorities, graphic overrides and publisher seem like a big step from what i hear from those times.

A great example that comes to mind is a software called Evernote. At first it was a marvel of functionality and ease of use and it did exactly what it promised and then some, but over time they added so many useless features while breaking the core functionality that it became an absolute mess. It was sad to see as they just wanted to do too much. I unistalled that app a long time ago so i dont know if it has gotten any better but i doubt it. The point is, could this be happening to Archicad? in trying to keep up with the joneses (aka Revit, which somehow tries to bite even more than Archicad) could Archicad find themselves walking on thin ice?

[DGSketcher]

From my perspective as a longtime user I can say a lot of the complexity has seen amazing steps forward, beams & curtain walls being the immediate obvious examples, stairs & rails, hmmm, the jury is still out on that one. At the core, AC has some very talented programmers handling very difficult geometry & data management issues very competently. Given the amount of abuse the tools get and the complexity of some designs we should really be grateful there are so few show stopper crashes.

There is an element of bloating, but I believe the problems lie primarily in the user interface and workflow. AC is very flexible, or putting it another way it has workarounds and options, unfortunately this is also it's weakness. The workarounds get around difficulties that in some cases should probably not occur, but the options just leave a feeling that there isn't a structured or simplified workflow to some common processes. The Shadows thread is a good example where you realise that the simple act of taking a section can require multiple adjustments in each one to match others. Yes, there are transfer settings and favourites, but again this isn't always reliable or consistent unless you dig down into some more obscure settings. Those section settings should be simplified to a single common preset for all relevant views that would maintain consistency and speed up production.

Another example is Publishing which feels like the final goal requires jumping between several dialogs to sort, check, tag and update layouts before being able to decide which of several "Close Issue" buttons to use, (I know of at least four) before thinking about hitting publish. The point about buttons is very relevant to the complexity issue, we need to get from A to B as quickly as possible, yet the interface seems to offer Scenic, Eco & Shortest routes, to use a SatNav analogy, scattered throughout the interface when we only need a single Quickest route to complete the task. Efficient workflow relies on repetitive processes, too many choices leaves users uncertain as to the best route to take to achieve their goal.

And just to finish, don't get me started on Hotlinked Modules, which I have finally had to confront, and the farce required to control their creation and attribute management because we can't have in-place editing...

[Richard Morrison]

jl_lt wrote:
A great example that comes to mind is a software called Evernote. At first it was a marvel of functionality and ease of use and it did exactly what it promised and then some, but over time they added so many useless features while breaking the core functionality that it became an absolute mess. It was sad to see as they just wanted to do too much. I unistalled that app a long time ago so i dont know if it has gotten any better but i doubt it.

This is actually a good example of a software that learned from its mistakes and walked back from the precipice. After a new CEO took over a couple of years ago, they focused on polishing the UI and core functionality, improving features, and I think have done a remarkable job. Now, it just seems to be getting better and better, and less about rapidly building up a user base so the investors can cash out. I cannot imagine living without this program.

[jl_lt]

Thank you Mr. Morrison, i really loved that app too until they broke it. I will surely try it again.

[dcerezo]

DGSketcher wrote:
but what I would like to see, rather than just headline grabbing features, is GS set about sorting the legacy bugs and wishes with frequent updates to show that they are actively addressing their customer needs to make AC more user friendly and efficient.

What he said.

[Bob Moore]

I have been using Archicad since 2001 (version 5). After reading all these remarks I must say I could not agree more than the general sentiment expressed. I've been practicing for 34 years, 30 years with CAD. What I see is a real dichotomy between the firms(usually large) that may need this complexity and the small firms that don't. For them, the complexity and constant upgrades are a burden in time and money.