What are new tools for ARCHICAD 13?

[Anonymous]

Hello 🙂
I was wondering if we maybe know what new tools we can expect with the new version of Archicad?
I finaly hope for 3D composite structure layers to be visible, also their 2D representation to be automaticly adjusted to the layer thickness (eg. thermal insulation).
Slab layers and their intersection with wall layers...
Also maybe while defining wall composite layers we can also define each layer height.
Better and more detailed quantity take-off is a must.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

gpowless wrote:
I would take it further.

Archicad should directly read and write in Revit format instead of its own proprietary format.

This makes no sense. Why would Graphisoft ever want that? The 2 programs don't even speak the same language.

gpowless wrote:
I understand the enormity of this suggestion, but Graphisoft is competing head to head with Revit for the same user base. ....................

CAD should be no different.

There isn't really an enormity of a suggestion here, rather than an impossibility. Aside from the fact that CAD and BIM are 2 completely different (though not entirely unrelated) things, you still seem to fail to realize that since the Revit RvT file format is a CLOSED format, Graphisoft simply cannot make ArchiCAD capable of reading and writing in Revit's native format (even if they understand how Rvt files work) without an express agreement or understanding from Autodesk themselves, or without Autodesk themselves actually writing the translator for Graphisoft (like happened when GS and Google/@Last collaborated on a SKP-PLN addon translator for ArchiCAD).

That's unlikely to ever happen for the basic reason that despite all their marketing spiel of always failing to acknowledge ArchiCAD as a competitor, ArchiCAD still IS their primary competitor in the BIM market. And such an arrangement would benefit GS more than it would benefit Autodesk. So what would be their motivation to do it? And inversely they would be just as uninterested in having a PLN translator neither since that would also benefit GS and ArchiCAD users more than it would benefit Autodesk.

This is part of the reason open file formats exist to allow people using different programs to be able to exchange meaningful information. But, again, that only works well if the different developers are willing to work in a collaborative manner on the open format (as happens with IFC), but since Autodesk doesn't like playing with others, their open-file format participation has been rather poor of late.

But going back to closed file formats, you're unlikely to ever have the kind of collaboration and openness that you seem to desire, between software developers through their closed propriety file formats, because that is precisely how they are able to protect the source code (and hence the special particular features) of their programs from their rivals. It's also a large reason why a lot of programs have difficulty with backwards compatibility since newer version of their propriety file formats also tend to incorporate more sophisticated encryption to protect the newer features - I mean, it amazes me sometimes that ArchiCAD is backwards compatible (i.e. saving backwards) for up to 2 or 3 versions sometimes with the new features they tend to add with each new versions; most programs just can't do this.

[Dennis Lee]

I think Sketchup has something like a parametric object now. What if there was a translator from that parametric object into a GSM object? Then we can support Sketchup more and push that format to become the industry standard. I think that maybe more of a viable solution than trying to wait for Autodesk to share their RFA file format with GS. Then we can kick RFA in the butt.

[Da3dalus]

I don't think we need anything that's a perfect translator. Just using families would be a big step. If the developers can just think in terms of potential compatibility with Revit for now, it will benefit ArchiCAD in the future.

Here's a wishlist on this discussion:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=149454#149454

[Steve Jepson]

. .

[Anonymous]

Steve,

I think the important point is the 'automatic' nature of the tool in Revit. You can build anything manually if you really want, but this would take far too long, with too many opportunities for errors, and is just not feasible currently in ArchiCAD.

We are only just beginning to see the start of a similar idea in ArchiCAD with the introduction of the curtainwall tool in AC12. This provides a system that controls multiple co-ordinates in space and passes them on to discrete components. If the co-ordinates change then the components adjust also. I can certainly see this being expanded in the future to include freeform curved geometry. It's just a matter of getting the rather complicated maths right!

To properly manage this, GS will also have to develop a proper relationship system between different elements. It would be a nightmare to manually adjust different curvilinear geometry so they fitted each other perfectly, so if a curvilinear wall moved you would need the floor and perpendicular walls to adjust automatically to it. The SEO tools we have at the moment are just a crude workaround to this problem.

I admit that it's a very impressive and 'cool' function in Revit, but like the curtainwall tool in ArchiCAD, I wonder how often it is actually used on a day-to-day basis by the majority of users?

[owen]

true .. but there is a big difference between 'can do it in ArchiCAD' and 'can do it in ArchiCAD easily'

it is one hell of a difference really. In Revit the process seems quite parametric - change the original surface and the associated elements adjust to match. Not so with ArchiCAD, i can imagine adjusting those things manually would be 'smash head through screen' stuff

[owen]

ah beat me to it

[Steve Jepson]

owen wrote:
true .. but there is a big difference between 'can do it in ArchiCAD' and 'can do it in ArchiCAD easily'

it is one hell of a difference really. In Revit the process seems quite parametric - change the original surface and the associated elements adjust to match. Not so with ArchiCAD, i can imagine adjusting those things manually would be 'smash head through screen' stuff

Very true.

The possibilities for the Revit tool are amazing.
Especially when it comes to producing the construction documentation for free-form architecture. Now something like that is dimensionable, manufacturable, and because of that, constructible.

In the past, producing dimensioned working drawings for the components of curvilinear forms was almost impossible.

That Revit tool will go a long way in making that a feasible task.

[Chazz]

Peter wrote:
We are only just beginning to see the start of a similar idea in ArchiCAD with the introduction of the curtainwall tool in AC12.

This is exactly what makes me pessimistic. The curtain wall tool has that unpleasant combination of being both substantially dissimilar to other hard-to-use, counterintuitive tools in ArchiCAD and yet it itself still being counterintuitive and hard to use.

In a year+ of using AC12, I have used the curtain wall tool only once (on a commercial building in Seoul, Korea) and I did not find the experience particularly gee-whiz inducing.

The more I use software the more I realize that the most powerful feature of all is ease of use. By that standard, the curtain wall tool, like so much of ArchiCAD is moving us backward not forward.

[Anonymous]

Interesting to see the thought-flow. If I can summarise:
-ease of use
-parametric (easy change)
seem to be key attributes.

But I will also use this opportunity to raise the whole underlying facetted geometry bugbear I have with ArchiCAD. It is entirely acceptable for rendering but poor for a documentation tool. (You can search my previous points on this one). That is why I have grave concerns for this software into the future- until Graphisoft announce their intentions.

(Sister company) Vectorworks use of Siemens parametric technology in upcoming versions is simply a very clever solution. Not only does it offer powerful 3d modelling, but it offers parametrics (which we don't have) and good hooks into industry, something IFCs are still struggling with.

I'm going to post on this later, but GS really need to communicate with their user base as to their future plans. It will not be long before sketchup offers for (a fraction) as least as much as AC!