Wishlist

I would like to suggest the addition of Classifications on Composite-Layers and Complex-Profiles-Layers.

Problem:

If we imagine a Composite Wall, with 25cm of Concrete and 20cm of Insulation on the outside.

This is how it looks in the floor Plan:

I would like my Concrete Layer to have Concrete-specific Properties that I can set only for the Concrete Layer. I also would like my Insulation Layer to have Insulation-Specific Properties.
 
What are examples of such Layer-specific Properties? Here are some really common ones from the IFC Data Scheme, not necessarily bound to it though, could be any Properties that someone would want only on the corresponding Layers.

• Concrete specific Properties (Pset_ConcreteElementGeneral):
  • StrengthClass
  • ExposureClass
  • ReinforcementVolumeRatio
  • CastingMethod
  • etc...
• Insulation specific Properties (Pset_InsulationGeneral:
  • AcousticRating
  • FireRating
  • etc...

 
I do not want Concrete Properties on my Insulation Layer. Same vice-versa, I don´t want Insulation Properties on my Concrete Layer. As a matter of fact I can not allow it. For any use case within a BIM project it is just not right to have properties in places where they are not meant to be. For quantity takeoffs within external software it is an absolute nightmare. Also it absolutely stands against buildingSMART Standards just as a semi-relevant side note.
 
Also the Ifc Entity Mapping is not correct. This example Composite-Wall should have the following IfcEntities according to their Composite-Layers:

• Concrete:
  
  • IfcWall (PredefinedType: NOTDEFINED)
    
• Insulation
  
  • IfcCovering (PredefinedType: INSULATION)

 
Solution:

Have each Composite-Layer listed within the Classification and Properties tab, and allow for custom classifications for each of those Layers. This is a quick UI Design of how that could look like. Please note that there are fundamental properties that are on each Layer (ID, Structural Function, Position, Renovation Status, Show On Renovation Filter) and there are also specific Properties only for that particular Layer (see "Materail properties" tab within the UI Design)

 (This also solves another Wish which is currently on the Roadmap: Renovation status for composite walls and complex... - Graphisoft Community. That wish is though only a specific need within my bigger wish. My wish focuses on the core problem, missing classifications on composite layers.)

Feedback and Improvements to this design and functionality are always welcome!

Cheers!

For working with priorities for building materials, it would be much easier to see and being able to adjust the actual intersection priority number instead of bars in the building material list.

Hi everyone,

I’d like to propose an improvement to Archicad’s Design Options feature that I believe would greatly streamline workflows—particularly for those of us working on complex or multi-scheme projects.

At present, unlike layers, Design Options do not support an intersection grouping system. This means that when developing multiple design alternatives, we are forced to manage element interactions and intersections manually—typically by creating additional layers with different intersection group numbers to prevent elements from one option interfering with those from another. It’s a functional workaround, but far from efficient or elegant.

Wouldn’t it be great if Design Options had a built-in intersection group number system, just like layers? Each option could be assigned a unique intersection group, giving us far better control, reducing manual setup, and vastly improving the coordination of design alternatives—especially in collaborative environments or during rapid iteration.

A feature like this could boost productivity, minimise errors, and simplify model management, without relying on layer workarounds that can become unwieldy in larger projects.

If you think this would improve your workflow too, please consider leaving a comment and voting to help get this idea on the Archicad development roadmap.

Let’s work together to make this a reality!

Best regards,
Diego R.

Please make Wall openings (doors & windows) visible from story below by floorplan cut plane settings.

So there is no reason anymore to put views on top of each other. This will be a huge improvement for construction drawings.

My wishlist item for today, would be to allow whatever the Text Label shape is for my Keynote on the floor plan to show up as well on the corresponding item (number in our case) in the Keynote Legend on the Layout. For instance, I have a 1 with a circle around it on the floor plan. Put the same circle around the 1 on the Legend on the Layout. That way if there are multiple label shapes on the floor plan, there is an easy graphical cue as to which keynote legend the viewer should be looking at.

We're still evaluating if the new Keynote feature is beneficial to our firm and that would certainly push it in the positive direction.

Thanks!

When rotating the grid, the handle points of some elements do not rotate together with the grid. So working in a rotated environment is not so smooth.

The symbolic at floor plan view with the door shows wrongly on the profiled wall. It is a limitation of the profiled wall. The problem appears with an object (window or door) shown as a symbolic on the profiled wall. When the thickness is different, some parts are slimmer than others. If the FPCP is put in the slimmer part, the problem appears. 

The wish is, It would be good to fix this.

If the FPCP can be placed at the thickest point of the profile, the door symbolic view is shown fine.

The workaround is to use Floor Plan Display "Projected" or "Projected with Overhead". But unfortunately on drawings dokumentation doors and windows needs to shown as a "Symbolic" way.

Hopefully this is the correct place to post this.
Using internal elevations is painful, to be blunt. You can only move them, stretch etc by selecting the invisible line that is not automatically selected when you select the marker. Selecting the marker does not allow you to move the Int.Ele. The Internal Elevation tool does not allow you to use faded distant elements either. It is a worse version of the section tool in all ways in my opinion, to the point that I just use the section tool, but others still use the internal elevation tool and so must I. I think the tool needs to be at least as functional as the section marker, and to not have invisible lines you need to select to be able to move it.

Also, the naming and grouping of them seems to add extra unnecessary steps. You can have the group ID/Name, the actual Int.Ele. ID/Name, and the View Map ID/Name. Why do we need 3? The IE grouping in the project map is also fairly dysfunctional, a list would suffice if the ID's are correct, same as sections or elevations. Grouping them can happen in the View Map, but if absolutely required in the project map, make it functional, allow groups to be added to, or modified, however I think it should work the same as all the other parts of the project map. (Graphisoft is very good at making various tools function entirely different from the rest of the program every now and then, I advocate for the whole program functionality, menus etc to be homogenized.)

Often you will add internal elevations as required, which just creates a huge mess of single items taking up 2 lines because they are part of their own group because currently you cant add them to the existing groups. Or if you can it is some obscure work around that functions differently to the rest of the program.

The use of surface textures in cover fills, either 2D or applied to 3D elements in Section/Elevation is very useful.

In 3D Views, it is possible to have surfaces with (partly) transparent textures by making use of the PNG alpha channel.

Unfortunately, these textures won't appear truly transparent in Section/Elevation Views.

With the Views set to show Uncut Elements as 'Surface - Texture Fill, Shaded' or 'Surface - Texture Fill, Non-shaded' with the transparency feature enabled, this inconsistent appearance emerges:

-3D Elements with surface applied to it behave transparent, but the transparent parts of the texture get a white background.

- 2D Fills using the Surface Texture Cover Fill do not behave transparent at all.

To solve this issue, please support PNG alpha channels for Section/Elevation views.

Now, this one is for battle-hardened GDL pros:

I'd like to see the introduction of some new Globals to achieve better label placements for walls – which would be a big step for all users to produce better drawings in less time.

In some cases the proper automatic label placement (To one of the outsides of the wall! Default is the center of the reference line which is a good start but not enough) is not even possible at all.

E.g. the Globals "ac_wall_direction_type" and "WALL_FLIPPED" are not enough; they will report the same on different reference line positions, making it impossible to distinguish between them:

To make auto label placement better we need the following Globals available:

1. An integer with the 6 possible values of the the reference line position, returning the selected method of the wall ("ac_wall_direction_type" is not able to tell us the last three methods, available for multi-skin walls):

   

2. A (hypothetically called) WALL_REFLINE_OFFSET global to get the value to shift the label accordingly. (Beams have this already! Seems like a (big) oversight that walls do not have it)

Together with WALL_FLIPPED these 3 values should be enough to determine where to place the label correctly.

Hello all, 

It would be super nice to add the option coordinate the Drawing tool with the Survey point same as the Xref. 

The Drawing tool has many benefits opposite from Xref:

• keeps all attributes out of Archicad
• possible to turn on/off layers 
• possible to easy change Pens & Colors 
• possible to paste all elements into AC with option to put them in one layer
• still linked with the original file 

In practice I used to use mainly for references with MEP and other consultants. Also in cases when some parts of the project are only 2D existing drawings etc.

All best!

Archicad is still approximatinmg Arcs (from Polylines) with short line segments in its PDF output.

The help falsely claims it would not be possible in general, but lo and behold:

That's a PDF. Exported from Allplan 2008 (!).

So it is possible.

Pure, vile, ugliness ensured in AC with polylines:

After investigating I found out that this is ONLY an issue with polylines. GDL objects and circles are not affected.

Also: It is a crime that 3D Arcs are already angular-shaped in Archicad instead of nicely round and smooth.

Looking at you, Profiles and Shells!

Favorites are great, and will vastly improve our Template for new projects. However, I have made a lot of new helpful favorites in our company template that staff want to use now, in their active project.

When I export any Favorites from the template that contain custom Profiles (to give to folks who want them now), I have to also manually export and then import those Profiles, and hope that adding by Index doesn't overwrite something important in the receiving file. I wish that exporting a Favorite would bring along any of it's attributes, even if I have to manage the Index numbering upon import in the receiving file.

This is most important for Curtain Wall favorites, because we use that tool for everything (usually with custom profiled frames), given that a dedicated ceiling tool doesn't exist.

It would be fantastic to have a way of scheduling or listing the display order of everything so you can easily go to one location and sort everything onto the right display level. 
Currently its so hard to keep track of this using only the element information palette. 
New items you copy dont go onto the same level as the item you copied, they always seem to be placed at level 8? eg the settings dont come across when duplicating elements.
There is no simple way to check the display order without selecting each element (is there?!).

We try to follow display order rules set by our office and it would just help so much to have a way of sorting and easily editing these.

So far a handful of Plumbing Elements (from the default Archicad 27 Library) are working well with the View's Floor Plan Cut Plan Floor Plan Range if we use the All Relevant Story Floor Plan Display settings and they are 1 story above. 

The goal that we try to achieve is to have a MID-Floor Framing Plan View made from the Ground Floor Story so we can see the Doors and Windows from the Ground Floor and place the MID-Floor Framing Object or Beams on the First Floor with Show Home+1 Down. The Plumbing elements (sink, toilet, shower tray, drain etc.) in the Bathroom and the Internal Walls on the First Floor have the All Relevant Story Floor Plan Display.

In this case, we can set the MID-Floor Framing Plan View's Floor Plan Cut Plan Floor Plan Range to see above and the Relevant Items should show up. But not all of the Plumbing objects can do that. The Urinal 27 the Basin 27 and the wall are doing the job. But the Toilet and the Shower Tray don't do it.

The following Plumbing Objects from the default Archicad 27 library are working (green) and not working (red) in this scenario:

ArchiCAD won't allow me to have a single stair which overlaps itself, meaning if there are three or four flights in a dogleg stair between stories I have to draw two separate stairs. So the wish is to allow this to be the case! 

When placing door/window favorites from the Norwegian .tpl, we encounter an issue with Distance Guides: measurements refer to the edge of the window frame instead of the window opening. Since we standardize measurements based on the window opening, with a 15 mm tolerance for the frame, this causes a discrepancy.

Due to our default favorite settings, this results in a 15 mm difference, which is frustrating. We either have to adjust all our favorites or manually account for the extra 15 mm when placing door/windows. This worked perfectly with the experimental feature in AC27.

Our Requests:

1. Add an Option to Choose Measurement Reference:
   Allow Distance Guides to measure from either the frame or the opening. This would significantly improve workflows.
2. Simplify Measurement Reference Adjustments:
   Currently, the tool always refers to the reference line when placing door/windows, regardless of the “To Edges” or “To Ref. Line” setting. A more intuitive way to switch between reference points—such as a hotkey—would be highly beneficial.

Thank you for your consideration.

Why is there no sliding pocket window in Archicad. There should be at least one with the added possibility of choosing the number of sliding panels desired.