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 ?

[rob2218]

Well explained.
Yes...this whole "families" thing in Revit drove me bonkers when I learned it.
I couldn't image that out of the box.....a simple Revit family of doors DID NOT come with the door frame and jambs in place on the object (well family part)....how whacky is that?
Something as simple as a rectangularly shaped door frame/jamb....seriously?
in archicad, right from the get-go...you can alter the jamb frame however you want...........yet, alas, the stupid design world 'insists' on banging their heads to solve a simple issue instead of switching over to a software that's more "intuitive" like Archicad.

I know it doesn't answer the initial question but it's just frustrating to see that Graphisoft can do a whole lot more.....and being slam-baked by Autodesk.

qbic-ft wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

rob2218 wrote:
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.

Ok. This is what happens then.

@jl_lt

Here in Portugal, each trade has its own resposability/liability and if the project is too complex, then an Architect or Engineer coordinate the trades involved. Architects to Architecture/Landscape/Accessibility; Engineers to Structure/MEP/Energy Evaluation, etc... It is like we say here: "Every monkey on its own branch"

[jl_lt]

@mr braza

We have a lot of "self regulated" developements here in Mexico and all latinamerica. Some of those are places where even the police wouldnt dare to go. I'm fortunate i don't live in a place like this, but i know many people that do. It's very harsch (sometimes in the extreme) but not everything is that bad. Also they are fascinating if you study them as evolutionary design and as a web of communal self help.

Of course, like everywhere else, bigger fancier projects involve many trades and architects and engineers do the coordination

@Mr. qubic

That is exactly what happened to me with Revit. Every time i tried to learn it i ended up pressing my hand in my forehead, mouth wide open in disbelief, asking my self why it was so difficult and slow to do anything.

Maybe as architects we are Masochists?

Going with the self regulated analogy, maybe using Revit is like living in a slum? With dangerous dark corners at every point of our path.

From what everyone here says, it seems like Revit has been a self imposed punishment.

Many times i have read here, that as an architect you have to accept your fate and if you end up working in a Revit firm, thats it, You will use it. But what if we have a choice? What if the workers, not the employers, demanded for ergonomics and better working conditions? What if as a worker i demand to use a software that actually helps me do the job?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

qbic-ft wrote:
........
.....
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.

This is a perfect summation of pretty much my own experience during my time working with Revit in the firms that used them in the time I was with them.

And to add on just a little bit to it,....
Basically the designers and architects in the firm and the people who actually DESIGNED would end up using mostly Sketchup or Sketchup with a combination of other tools like AutoCAD or Illustrator.
While the peons and underlings tasked with the rest of it were the ones who had to fight with getting it done in Revit and producing the documentation that way.

And lots and lots of workarounds and shortcuts and tricks to try to avoid having to do it the way it's "supposed" to be done out of the box (or learn how to).

It's basically an engineer's tool re-purposed for architectural "design" (**cough*Documentation*cough**) and which requires you to have a degree and expertise in several other areas - except the one you actually have - just to get it to do what you need it to do.

[Jp1138]

Braza wrote:
@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.

Direct communication is not the way. Using the standards (IFC) correctly is, and in this case I think CYPE is the culprit here.

The MEP modeler is already being devolped or at least maintained, so there would be no extra work involved. Just make it part of the main package.

[rob2218]

Great discussion guys...especially seeing your views from other countries...terrific.
I'm excited to read this particular thread every day.

thanks.

I suppose the one fellow who said (paraphrasing here) "as architects we are masochists"....is 100% spot on.
Seems architects LOVE the eternal 'struggle' and can't seem to evolve past it.

I, for one studied architecture in college. Got my Masters in Architecture and was given the God-given talent of being able to draw "anything" 3-dimensionlly from an early age. I worked in an architects and land surveyors office in my HS years (that was 10th, 11th and 12th grade I was doing what seasoned draftsman were doing).....so in HS my drafting teacher told me (real story) "there's nothing more I can teach you by the way your drawing level has become...so just take the period off and go to the library and I'll give you an 'A' for the year".....................something to be said about going to work early in HS.

During the course of my designs at various employers, I found a 'knack' for being able to understand autocad (even programmed in LISP) to then transitioning over to BIM (just took to that naturally) in Archicad...but...

When I learned Revit...indeed it was very very poorly organized. Perhaps once you sit in a Bentley, then the Toyota Truck doesn't cut it anymore.....but, with that said...the Toyota truck is still an awesome platform.
as is REvit....it has it's major major issues but there were a hand-ful of functionality I did indeed like...for example, like being able to change the lineweights individually (thin, medium thick pens) in sections, elevations etc....and it not mess with the overall PEN SETTINGS displays both in 2D and 3D. Seems they were independantly controlled someone. You could create thick lines in order to emphasize a 'profile of a cut' for example. I know...it can be done in Archicad but it's a bit more tied to a lot of other factors in the objects parameters.

The "families" thing in Revit drove me bonkers. To have to create 'outside' type files away from the main RVT file...and don't me going on the remote Teamwork vs the Revit Servers....hubboy....Autodesk, you have a LOT to learn from Graphisoft..........

With those minor points made....continue please. It's fascinating........................

[Anonymous]

jl_lt wrote:
It's very harsch (sometimes in the extreme) but not everything is that bad. Also they are fascinating if you study them as evolutionary design and as a web of communal self help.

Forgive me to say, but IMO this idea, preached by many "Social Architects", that these slums are a "Rich Social Community", is the reason why corrupt Governments perpetuate in power supported by drug dealers and milícia. Brazil is the golden standard for this.
But this is too much politics for this forum, not to say for this topic.

Jp1138 wrote:
Direct communication is not the way. Using the standards (IFC) correctly is, and in this case I think CYPE is the culprit here.

Agreed. A reliable IFC protocol is essential.
IMO Acquiring CYPE would be a very good move for Nemetschek.
Here I have the impression that CYPE has a much larger user base than all the other Structural SW's of its portfolio (SDS/2, RISA and others).

[jl_lt]

@mr braza

No politics here. As a generative design study i talk as an architect looking from the outside on how it evolves as a whole system; No architect had anything to do with the evolution of most of these places.

As for the communal web of self help, i talk from what i know from people that lives there. They strive to survive and help each other with or without government help.

Are they used by corrupt politicians? You bet! but that is another story that goes beyond the scope of this forum.

[rob2218]

Back on Track folks.................market share for Graphisoft?

Do what I say........"Guerilla Marketing" and NOW, HERE...in the US...We, Americans, are ripe for the picking. Bump Revit out of the way GS....come on now. Do it!

[Anonymous]

@ jl_lt

Just to clarify and finish my statement: I know those people have really hard times in those places (I was born and lived near those places for 27 years) . What I am saying is that no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, it will always be a pig. Those places are actually refugee camps, and in my opinion there is and will never be nothing good or noble in living in a refugee camp. [End of Politics]