Modules: required improvements

Karoly Horvath

Key improvements needed:
- Direct edit of modules in place.
- Fix labels positioning problems in mirtored/flipped modules.
- make it optional to add the embedded library to the .mod files (prefer not to add) or filter out embedded libs if they already exist in host.
- Make it possible to schedule the Module. Not just components of it. (I want to schedule which bathroom type goes into which apartment type)
- Make it possible to schedule and label mirrored modules.
- Modules currently remember their source storey. Bad idea, if I want to insert a new storey between 2 existing negative module storeys. Solution needed so a new storey does not mess up the placement of all modules

- Option required to Not show .mod files as openable projects in Archicad start-up window.

Typically, it us a bad idea to open mod filesvand edit in separate Archicad, because it will surely mess up attributes. Not to mention, that if you open stand alone mod-s, there is no way to see the context.

Please also refer to (and vote) the below Module related wishes, where - as requested - I separated this complex wish into several parts.
Make Modules Great Again - 1: In Place Module Management

Make Modules Great Again - 2: Embedded Library Management

Make Modules Great Again - 3: Attribute Management

Make Modules Great Again - 4.0: Schedule Modules

Make Modules Great Again - 4.1: Schedule Mirrored Modules

Make Modules Great Again - 5: Modules Source Storey

Make Modules Great Again - 6: Labels in Mirrored Modules

rob-faam

+1000

Laszlo Nagy

@Karoly Horvath,

You have created a wish topic that contains six or seven individual wishes. The problem with this is that now, if this topic gets a lot of votes and is submitted to the GS Product Team, they will not know which individual features people actually voted for as it can be any of these six or seven.

So, I would recommend that you create individual wishes for the individual features, and then those that get enough support can be submitted to the GS Product Team for consideration.

Refer to: Wishlist Guidelines 4.

"4. One topic per wish per thread.
When one thread includes several feature requests, it is hard to keep track of and update them. If you have more than one feature idea, you can submit each one as a new wish. This way we’ll know exactly which wish community members are voting for."

https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Our-Community/Wishlist-guidelines/ta-p/631148

Actually, the first wish is already in the Wishlist:

https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Wishlist/Modules-Archicad-Groups-Archicad-amp-Sketchup-and-Compo...

thesleepofreason

Seeing it is a year a so after the implementation I cant help to interject here. I realise that its a general note that will be buried with this whish but its not like GS has set up a feedback forum or thread fot the wishlist - or even the community platform...

The problem with this is that now, if this topic gets a lot of votes and is submitted to the GS Product Team, they will not know which individual features people actually voted for as it can be any of these six or seven.

So, I would recommend that you create individual wishes for the individual features, and then those that get enough support can be submitted to the GS Product Team for consideration.

That is not a real problem unless GS wants it to be - just assume that people that vote for the post agree with the entire post and fix all of the issues. Alternatively they could deliver on this amazing wishlist feature that allegedly was in the works and surly must be able to handle wishes clustering a functional aspect of the software - right? But no - its quite clear that this whole thing is nothing more than GS dragging users around. If someone want to argue the contrary I'm all ears but for starters:

One specific wish per post, 200 votes in six months, subscription exclusive and a flawed UI where we cant reply nor get the comments in the right order. No pining of GS feed back etc. Add to that the generic feedback of first "could you give some more examples" and then "good idea but [x/y/z]". And what seems to be some rather random processing of wishes. I'm sure GS will point to some internal process but seriously. Not even enough goodwill from GS to give quick feedback on the top voted wish?

As of today only three wishes has reached +200 votes, all pre spring clean. Post spring clean the highest voted wish has 73 votes and in three months that will be closed. As it stand no wish will ever get enough votes and which was obvious and and I clearly noted from the start, although it then was 80 in three months. But I was told not to worry because GS "do their research" - so whats next, 500 in a year and GS can keep pointing to the guidelines and allege that there is marginal support for the wishes compared to their internal data which clearly supports the current development path - like the 115000-200 members constitutes a silent majority.

No - not every wish should be considered but this whole thing is (once again) turning out to be nothing but a bad joke on the expense of any user who actually care enough to put effort into making AC a better software.

Transfer of acknowledged wishes to the new wish list

Karoly Horvath

@Laszlo Nagy

Laszlo, this is actually 1 wish, with several suggested steps to achieve it:

Please make modules achieve 2025 standards.

I mean: make modules work similar to other bim

/cad/3d design tools. Or better: be smart, and make Archicad's way of handling repetitive complex elements better than othe tools 😉

Laszlo Nagy

@thesleepofreason,

As far as I know, the "200 wishes within 6 months" is still not set in stone, so it may change in the future when more data is available. There are a number of wishes at the moment that are over the 6-month period but they are still open so people can continue to vote for them. So, I think there is still room for the modification of these values if needed.

@Karoly Horvath,

I understand your argument; I am suggesting the above from a practical viewpoint so you have a better chance of getting some of these wishes implemented.

thesleepofreason

@Laszlo Nagy
Well not set in stone but the time period is in the guidelines and the vote counter shows an explicite date and a number of votes needed. Not sure how GS can be credible in their effort for user feedback if they decide just to ignore that and let votes sit around under the guise of modifying the process.

There were a lot of explanations from GS about how excellent this new wishlist (and roadmap) functionality would be and why they simply could not implement it simpler and faster as any other software developer seem to manage. The whole point of the spring clean and new wish statuses should have been to reduce the backlog and introduce transparency and accountability in the process. And now we sit here with GS seemingly arbitrarily choosing which whishes to process with basically generic feedback and when (not even all 100 that was upvoted from the spring clean has received feedback) while the backlog is filling up.

Out of 560 wishes not even 50 has reached 50 votes. I can't believe that they don't have the resources to manage that even if you include the already upvoted with less than 50 votes - so set the limit there, make sure to properly process each and every wish that reaches it with proper feedback (no frivolous on hold/under consideration/need info statuses) and adjust the number if overwhelmed. Remove the time limit as it makes no sense at all (and isn't followed by GS).

It doesn't have to be any harder than regardless of what GS's bizarre corporate logic seem to tell them.

Karoly Horvath

@Laszlo Nagy

Here are the separate threads of my wish.

I am not sure the separate ones would achieve enough likes to make the treshold, but we shall see.

It would be quite disappointing though if the modules were not improved soon.

Make Modules Great Again - 1: In Place Module Management