Wishlist

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 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.

Originally this wish started with wanting to display clean hyperlinks in schedule value fields.   Currently, when displaying hyperlinks in schedules,  a PDF publishing of it results in the displaying of the full text of the hyperlink.  It is mostly functional on the PDF side,  BUT... , if it becomes truncated or wrapped, the results become unpredictable.   To make the links work,  evidently the entire text of the link must be visible.  This results in long, unsightly text strings which detract from the intended conveyance of information.

Markdown Syntax, being lightweight, can be a valuable feature during documentation.   The resulting PDF and BIMx files can become more readable and uncluttered.     For example, the full hyperlink text for this page while I'm composing this wish, is

"https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/forums/postpage/board-id/wishlist?message-subject=Integrated%20Markdown%20Syntax%20in%20Texts,%20Labels,%20Schedule%20Value%20Fields,%20Property%20Value%20Fields,%20etc."  ..  imagine having that in a 5cm-wide schedule field...

With Markdown Syntax - [Friendly Text](full hyperlink text) - you'd see only the Friendly Text, and when clicked it would open the hyperlink page in a browser.

There are other useful features of this syntax (see the attached image, or search "markdown syntax guide" for the full list).   This functionality can be extended to Text, Label, Property values, or any other text-containing element types. 

I propose that Markdown Syntax be integrated in all text-containing element types in ArchiCAD.    I think the hyperlink feature alone would be worth it.

Thank you for considering.

Harout

I wish for a window where I can set the top angle (for instance to match my roof angle) and then change the width and height as needed without affecting the top angle.  I was surprised not to find this window in archicad after having done many many homes with windows that match the roof angle.

It often happens to me that i want to add via magic wand to the outline of a slab, fill, mesh, roof to another slab, fill, mesh, roof which has openings or holes within and i always end up having to redo/substract the holes.

• it would be amazing if you could at least tab through an outer and outer + inner contour configuration when using the magic wand

• it would be great if useless (collinear)  control points are automatically removed in the process. Currently if using the wand to add to an existing shape the intersection of edges generates control points which 99% of the time are only adding to complexity.

Wish to wrap the end of wingwalls with the wall lining with a simple check box rather than make a wall-end

I find myself wondering many times why there is no possibility to zoom into the object preview window, curtain wall schedule preview or handrail preview tool. It feels like another gimmick that lost track after its inception. Maybe pimping it up just a tad would turn it into something useful... 

Wouldn't it be great if you could actually preview what you are doing in that preview window?

Object preview:

Handrail Preview:

Curtain wall:

• It would be great if there would be a possibility to have a beam and column intersect cleanly in 3d without having to manually adjust the end angles of the beam and of the column so they match.

• It would be usefull to have one more possibility of moving freely (a combination of changing the length and changing the angle at the same time) constrained to the plane of the beam

At present, a demolished window or door leaves no trace in the proposed view, but in reality it needs to be infilled with new construction (which may differ from the make up of the original wall).

Using a renovation filter to 'show' the removed windows would mean showing everything else too, and perhaps in an undesirable representation.

At present we insert a 'New' empty opening in place of the Demolished element, in order to have a hole that can be filled with a new wall.  This works ok, but seems like a workaround rather than a reflection of reality, more steps than should be necessary, requires workarounds in schedules so the 'new' openings don't show, and is non-associative to the dimensions and position of the original window, should they need to be amended.

Please could there be a setting to allow demolished opening objects to remain 'visible' but replaced with the Empty Opening? 

Hello , 

Instead of the buggy " zone linked elements " function inside ArchiCAD, which automatically detects elements placed inside or at the zone boundaries, it would be very nice to have manual link possibilities , 

a big slab that covers multiple zones could be linked to them all, 

i can choose to which zone i want to link a wall , or a dorr, manually , 

When you place labels on elements with 'label selected elements' it's not possible to bring the labels to front immediately when placed. The labels are also not selected immediately after placement so it takes a few steps to put it in front of the element.

For the Norwegian (and other scandinavian/cold countries) it would be handy to have the ability to assign outside and inside areas of a roof.

We tend to have a lot of insulation, but there is no need for insulation on the outside. If the roof tool had an extra feature where you could draw a fill/area to designate a separate zone for a separate composite, the roof tool would be much more useful. As it is, using two separate roof objects is suboptimal.

It would be useful if element surfaces were linked to design options. This would be especially helpful for apartment block designs, as the Hotlinked units are the same across the various floors, expect the exterior cladding typically changes.

Currently you have to create whole new walls and assign these to different options. This becomes cumbersome when changing windows and doors, and is confusing for less experienced users.

Many firms use the curtain wall tool to model storefronts. These generally have a corner post rather than a diagonal frame. 

When using the polygon method to create a Curtain Wall which turns a corner, graphically in 2D and the 3D the representation is not what you expect. This occurs at both the top and bottom where the boundary frame meets the corner frame and by default cuts at 45 degrees. The workaround is extensive.

You have to do this one by one in Edit mode: Select one of the affected boundary frames and navigate to Cutting Planes and change the Cutting Plane from Automatic to Manual. This will change the cut end to 90 degrees. If it changes the wrong end, you have to undo and change Cutting at Top to Cutting at Bottom or vice versa. After this you still have to stretch the elements to the edge of the post - which only has a node in the center, so guidelines are needed to do this accurately.

You should be given the option kn the Scheme Settings to make the default cut 90 degrees - or even better - have a "post" option instead of a corner frame, with an associated 90 degree cut.

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! 

Wall end tool is a very important tool to properly model and document composite and complex walls and their "loose ends." Currently, wall ends leave a lot to be desired.

There are a few options to model the wall ends. Returned end is the only one which allows for proper finishing of multi-layered composite walls. However, this tool produces unwanted lines between the same materials in sections and in 3D. Floor plan looks fine:

However, on the points indicated here, the sections / elevations (and 3D model) show a line between the same material:

Here is the elevation that shows the unsightly end line, with the highlighted wall end:

Here is the unhighlighted elevation:

Here is the 3D model:

Methods to prevent this from happening include

1) drawing a white line over the one which would "cover" it and prevent it from being output, 

2) modeling a complex profile as a column for the whole wall

Both methods lead to errors if something gets shifted or moved even slightly.

I think the first solution on Graphisoft's part would be to remove the error / bug from the "Returned End" wall end and remove (or add ability to remove) the line between the same materials. Second solution would be a system one, which would allow us more control over overall wall behaviour, not limited to vertical ends but also horizontal and even sloped ends on top / bottom of the wall. The first one should be a relatively simple fix, the second one is a much bigger systemic change.

Currently, if a fill is set to display the fill area, the area text properties omits the standard text frame / opaque background offset parameter applying to other ArchiCAD text. 

This prevents graphically important clear space displaying around the area text in the way that it does for all other text, and means that text characters with descenders (such as lower-case g) actually extends through the frame or across the edge of the opaque background.

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!

Polylines and Fills are simple but powerful drafting tools in Archicad. However, they remain limited in how they can contribute to data workflows. With a few small improvements, they could become valuable tools for quantity takeoffs, annotations, and integration into BIM data reports.

Proposed improvements:

• Allow user-defined IDs for Polylines (like Fills already have), to make them listable in schedules.

• Enable assignment of custom Properties (from Property Manager) to both Polylines and Fills.

• Include basic dimensional data (length, perimeter, area) directly as native schedule fields.

• Allow Polylines and Fills to be read from Section and Elevation views, not just Floor Plans,
  with a “source view” parameter to identify where they were drawn from and make them filterable.

Why this is useful:

• Boosts modeling speed with simple 2D tools that feed into data and quantity workflows.

• Enables “hybrid” workflows where schematic elements can still be tracked and quantified.

• Great for compiling supplementary data for construction estimates, where not every element needs to be modeled in 3D.

• Gives more control and traceability for annotations, graphical conventions, and custom visual logic.

Bonus benefit:
Sometimes the simplest tools are the fastest. Enhancing these basic elements would empower users to speed up many parts of the process—without relying on heavier modeling just to get quantities out.