Wishlist

I would like to be able to save a set of favorites (2D and 3D viewpoints) in a BIMx model published on the BIMx Model Transfer site, and opened on one device, then sync that model and be able to access those favorites on another device later, after another sync.

Currently the favorites only remain local and cannot be transferred.
This would greatly help with the presentation preparation process.

Anyone out there does Stack models for quick feasibility studies?

I am sure there are plenty.

For something like below, the last thing you need, is to draw walls and slabs and roofs etc.
All you need is Volume and Space.

Why? Because at the early stage the model needs to be simple and nimble. Something easy to modify on the fly.

In order to do that, the less elements you have, the better.
Still, you would want to be able to get information out of the model, like:

• Total Number of Apartments
• Number of 1, 2 or 3 Bed units
•  Gross Floor Area, Net (at least calculated) Floor Area
• Breakdown of areas per Use/Category
• etc

Also, sometimes you would want to do some colour-coded 3Ds right?

The Zone tool would be the logical solution to do these tasks, but:

• We can't have associative dimensions to Zones
• We can't Group Zones

WHY??????

Just because of these fall-backs, I use slabs instead. That is not very intuitive, is it?

Another use case for Zones, where grouping and dimensioning would be great to have is at space planning.
I personally do not design walls to start with, I design spaces.

Walls are just drawn in once the space planning is settled. 
Like in the below sketch phase, when things are a bit all over the place, but coming together for space planning.

Again, dimensioning and Grouping zones would be an easy answer, but no, I have to use fills or slabs instead and turn them into zones later...

Yes, I understand that my design methods may be a bit unorthodox, still I find it would benefit many users if Zones were not an afterthought (Annotation), but a Design Tool.

Just imagine this:

If Zones were not necessarily defined by bounding walls, but instead, the Walls were defined by the Zones, how much easier, better and more automatable the design process could be?

In the future I am thinking of a workflow where

1. we draw the spaces we need to define spaces and connections
2. set up rules like:
   • If Boundaries of Zones that are in the Apartment Zone category align (touch each other) -> add an Apartment Divider Wall Type
   • If an Apartment Zone and a Circulation zone share boundaries -> add a Corridor Wall type
   • If a Zone boundary has nothing touching it or it touches a Balcony boundary -> add an External Wall Type.
   • etc.

Before we get to the above "Dream" stage though, we could just start with making it possible to Group and Dimension zones!
After all - just think about it - what is the difference between elements produced by the Zone Tool and the Slab Tool? Not much, right? So why could zones not be dimensioned and grouped?

Ps:

Please don't come back and say that "Design Intelligence initiative is going to do all this wonderful schematic designs for you..."

Maybe it will, maybe it won't, however Archicad already delivers 90% of what is required for a quick feaso, so why not add that extra 10%?

No need to make it super smart. Usable is good enough.

Operating system used: Windows 11

it would be great to expand the work environment settings for the pet pallet; maybe a color scheme or appearance setting, maybe a size setting independent of screen resolution.
the follow cursor or go to predefined location has always been an option, but if we could change it to bright red buttons or something, so it stands out, we wouldn't need to play hide and seek with it quite so often.

There is a laundry list of documents that require 2d drafting for most graphic standards... IMO the goal of BIM should be to NOT have to draft anything on any drawing smaller than 1/2"=1'.
But...
we need to draft contours, because the mesh boundary pen/line type and mesh user define ridge pen/line type are not independent of each other.
we do need to draft roof overhangs below home story because there is no option to hide hips/valleys/ridges

we do need to draft polylines around our exterior elevation because there is only a single all or nothing "fade distant elements" gauge

we do need to draft cabinet drawer pull symbols... because that wasn't included in the model view options of any of the cabinet objects

we do need to mask ceiling/roof elements in vaulted spaces

we do need to mask floor/wall and wall/roof junctions in sections where building materials don't play nicely with each other (if at all)

Please allow composite skins to heal though empty doorways and other openings, and at wall ends - as an intrinsic part of the wall, not requiring messy workarounds and wall end objects.  The workarounds all fail in one way or another, with unwanted outcomes either in 2D or 3D.

Please ensure these just skins clean up seamlessly with the skins of other walls that intersect adjacent to openings.

Cleanup of composites (including with skins healing through holes) should work in section as well as plan, without extra effort, and without the current workarounds or compromises. 

All composite elements should work and clean up this way, without the huge time wasting overhead involved to 'fool' the model into displaying what it should logically display by default in all views

There's that little palette called Element Information. It is very helpful doing manual calculations. (Yes, in the golden age of BIM, we still do manual calculations; not everything is worth* or can be** scheduled.)

One thing it doesn't offer is the sum of a selection.

Please, add that!

Köszönöm!

* Sometimes you just want to hand select a few items. Believe me, I love schedules, but it carries a danger of including something unwanted and unnoticed.

** Try to make a schedule of fills on an elevation, or polylines etc.

I'm a big fan of clone folders as a way to ensure view settings cascade, are consistent and can be easily updated when necessary.  However, having them always clone EVERY one of the stories/ elevations/ details leads to a lot of navigator clutter, and the need to expand/ collapse/ scroll through needlessly long lists of views that I don't actually need.

Often, I will want some of my details to be 1:5, some 1:10 for instance.  Having to have views of all details set up at both scales but then know which is supposed to be viewed at which scale feels cumbersome.

I'm also a fan of the 'iceberg method' to avoid the complications around attribute management, variations in storey height and so on in multi-block schemes.  Being able to be selective about which subset of stories show in a particular view set would help keep the navigator much easier to work with.

I'd like to have a list of all the available viewpoints in the clone folder settings dialogue, with a simple check box system to be able to define which of those actually then show within that clone folder in the navigator.  Newly created view points would still become available and could be added into (or excluded from) the cloned folder.

Straight pipe has fixed values fot MEP symbol fill , pen and pen2. It would be very helpful if I could set a different colour in the route settings. It is important because now I can barely see the difference between 2 MEP systems of vertical pipes.

The short and simple version:

We would like to be able to move the Graphisoft folder under the user profile (C:\Users\%Username%\Graphisoft).

Extended with context: ArchiCad has a lot of cache functionality built in, that needs to be stored somewhere. The Graphisoft folder is the spot for most of this data. The (usually) largest sub folder amongst these was the TW data folder, which we're now able to relocate. And we are very thankful for that. 

But there are other reasons why the main Graphisoft folder can grow (too) large in size (>100GB). We can delete some older files from previous versions, but that is -sadly- not enough. Therefore, we would like it if we had the option in AC to move this Graphisoft folder to a different location. 

I often find myself searching for drawings in the Layout Book and realizing that I am in the wrong folder (for example, “Study” instead of “Building Permit Documentation”). This happens quite frequently, especially in larger projects with many folders and drawings.
It would be very helpful if users could assign background colors (or any kind of color coding) to folders in the Organizer (Layout Book, View Map, Publisher Sets). This would significantly improve visual orientation, reduce mistakes, and speed up navigation within the project structure.

Even a simple option to assign a color label to folders would make a big difference in daily workflow.

There are almost 1000 wishes in this forum. Many of them would be obvious improvements - making the software more functional, intuitive, integrated, and dynamic.

Instead of waiting for TWO HUNDRED people to express dissatisfaction on this forum, how about somebody from Graphisoft regularly reviews the wishes for what are almost objectively good ideas and works to get them on the roadmap and into the software?

I've been on this Wishlist since it was created and there's a lot of gold in here. I don't know that we deserve compensation for these wishes as another user has suggested, but I would like all of the good ideas we are putting forth to actually help improve the software.  I know wishes are moving to "Under Consideration" with 20, 30, 40 upvotes. I'm just saying can we restructure this a little?

The community provides good ideas -> Graphisoft reviews *ALL* of them -> The good ones get incorporated, *especially* the ones with many upvotes.

Would anyone else like to see more than a handful of these ideas get into the software?

EDIT: (moving this from a comment into the post)

I think part of what is happening is that the Wishlist forum is fielding both Wishes with a capital W ("wouldn't it be cool if Archicad could ___"), and User Experience feedback ("this tool isn't working as expected", "there are inconsistencies in your interface", "I'm not able to ___ when this happens, but it works everywhere else", "in your latest update, you lost this feature").

There is so much UX feedback - we have essentially become a global UX team, which on the one hand is great - we use the product day in and day out and can easily notice when the experience isn't meeting par. The key is that Graphisoft needs to sort out which "wishes" are aspirational and which are essential. As a daily U, this would greatly improve my X.

When placing a Keynote label on a selected element, the label is currently inserted at the center of the element by default. I would like to have the option to define a preferred default position, such as the top-left corner of the element (e.g. based on its bounding box), instead of manually repositioning the label each time.

This would improve efficiency and ensure more consistent annotation across drawings.

For clarification, a short video illustrating this behavior is attached.

I would like to suggest an improvement for railings when they are used as fences or wire mesh enclosures.

Currently, railings are very useful for modeling fences, but there is no straightforward way to insert a gate or door within them. It would be very helpful if it were possible to place a gate element directly into a railing, similar to how doors are placed in walls.

This would make it much easier to create complete fence systems without needing workarounds or separate elements.

I'd like to be able to control the display unit of information shown on a schedule.

The dimension for elements displayed on a schedule is a global setting defined by the Calculation units;

However, I'd like to be able to independently control the display units on schedules in a project.

For example, on a schedule for brick wall, I'd would like to have the wall length in meter, the wall opening in centimeters, and the brick dimension and tolerances in millimeter. That isn't currently possible.

Additionally, since I would need 3 decimal spaces for the tolerance, I would have to set up the calculation unit to meter with 3 decimals, so the length of the wall and the opening would also have 3 decimal houses, which is unnecessary long.

It would be great to have a "Hide zero decimal" option for the calculation units, like we have on the Dimensions setting.

Element Information is lovely and great!

Selecting fills, slabs and similar items, we can get the following areas:

Area, holes considered

Area, holes not considered

How about the sum of all holes in a fill/slab/roof?

Yes, that would be awesome for calculations!

Thank you!

I wish I can mirror dimension text, when I remove Always Readable option in Dimension Text Settings so I don't need to rotate single text dimension.

We use it in formwork plans.

when recovering a snap shot on the bimcloud, the default is to override the existing file. 
While this has yet to be a problem, it feels wrong and dangerous. The default seems like it should be "create a new file", not to override the current file (maybe thats a good option, but can't imagine thats the most common/betst option)

In complex profile walls, it is currently not possible to define a separate origin for each surface.

Being able to control the surface origin individually for each face would make it much easier to accurately align textures and materials.

Ideally, this could be implemented either within the complex profile settings or through an editing interface similar to those used for stairs, railings, and curtain walls.

The handrail tool is very cumbersome to work with and almost any real project application results in finding workarounds rather than actually using a properly working tool. While it does offer lots of applications, it almost feels like the application it was meant for is missing design freedom and control at the same time. 

It would be great to improve some points such as:

• reliable behavior - sometimes when drawing a handrail associatively vs manually the results will differ substantially. The left hand side has its nodes and segments set associatively while the left one is drawn manually. 

• It would be great to have more control over how elements intersect and get continued, by being able to at least drag endpoints of Rails to achieve the desired results. In order to trick the handrail tool into actually generating the desired geometry, a horizontal segment slightly shorter than one stair thread was created. This allowed me to adjust the connection of the Toprail so that it continues on the top while the bottom one steps down.