What do you think about the last presentation of Graphisoft?

[hpenbeoglu]

Archicad 24 event was good but probably focused on new users, so it was boring or let's say not exciting enough for advanced users like me. I was expecting more about the product.

[list=]

Logo change can be told with a video explaining the history of it and why did you select this one?

• Presenters could show some projects on dark Mac screen.

• Showing, walking in the campus (GS Park) would be perfect (like Apple) because standing still presenter is always not attractive.

What else did you think while watching?

[JSN]

Beieng told that Darkmode for windows is not requested from the user felt like an affront of the community.
In general lots of inconsistencies in the whole story as on the one hand side it felt like they want to grow really big now in terms of interdisciplinarity but then they did not do their homework properly when it comes to their base disciplin and customers of architecture. Neglecting quality for the sake of quantity may be a good marketing strategy for appealing new customers but I can only hope that this will also improve and unify the basic concepts again.

I am not saying that a cobbler should stick to his lasts, but the general impression I had and this is also the feeling I have after reviewing the new features is that AC24 is neither fish nor fowl.

Don't get me wrong it is a great BIM Authoring Tool, and opening towars collaboration is always good, but I think some things have way more potential if they were implemented in a central conceptual way and not so shattered .... developing here a bit of Python API, there a bit of Param-O, then a bit of Grasshopper Livebridge .... all of them are highly potential tools, but they all are very limited in use as well at the moment .... there should have been a more conceptual holistic view on how to implement these features as a core feature to really bring Automation, Optimization and Parametric working to the base .... then the whole narrative would be consistent and logic as well and the presentation wouldn't have felt so schizophrenic.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

JSN wrote:
Beieng told that Darkmode for windows is not requested from the user felt like an affront of the community.

It just shows you that they don't even bother reading people's comments in this forum, like we're usually told they do - or if they actually do, they don't pay attention to them or care what the people are actually saying or asking for.

Alternatively, it could be that they only read the Wishlist sections, for example, - which ought to be a good thing - except they only pay attention to the numbers generated by the poll results and not don't really read or care about the reasoning behind why people vote the way they do in those polls after they've voted (some of whom don't even vote). It's probably an easier way to deal with the great amount of information and requests, but hardly a qualitative way of addressing any real issues, when all you see are numbers and not people or situations and circumstance.

It would go a long way in explaining why there's such a massive disconnect between how they perceive the users of their own software and the actual users themselves.

[Nathan Hildebrandt]

I honestly wished they would have presented the launch of AC24 like previous releases. Here is an example of last year's launch.

Now I understand the logistics have to be different because of COVID but all of the demos could have been pre-recorded and stitched together to present a similar output to previous releases. The problem I had with the 2 sessions was that it didn't have a clear flow or message like previous events. It jumped from idea to idea without any clear message. I didn't like the way it was delivered and would prefer the approach taken in previous years. I know this can be done remotely and pre-recorded well, I am having to do that for my industry events as well (albeit with $0 budget).

[Anonymous]

JSN wrote:
Beieng told that Darkmode for windows is not requested from the user felt like an affront of the community.

Yes. This is not a fair assumption by GS. If we look at the wish: https://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=66173&hilit=wish+dark+mode&sid=b8cc81fe16d...
We will see that the majority of votes(45%) voted: "Functional improvements are more important"
But the second one(22%) voted: "Yes, I would much rather see this as the main feature of a future archicad instead of a new development".
So: If the Release doesn't give much (if not none) functional improvements, then the correct assumption would be more like: "67% Wants Dark Mode/Dark Theme for Archicad (On both MacOS and Windows). Right?

Bricklyne wrote:
...but hardly a qualitative way of addressing any real issues, when all you see are numbers and not people or situations and circumstance.

Totally agree. I would suggest GS to create an "Archicad RoadMap Section" here on Archicad-Talk. Compiling the current Wishlist with various forms of sorting the data (by date, votes, importance, etc.). Then GS could make "ratings" for the probability of a wish to become a feature, and even posting some GS ideas for experimental features to get users feedback. In a single word: Communication.

@Nathan Hildebrandt

Yes. The previous presentation format was way more persuasive than this one. I wouldn't say schizophrenic like JSN, but more like autistic. For example: The part when Anthony Laney and his Structural Engineer simulate their workflow with the new Structural Analytic Model, is too vague IMO. That part alone could be a 40 minute presentation that I bet no Engineer would felt bored. And this AC24 version is almost all about Engineers, right? "Bring your Engineer!" (Remember? ).

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Braza wrote:
.........

Bricklyne wrote:
...but hardly a qualitative way of addressing any real issues, when all you see are numbers and not people or situations and circumstance.

Totally agree. I would suggest GS to create an "Archicad RoadMap Section" here on Archicad-Talk. Compiling the current Wishlist with various forms of sorting the data (by date, votes, importance, etc.). Then GS could make "ratings" for the probability of a wish to become a feature, and even posting some GS ideas for experimental features to get users feedback. In a single word: Communication.

.......

In a different thread someone mentioned Vectorworks as one of ArchiCAD's rival/sister software that was seeing significant development improvements in recent releases (relative to ArchiCAD's own slowdown pace), and I recently stumbled onto a Vectorworks user forum while searching for how to do something entirely different in the program for something we had to do at work.
It wasn't expressly a wishlist forum or thread, but the users there were expressing what they'd like to see in the next version release of their program (Vectorworks v2021). And I went from being somewhat smug as they were asking for features that we already have (like the ability to slant walls, which as a key feature update in the most recent version of Revit as well, and which we've had in ArchiCAD for almost 15 years), to being jealous and then depressed and angry as they got almost instant feedback right there and then from developers speaking with the users and having an open dialog - the sort of openness and responsiveness that we ArchiCAD users can only dream of.

And while it should surprise no one that they already have stuff like dark mode (on both platforms) and even features we want like the ability to use dual monitor set-ups, they were even discussing stuff like changes that could improve the interface while referencing screenshots of the interface that the developers already have developed (one of many I would imagine) for the test or beta-version showing what they're working on in the lab to give users frequen updates on whaat they're working on.
And it's not just them. The user forums at the McNeel people's site (the makers and developers of Rhino and Grasshopper) is pretty similar with that sort of open dialog and back-and-forth and peeks and previews into what they're working on - complete with honest assessments of what may or may not make it into the next version release and the feasibility of getting some requests in future versions. Of course, they have an open beta process open to any users, and much more extended which further underlines and enriches this development process, such that beta-testing the next version for them isn't just an exercise in bug-shooting and hammering out kinks for the developers, but REALLY testing new features to see if they can work in a robust real-world environment with as much feedback as possible from the user community.

It's why I predict this new Param-O node-based GDL object making tool with ArchiCAD 24 will likely fail or at best, go the way of BIMComponents (remember that? Remember how it was supposed to be the "Google SKetchup Warehouse" for ArchiCAD smart library objects?) and not really amount to much.
Because they're trying to replicate the process (and success) of the development of Grasshopper over at McNeel with Rhino - only they're taking shortcuts and doing away with what really made and makes Grasshopper such a success for McNeel.

The idea of a Roadmap is nice and all, and under normal circumstances even if they were to do it, they would still be way behind the curve as most Software Development shops by default have open published "RoadMaps" or "Trello" boards as a standard part of their development process. But let's be honest here;....
It will never happen.

[jl_lt]

A roadmad is trully asking for too much, but a curating effort, along with polls about polls will surely help to sort out what the people considers more important. Im sure that implementing some wishes rather than others would be helpful.

[ethanbodnar]

Totally agree that a roadmap would be ideal. As a new Archicad user, would love to know what is coming and have transparency into the process. While I'm on a yearly subscription at the moment to give the program a test for the next year, having more transparency would have helped with that initial purchasing decision.

Considered Vectorworks as well, and so spent a lot of time diving deep into the archives on this forum and the VW forum, and the approach that Bricklyne Clarence talks about is what I experienced as well with the VW team in their forum.

Many software companies have a roadmap public + detailed change log of updates as they are pushed out. I don't feel like this is a wild concept, Twinmotion is the latest example, think they started sharing this recently, https://portal.productboard.com/epicgames/3-twinmotion-public-roadmap/tabs/4-under-consideration

[Emre Senoglu]

A great example of a public roadmap is in my opinion Corona Renderer's trello board. There are always detailed steps to each task, and you can follow it literally week by week as items are marked as done. I pay a monthly subscription fee to Corona, and it makes sense to be able to see continuous development with no pressure for release deadlines.

AC's current development process can be pretty much described as: 'wait for a year.. surprise!'. Being a small firm in a non-EU country (the euro exchange rate hits us hard), it is too much of a risk to take for us to be asked to pay upfront for a program we don't know the new features of.

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
The idea of a Roadmap is nice and all, and under normal circumstances even if they were to do it, they would still be way behind the curve as most Software Development shops by default have open published "RoadMaps" or "Trello" boards as a standard part of their development process.

Better late than never.

jl_lt wrote:
A roadmad is trully asking for too much, ...

I don't think so. The AEC Software Industry (and not only) is facing a revolution. IMO. The way big companies, like Autodesk/Bentley, have managed user expectation is no longer acceptable. I just hope that GS doesn't fall in the same mistakes. The VW example is a good sign that this approach can be replicated to other Nemetschek brands. I am optimistic on this. After all we already see a consistent GS feedback here.