Archicad Development Roadmap

[Emre Senoglu]

Every major Architecture or Visualization related software has a roadmap these days, and some let people vote on what's most important. Various software use different websites for their needs, main ones being Trello and Productboard. Here are some examples:

Corona Renderer: Corona Trello Roadmap
Twinmotion: TM Productboard Roadmap
Unreal Engine: UE Productboard Roadmap
Revit: Revit Trello Roadmap

In my opinion Archicad needs to create a development roadmap that is public and easily understood. Even better if users are able to vote (much like in this forum, but in a more structured way - no need for the user to create their own poll with varying poll options). The current forum wishes section seems to be working fine, except there is no way for a user to check if the wished function is being worked on or not.

I think that the previous argument of "competition stealing ideas" is pretty invalid now that AC's arguably biggest competitor is publicly displaying their upcoming features. If this is still of concern to Graphisoft, the roadmap could simply be made private to forum users only. If this level of privacy is still not enough, I'm sure there could be a middle ground.

I think GS has perhaps been using the element of surprise as a wow factor to keep people excited about new releases, but this itself is not good enough selling point anymore seeing as a 'surprise' feature could go both ways. Happy to hear some thoughts about this.

[Barry Kelly]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this please.
None of us know each other, so we don't know what the other knows or how much experience each other has either as a professional or an Archicad user.

Please keep on topic with the Archicad Development Roadmap discussion.

Barry.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Podolsky wrote:
Mr Bricklyne,

I'm not sure that the tone of angry primary school director is suitable for this forum. Explaining me that I'm non mature ArchiCAD user... Sorry, man, I'm using ArchiCAD since version 5, and probably know this system better then you.

This is typical explanation about "responsibility" of engineers and "law" of people, who don't really have a clue what is BIM or Virtual Building and in which direction progress in this field is moving. The reason why I started to share my thoughts on ArchiTalk (that I know by ages, by the way) - is to share my experience and make a message that ArchiCAD today is incomplete, when, by another hand it has strong potential to take bigger market.

"angry primary school director"

That's hilarious.
And also pretty brilliant.

I'm not going to touch that one, especially since we've been told to keep personal attacks out of this, but I will confess that that did make me laugh.

Your gave your opinion on various things, I gave my own opinions in response back, as well in general about the topic at hand and I stand by everything I said since I didn't personally attack you.

I don't believe architects should be delving in areas of construction that are not their remit as designers of the project. That's an opinion and a belief that's borne of my own personal experience as well as the general sense of how it works in the areas and regions I've worked in. I did concede that it could be different where you come from or where other people come from.

Also based on this belief, I also stated that I likewise believe it would be wrongheaded to for Graphisoft to spend precious development resources and efforts trying to turn ArchiCAD into something it's not nor was ever intended to be (by their own mantra) as we've seen firsthand where some of those detours can lead to in terms of user expectations.
Just visit the thread asking for user feedback on the Structural Analysis model in version 24 if you don't know what I'm referring to. Also,...anyone remember VICO Constructor suite? Yes, it wasn't strictly Graphisoft behind that, but it should show just about how well it would go if you tried converting ArchiCAD into something it's not, with the intention of using it in a field and area, where they don't traditionally work this way, and are slow to adapt to new ways of working.

I appreciate what they are trying to do and what sort of customers they're trying to appeal to with this (possible) 'Swiss Army Knife' approach, but if that comes at the cost of everyone else's needs and addressing long-standing core issues in ArchiCAD, then it's a pursuit not worth taking.

Again,...my OPINION.

If you can't handle people giving their opinions on your own opinions, or pushing back on the things you're putting forth without getting personal, then perhaps that's something you need to look at and consider for yourself.

But I am keeping, 'Angry Primary School Director' as a possible potential future garage-band (or even better,...Solo act, for when I break away to do my own thing) name.
I love it!
(it's a bit of a mouthful though. We might need to workshop it a bit more. Maybe some focus groups and some market research too with customer feedback)


Back on course and on topic :-

Roadmap very good.
ArchiCAD for Architects, please!!

[Podolsky]

This is nonsense. This is exactly what good architectural practises are doing: they are delving in areas of construction. This is exactly how all big and iconic projects are built by Foster, Rodgers and Zaha Hadid. The main point of architecture is to design the building, and BUILD the building. To build the building it's necessary first at all to be sure, that it's buildable - means that shapes and materials are chosen correct. Also to supervise construction process - means to say and control how builders (contractor, sub-contractor) construct the building. Often famous architects are hiring another architectural practises, who are sitting on details, walking to construction site everyday - as it would be office. If builders are explaining to architect - how to build, that means architect do not have a clue what he is doing in his profession. All models and drawings, that delivered from architectural office - are legal documents and instruction how to build. Engineering project documentation also must be reviewed by architect and approved.
Architect must be centre of the project, the first person who is able to solve the problems on construction site.
It's absolutely obviously, that architectural BIM model must be centre of communication and contain all information. It's possible to imagine only structural part of the model, but impossible to have architectural model without structural part, as well as without MEP.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Podolsky wrote:
This is nonsense. This is exactly what good architectural practises are doing: they are delving in areas of construction. This is exactly how all big and iconic projects are built by Foster, Rodgers and Zaha Hadid. The main point of architecture is to design the building, and BUILD the building. To build the building it's necessary first at all to be sure, that it's buildable - means that shapes and materials are chosen correct. Also to supervise construction process - means to say and control how builders (contractor, sub-contractor) construct the building. Often famous architects are hiring another architectural practises, who are sitting on details, walking to construction site everyday - as it would be office. If builders are explaining to architect - how to build, that means architect do not have a clue what he is doing in his profession. All models and drawings, that delivered from architectural office - are legal documents and instruction how to build. Engineering project documentation also must be reviewed by architect and approved.
Architect must be centre of the project, the first person who is able to solve the problems on construction site.
It's absolutely obviously, that architectural BIM model must be centre of communication and contain all information. It's possible to imagine only structural part of the model, but impossible to have architectural model without structural part, as well as without MEP.

The problem with your thesis is that 99.9% of architecture firms on this planet are not,..." Foster, Rodgers or Zaha Hadid".

They don't do the kind of architecture that they do.
They don't get the billion dollar/pound commissions that they do.
(ergo) The don't have the resources of a Hadid or a Rodgers.
...which in itself translates to, ,,,,they don't have the clout and influence that they do.

(i.e. the kind that can force third party engineers, structural, MEP to adapt their workflow to work how those firms do on the billion dollar projects they bring along with them in tow)

What do you think is a more prudent business model and strategy for a company like Graphisoft to pursue?

To target the inordinate majority of their development resources and attentions to the 0.01%?
Or to try to mostly cater to the 99.9% and the kind of work they do and the kind of workflow they (mostly) use?

I'll let you figure that math out.

But yes, "nonsense" is correct.
Just not in the way you think.

And as an aside, as a lot of people have already pointed out several times on this forum and in other areas,... a lot of engineers, MEP consultants, third party collaborators that we work with, DON'T work with BIM or 3D models and are mostly still in the stone ages of 2D Flatland CAD and DWG.
Which is what made GS's decision to go the 'Structural Analysis Model' route even more puzzling given that it was just as pointless a feature for us, as it was for most of the people we work with that it was supposed to facilitate a workflow relationship with. Our engineers still ask for 2D CAD and don't care about the 3D models.

Yes, some of the larger firms do (work with engineers who work this way), as do integrated full service firms that have engineering arms and offices.
But again....
These do not comprise the majority of our profession.
Not even close.

[Podolsky]

There appeared theses in Internet, that 90% of architects will loose their job with AI coming on market. Because AI will do job better than 90% of architects - maybe because 90% of architects are not architects? And able do, apart planning applications and really bad quality uncompleted sets of construction drawings, nothing?

So, I don't know how most of architects are doing these days, unfortunately I met only architectural practises, who are working hard days and nights on construction drawings, involved in deep coordination with engineers. But because of this hard work they earning money and had good positions in the market. And for them current abilities, that give BIM packages, are limited.

I've got nothing else to say, really.

[Emre Senoglu]

..so I think we can all agree that a simple voting function included in the development roadmap would be a good way to find out what's features are most needed and what's not much like the one we have here on the forum, but with uniform answer options. the ability to see them ranked from most wanted to least wanted would be very useful - and in fact perhaps even crucial - for the system to make sense.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the voting function included in the development roadmap, I think it could be:
- Users were only allowed to vote after, let's say, after 6 months of registry;
- Users were allowed to give only 10 votes;
- Each vote could give 1 to 10 points to a given wish/idea;
- Users could change their votes at anytime;
- Users couldn't vote in their own wish/idea.
It would be much like the Eurovision Song Contest.
With this, GS could always have a consistent Top 10 Wishes/Ideas for the coming versions. User engagement would be more consistent as they would have "only" 10 shots. The way it works now, people easily forgot what they vote, and it is just a "quantity" vote, not "Quality" vote.
What do you think?

[Emre Senoglu]

A refined system like this would be great I think. A limited amount of votes does make sense, however i feel like 10 votes for your entire lifetime is a not a lot. So they could either renew after a period of time, or you could perhaps earn votes, for fulfilling certain 'tasks'. The downside of periodical renewals is that it would kind of continue supporting a yearly release, which I think is not very beneficial for the end user.

I don't think being able to change a vote would help though, as it would 'devalue' the votes already cast. But I do like the idea of not being able to vote on your own idea.

[DGSketcher]

The current Wishlist needs to continue, this is the source of innovation, the idea that says "If we could do this, then potentially 80% of users could work twice as fast".

I am not convinced on the secondary voting system, it just adds a layer of complexity that neither the users or GS need. GS should be honest with what they can deliver & when and publish a limited master list of potential improvements. Rather than recycling existing wish votes, the GS curated list starts a new vote count from zero with a simple changeable [Yes] / [No] option which will become locked once the wish is moved into development. I assume this can be done easily in the existing forum format. Hopefully this will encourage more users to engage with the process to help GS focus on what users need.

This way GS can still deliver their confidential annual showstopper feature to maintain / justify the annual version upgrade whilst delivering user requested Wishlist updates throughout the year.

[Anonymous]

@ Emre Senoglu
Yes. 10 votes may not be enough to fulfill our long time expectations. This could be increased. I like your idea of increasing the number of votes according some conditions. For example, giving support/help for new users here could give extra votes to the initial 10 votes. But sure it would need an internal "button" for users to "Thank" other and this data kept in account. (I have seen this feature in other forums). Regarding the fact that users could always change their votes: Yes it wouldn't allow for a stable "Top 10 List"... Perhaps locking the votes and "releasing" votes for wishes/ideas that GS confirm that are being granted/developed.

@ DGSketcher
I didn't mean to erase the existent wishes/ideas list. They could be converted to new ones but keeping the "1 Point Vote" for the current polling vote. My suggestion for the 1 to 10 point for each vote, was to in some way eliminate those options for each Poll that we current see. With this, users could establish their own list of priorities for new features. I mean wishes wouldn't be limited, they would be added to the existing list. Its just the number of votes that would be related to some sort "Community Engagement".
Just throwing some ideas.