Wishlist

Sometimes it is helpful to have a window undocked for use on a separate screen. It would be helpful to have the ability to mount duplicate palettes in this window, almost as if it were a separate instance of archicad. The big issue is the "Info Box" palette which stays on the main window but reflects the selected elements on either the docked or undocked windows meaning I could have an element selected on one monitor but I have to swing back the info box on the other monitor to edit it's settings.

Anyone else?

I think we need a big update in the MEP library. No new objects since ..... I can't even remember

They can be pretty basic, but I miss a lot of 

- Valves (f.ex. 3 way valve, etc) with a schematic 2D diagram as an option

- Ventilation and Aircon equipment and units. (f.ex. VRV outdoor unit, ceiling units, 4 way ceiling unit,...)

Same applies for lights... a little update would be fantastic. 

https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Documentation/Index-how-to-choose-the-right-subset-to-appear-on-...

Hi all,

Can we get the option to specify the depth of the Layout Subset Name autotext?

Project Name

T1 Subset Name

T2 Subset Name

Layout

T2 Subset Name

Layout

T1 Subset Name

T2 Subset Name

Layout

This is more relevant now with the introduction of Design Options where you may want a set of drawings for each option with a different title.

Alternatively, the a variation of the autotext Design Option Set Name could be made to act much like the Drawing Scale autotext where it will read all options on the layout.

Ling.

PROBLEM:
So, you've just created a new layout and you drag a saved view on to the layout, Archicad creates a giant viewport, with the actual content somewhere off in space. You have to do iterations of 'fit frame to drawing' (only availbale through tool settings) zoom out, move the boundaries of the viewport one at a time, zoom in, fine adjust the boundaries, zoom out, move the viewport to within a stones throw of the sheet, zoom in, fine adjust the viewport location. 

FIX:
What's missing is a pet palette button alongside adjust edge and offset outline, that simply allows you to REDRAW THE BOUNDARY from scratch. 

IMPLEMENTATION:

Here's how it works: For an existing viewport, you click an edge, vertex, or face, or right click inside (or slab, or fill, or any geometry that is defined by a closed polyline boundary). The option to redraw the boundary is there (attachment 1). From this point you draw a new boundary as you would a polyline - multi-point, 2pt rectangle, 3pt rectangle, magic wand/spacebar find boundary, all the regular tools (attachment 2). When complete, the geometry is all the same, just as if you had adjusted each edge manually, added and deleted a bunch of vertices, sliced off sections wholesale using the axe tool (attachment 3) to acheive the boundary you just drew in 2 clicks without zooming to the edge of the universe. 

Would be a massive timesaver for setting up viewports on a sheet. The edge editing tools are limited with viewports especially. But the same process would also seamlessly apply to slabs, zones, roofs, fills, openings and any other boundary defined geometry (shells, cutouts, terrain meshes etc.). The key is allowing full polyline drawing tools to define new edge, including curves and spacebar/magic wand.

Come on Graphisoft, this shouldn't be a hard one!

Hello! 

It is a well known fact that there will be trouble if you have scattered elements/objects in your Archicad-file - Far From Origin - Troubleshooting Guide - Graphisoft Community

In Solibri you have a warning if you open an IFC where this is the case - Widely Scattered Models – Solibri Desktop Help Center

Is it possible to implement a similar function for Archicad? 
For example:

• A warning when you import something and it is FFO
• A checking tool that locates and identifies problematic elements/objects

The "Composite" system is great but leads to an "Attribute Explosion." Creating a new composite for every single material variation is inefficient. We need a Finishing Tool (Skin) to apply coatings independently.

Key Requirements:

• Wall, Slab, and Roof Finishes: A single tool to "skin" structural elements.

• Independent Logic: Apply different tiles or paint to each face of a wall without changing the core structure.

• Zone-Based Integration: Finishes should be linked to Zones, allowing them to update automatically if a room boundary moves.

• Accurate Quantities: Net area calculations that automatically deduct openings (doors/windows) and small wall-mounted objects.

Why it matters: This would keep the attribute list clean and allow architects to change finishes in the late design stages without rebuilding the structural core of the model.

Designing complex ceilings currently requires too many "tricks." We need a Ceiling Tool that understands the complexity of modern interior architecture and MEP coordination.

Key Requirements:

• Substructure Modeling: Ability to model the suspension grid and hangers. This is essential for accurate clash detection with MEP ducts and pipes.

• Native RCP Mode: A dedicated view setting for Reflected Ceiling Plans that automatically manages the symbol visibility of lamps, sensors, and diffusers.

• Multi-system Support: Easy management of acoustic baffles, modular tiles, and continuous gypsum board with integrated edge trims and coves.

Why it matters: Ceilings are one of the most coordinated elements in a project. Having a tool that models the "hidden" structure would prevent countless on-site errors.

It is time to stop using generic "Slabs" and "Beams" to model structural foundations. Archicad needs a dedicated Foundation Toolset for better IFC classification and geometric accuracy.

Key Requirements:

• Dedicated Entities: Specific tools for Isolated Footings, Strip Foundations, Piles, and Grade Beams.

• Dynamic Interaction: Foundations should interact with the DTM (Terrain) to automatically generate excavation pits or recognize the soil level.

• Technical Parameters: Native fields for reinforcement ratios, soil bearing capacity, and "lean concrete" (blinding) offsets.

• Clean Geometry: Better intersections between piles and caps without complex SEO (Solid Element Operations).

Why it matters: This would streamline the structural coordination and ensure that IFC exports are correctly mapped from the start without manual renaming.

The current Mesh tool is no longer sufficient for modern BIM standards. We need a dedicated DTM (Digital Terrain Model) tool that behaves with engineering logic rather than just being a surface.

Key Requirements:

• Existing vs. Proposed: Native management of terrain phases to automatically calculate Cut & Fill volumes.

• Advanced Visualization: Independent display settings for 2D and 3D. We need to show contour lines and technical grids simultaneously without graphic override workarounds.

• Infrastructure Tools: Integrated path and road tools that follow terrain slopes, including automatic curbs and longitudinal sections.

• Logic: Similar to Allplan’s site tools, where the terrain is the starting point of the project, not just a decorative mesh.

Why it matters: Accuracy in site coordination and earthwork volumes is critical for the early stages of any project and for proper BIM collaboration.

Hi all,

This wish is for more granularity regarding nested hotlinks. For many years we have had the option to "Skip Nested Modules" which for simple buildings worked ok for exluding nested hotlinks that you had used for context, but it fell apart if you started using Hotlinks to for modular layouting. There was no way to skip the neighbouring building but keep the bathrooms. For a long time you would just hide the hosting Hotlink Master Layer, but with the advent of Design Options, the nested hotlinks can be placed on a specific Option to later be completely excluded. Another area where we resort to hybridising Design Options to resolve issues with the functionality of other features...

Sticking to the current UI, a solution could be to identify .pln verse .mod Hotlinks and only exclude .pln when skipping nested. This would consolidate the identity of .mod files, which until we can edit in place, feel like they have very limited advantages over a clean, culled back .pln file. It's great when you Edit Module in seperate ArchiCAD and the attributes are not identical, and attribute folders may as well not exist...

An alternative, which I feel is more streamlined, is to invert the functionalities depth. Instead of Skipping Nested Modules, the toggle would then skip the placed Hotlink when nested. In a model heirachy of A=>B=>C, instead of toggling the setting when placing B into A, to exclude C, you would instead toggle it when placing C into B. Put the control in the file that hosts the nested module. I have yet to encounter a situation where I have only sometimes needed to exclude a nested module...

Another option would be to expand the current UI by adding a dialogue to pick which nested modules are excluded, much like the Design Options dialogue.

A non-option is to just put everything in a single file with only one layer of hotlinks, because we all know how well AC goes with high polygons, and not everyone needs a super computer...

Ling.

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.

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.

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 , 

I would like to see the option to preserve SEO (solid element operations) when copying any elements. And also when duplicating design options. The function could be called "duplicate" or "clone".

The wish point is clear - it is very difficult and time-consuming to re-do multiple SEOs for a copied elements.

Regarding design options, I know that now SEO links between elements are now preserved within one duplicated design option, but links between different ones are not preserved (typically for example, terrain is in the base layer and SEO links with us are canceled when duplicating the option).

a way to batch convert 2D fills to 3D objects (like slabs, terrain or morphs) to make the creation of the surrounding area quick and easy.

ways this could be done;

multiple elements to be converted through favorites

batch selection with magic wand tool

extrude fills to morphs

Sunshades should be hidden in some views, this should be achived by mvo like other window components, for consistency and efficiency 

There should be an option to add finish on all the sides of a monolithic stair structure, not only in treads and risers. Many times we design concrete stairs that are freestanding and therefore covered with another material, eg. wood. 

Summary

The symbolic tree objects placed in plan should show a corresponding symbolic side view in elevation. 

Explanation

The tree objects all have various compromises when viewing in elevation. 

To my mind, the most appropriate visually are the type as below:

However, these 2D side views can only be placed in elevation, not on the model, and can only appear behind or in front of all the 3D elements. This means that if you have trees which should be in different planes (so, behind one wall but in front of another) this can't be represented. 

Annoyingly these objects, when placed on the model with a 2D symbolic plan view, have a height represented in the elevation view as highlighted below, but only as a rectangle:

It would be extremely useful to have this as being the 2D symbolic side view, aligned parallel to the elevation line. Especially as the options for the side view cover an acceptable amount of tree types for typical use. 

Alternatives

With the Detailed Tree, when the settings are high enough to look good, the elevation drawing PDFs end up being large files. With certain submissions via websites having upload limits (namely, planning) file sizes need to be kept to a reasonable size (not to mention it being just plain inefficient!).

The Simple Tree model is certainly better for file sizes, but the 'layers' which decrease in size to give the tree depth don't look particularly good, especially the ones perpendicular to the view just giving vertical lines. 

One solution I have taken to is importing a 2D DWG tree elevation, tracing it with the morph tool, then placing it in the correct position in the model to give the desired effect, then using a different layer for the trees in plan view. Whilst an archaic process for a BIM software, it does provide the drawing I want to see.