What do you think should be done to get Archicad a bigger market share ?

[Anonymous]

I personally find ARCHICAD way more powerful, easy to use, faster and all in all innovative than other solutions like Revit. However since Revit is backed up by Autodesk and long years of Autocad dominance, ARCHICAD isn’t leading in terms of market share, what do you think GRAPHISOFT should do better? Do you think it’s enough for them to just push for a better product ? Or is there something else you would do ?

[Anonymous]

jl_lt wrote:
Clients want the whole package just on the architect fee.

I have a feeling that in your country, Engineers and similar technicians can practice and licence Architecture, right?

Here in Portugal, after many many years of battle, only Architects can practice and licence Architecture. So the client come to us and we coordinate all the specialties. The total fees include all trades.

[Anonymous]

@ Jp1138

I agree that CYPE output documents are not for the Architect "taste". But you can always reference them inside AC and tune it for better readability.

About modeling (without analysis part) inside AC: Can´t you do this with regular AC tools, like CP/Columns? And besides this, you always have to do the analysis on CYPE, right? So why don't do all on CYPE and reference it on AC?

[jl_lt]

Braza wrote:

jl_lt wrote:
Clients want the whole package just on the architect fee.

I have a feeling that in your country, Engineers and similar technicians can practice and licence Architecture, right?

Here in Portugal, after many many years of battle, only Architects can practice and licence Architecture. So the client come to us and we coordinate all the specialties. The total fees include all trades.

It's Mexico. Here, my aunt can draw a plan in a napkin, have it done in Autocad by a student or the contractor, do the permit drawings and get it approved. So yes

[rob2218]

Right...so, who defines what "architecture" really is?
See...there in lies the issue.
I can 'practice' architecture....but AM I an architect? Just because I have a license?

Here in the US, specifically southern California...you can't even call yourself an "Architect" but you can call yourself a "Home Designer" or "Designer"....and do 99.9% of what an "Architect" does.....and charge 1/3 less and pickup 150% more work.

Sometimes,......it pays to NOT be registered and sometimes...it pays to be registered in too much LIABILITY.


See.....

Braza wrote:

jl_lt wrote:
Clients want the whole package just on the architect fee.

I have a feeling that in your country, Engineers and similar technicians can practice and licence Architecture, right?

Here in Portugal, after many many years of battle, only Architects can practice and licence Architecture. So the client come to us and we coordinate all the specialties. The total fees include all trades.

[Anonymous]

jl_lt wrote:
It's Mexico. Here, my aunt can draw a plan in a napkin, have it done in Autocad by a student or the contractor, do the permit drawings and get it approved. So yes

@rob2218

Here in Portugal, the government, in agreement with all AEC, legislate that only professional with a degree in Architecture have proper formation to design and licence buildings with more than 40 sqm that can be well integrated in their surrounds. An Engineer or a technician don't have in their formation, notions of Ergonomic Design, Proportion, Balance, History of Art, etc.

[Jp1138]

Braza wrote:
@ Jp1138

I agree that CYPE output documents are not for the Architect "taste". But you can always reference them inside AC and tune it for better readability.

About modeling (without analysis part) inside AC: Can´t you do this with regular AC tools, like CP/Columns? And besides this, you always have to do the analysis on CYPE, right? So why don't do all on CYPE and reference it on AC?

The ifcs done by CYPE are very dumb, don´t bring any information to the model apart from the basic geometry - even that isn´t correct sometimes.

You can always bring the blueprints and edit them, of course.

And yes, you can model "anything" using the tools we have, but the point was that the tools already exist as a plugin that comes with aditional payment. I think the program would be more complete with it included by default, as other softwares do. It´s too expensive for what it really does.

[Anonymous]

@Jp1138

I agree that ifc between AC and CYPE is far from perfect. That is why GS should have a more straight communication with CYPE to iron those wrinkles. Not to continue on developing a tool that will never compete with dedicated software.

About AC being more complete with native MEP Modeler, I understand your point, but don't forget that having a MEP Modeler inside AC will surely reduce GS limited resources from critical functionality on every release.

[jl_lt]

Braza wrote:

jl_lt wrote:
Clients want the whole package just on the architect fee.

So the client come to us and we coordinate all the specialties. The total fees include all trades.

That is what we strive for, and many clients get it of course, but it's far from being regulated. On the other hand, the contractor and structrural engineer have much more responsability in terms of liability than the architect. I understand that in spain for example the architect is the one responsible for the structrural stability of the building even though it is calculated by an engineer.

[rob2218]

"The Government...." there, you said it all. Right there is your problem, as is in the U.S. of A! When "the government" gets involved....it all goes to $h!t....and THAT is a fact.

If folks were to be allowed to self-regulate their designs and their "designs" falls on top of THEM, nobody to blame but themselves...and if their designs KILLS someone in there house, building, teepee, igloo whatever, then an "eye for an eye"...period.

Call me old-fashioned, call me neanderthal, call me Medieval but I don't care.

Braza wrote:

jl_lt wrote:
It's Mexico. Here, my aunt can draw a plan in a napkin, have it done in Autocad by a student or the contractor, do the permit drawings and get it approved. So yes

the-scream.jpg


@rob2218

Here in Portugal, the government, in agreement with all AEC, legislate that only professional with a degree in Architecture have proper formation to design and licence buildings with more than 40 sqm that can be well integrated in their surrounds. An Engineer or a technician don't have in their formation, notions of Ergonomic Design, Proportion, Balance, History of Art, etc.

[qbic-ft]

LaszloNagy wrote:
qbic-ft,

I would also be interested in hearing about why these companies are not happy with Revit.

I consider myself very savvy using 3d applications and combining them to get the job done from schematic design to construction documents. (Autocad, Revit, Sketchup, 3ds max, Rhino,etc; and now I'm learning ArchiCAD)
The problem is most of the companies because they are on the rush finishing projects the staff never work efficiently in Revit. Instead, to build the elements in 3D, they draw even cabinets elevations in 2D inside Revit.
In a studio of 40-50 people using Revit, maybe a couple can produce custom families, besides the BIM manager. Bim managers are very protective; they don't want to teach how to do families because that task is the way they secure their position inside the firm.
Creating stairs and railings in Revit could take the whole day; Let's say you want to build a "beam supported stair" with a plate to support the tread; you have to build it using a custom railing and building all the components as different families, after several hours of trial and error and a degree in science maybe you get 75% of what you wanted.
Revit is that stupid, Why would you need to use a railing to make your stair?
Revit is not for architects and designers; it's almost impossible to focus on design because half of your brain is thinking about what trick I have to use to make it work.
If you want to taper the side of a slab or wall you have to build them as a "family in place" or use massing and then apply a wall to the face.

In general, the big complaint is; It is not friendly, and it's very complicated to build everyday situations in architecture without using trick or extra steps, so they have to go back to the bad Autocad habits to draw in 2D.

I took an online course(LinkedIn Learning) for three days. After seeing how easy, it is ArchiCAD; I feel very confident in starting right away a new project in Archicad without any significant problem; on the other hand, most of the firms using Revit have internal classes every 1-2 weeks for things that you can do in Archicad in few clicks.