Wishlist

Currently line weights by color makes no sense.  Make weights of a line apparent when on the screen. and only use colors for colors.

Considering the high resolution screen we have today - why should it be a guess or have to remember a color to note a width.

Many times the visual rendering of an elements surfaces is irrelevant beyond its colour yet we currently have to set up and manage specific "paint" surface attributes in order to control the colour of an element's surfaces. Graphical overrides can be used to simply override surface to colour but having to set up override rules for the most basic element display is likely worse than having to create separate surface attributes.

Instead it should be possible to directly define a building material with a colour surface rather than a surface attribute and it should also be possible to override surfaces at the element level with simple colours.

Problem: "Toilet ADA" object has only floor mounting and "Cistern" Flush Types available; no option for Wall Mounting, or any of the other Flush Types that are available to the "WC" object.

Scenarios / Use Cases: The "Toilet ADA" object allows USA users to save a typical ADA water closet favorite, but only if the toilet is floor mounted and has a cistern. If the toilet has any other configuration, users can't use the "Toilet ADA" object, so instead have to manually place the "WC" object and three (3) grab bars, and make sure they are placed in the correct location to meet building and accessibility codes.

Wish: That the "Toilet ADA" object would have all of the same bowl options that the "WC" object does.

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.

The predefined MEP-Parts should be automatically coupled:

Right now we need to (re-)select the correct predefinded catalog for each part of the MEP-System.

See screenshot, the pink outlined parts should be coupled.

I do not know of any single reason where this would not be the case, at least for usual pipe routing.

It would be great to be able to add/remove properties from more than one schedule simultaneously.

Yes, I know we still have to open the schedule to drag it to the right place in the list...but even the first step would be a time saver.

Perhaps this could be done with AI Assistant - but since I can't add the wish to two different products (above) it has to sit in the Archicad category only.

We would like to see the possibility to export the 3D projection of the Windows to IFC. At this point it is only possible to export the 2D opening lines. But it would be really helpful to also export the 3D projection.

As a workaround we have to model an opening line in 3D with the Morph tool and that that has a high error rate. And isn't this also what 3D modeling is all about? Reducing error proneness.
Besides, we have the "quick" window and door modeling tool, why is there a need to model a Morph in 3D to complete the window.

Hi, 

I think it would be very useful, to be able to send messages through BIMx from the web viewer and from the desktop app as well like in the mobil app for smartphones and tablets.

Currently, the text tool only allows a solid line for the text frame (text contour).

It would be a valuable improvement if we could choose any linetype available in the project file for the text frame.

This would make text annotations more flexible and consistent with the graphic language of the drawing.

I am an extensive user of both Archicad and Revit. Each software is unique in its own way, but one feature that would be extremely helpful is a direct shortcut or tool to quickly select objects by type — whether through right/left click, or by filtering properties. This would greatly speed up modeling, sketching, and filtering processes.

Of course, I understand this may be complex for developers to implement, but it’s just a suggestion based on my workflow. A customer in India has also shared similar feedback, highlighting the potential value of this feature.

That said, I’m already impressed with the 2029 detailing levels and lineweight quality — they truly reflect architectural precision. Love it!

Currenty, when we choose to apply a fill from a Graphic Override, it will be shown at the default orientation of the fill, ie. it will disregard any manually set origin and rotation and scaling of the fill it replaces.
I can of course see a purpose for this behavior also, but probably more often than not, if the fill origin, rotation etc. has been manually edited, there will be good grounds to preserve it also when the fill pattern changed with a Graphic Override.

Could we have an option to select, whether the Graphic Override fill will follow whatever is set for the object's fill orientation settings?

As an architect working extensively with structural and architectural coordination in Archicad, I would like to propose an enhancement to the Model View Options (MVO):

Feature Request: Add an option to "Hide Beams Below Slabs" in floor plan view

✦ Reason:

In many documentation standards, especially during schematic design and architectural drawing production, beams located underneath slabs are often intentionally excluded from floor plans to maintain visual clarity. While the current MVO allows for beam display as solid or hidden lines, and even centerlines, there is no built-in option to completely hide beams that are located below a slab.

✦ Suggested Behavior:

• A checkbox or filter within MVO:
  ☐ Hide Beams Below Slabs on Floor Plan

• Archicad would automatically evaluate the Z-position of the beam relative to the slab above and suppress its 2D display if it lies entirely underneath.

✦ Benefits:

• Improved drawing clarity: Avoids clutter on floor plans where beams are not structurally or visually relevant at that level.

• Time-saving: Reduces the need for workarounds using layers, custom MVO combinations, or Graphic Overrides.

• Better control for architectural vs. structural drawing outputs.

This would be a highly practical addition that supports real-world documentation workflows and improves model-to-drawing fidelity.

Thank you for considering this enhancement. I believe it would be a valuable improvement for many users around the world.

Sincerely,

File "Save As" should be for ArchiCAD formats only. Other file formats should be within a separate "File>Export As" dialogue.

When using File>Save As it defaults to the last file type used, so when I've saved an SKP or DWG, for instance, I then have to switch back to PLN. I believe it should be as per a lot of other software (such as Photoshop) which has a separate Export feature for other file types. Especially when some of those file types aren't able to save all the data in the model.

Hello,
As the design options are getting more and more usefull, we stumble upon the same problems as layers, but more critical in this context: lack of 'special paste'.

When we copy an element, and paste it on another file, if it comes from a design option, and the option does not exists, it creates one, and it is disabled by default. This is cumbersome to work with multiple files.

The wish here is: Add a 'special paste' function, that allows to select the design option, and the layer the element will be placed on.

We always have our swing doors 4" from the corner of a wall. To get this in ArchiCAD we have to insert the door and then move the door over. The distance guides have been a great help but would love for inserting a door to only be a 1 step process. Something where we can preset how far away from the corner we want the door so it automatically inserts at that distance. 

For both STUDYING OPTIONS and PRESENTING them, we often HAND DRAWN sketches that would benefit from being able to belong to a Design Option Status... In addition, we have COLOR ELEVATIONS as part of our deliverables.  We are using background jpg's for color (to keep pdf filesizes down)... But our projects have OPTIONS that both get delivered from the same file... thereby we need a way to swap in OPTION A then swap out to OPTION B... There are work arounds, but hoping adding Design Options to IMAGES is something easy to accomplish.

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.