Wishlist

The short and simple version:

We would like to be able to move the Graphisoft folder under the user profile (C:\Users\%Username%\Graphisoft).

Extended with context: ArchiCad has a lot of cache functionality built in, that needs to be stored somewhere. The Graphisoft folder is the spot for most of this data. The (usually) largest sub folder amongst these was the TW data folder, which we're now able to relocate. And we are very thankful for that. 

But there are other reasons why the main Graphisoft folder can grow (too) large in size (>100GB). We can delete some older files from previous versions, but that is -sadly- not enough. Therefore, we would like it if we had the option in AC to move this Graphisoft folder to a different location. 

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.

I'd like to be able to control the display unit of information shown on a schedule.

The dimension for elements displayed on a schedule is a global setting defined by the Calculation units;

However, I'd like to be able to independently control the display units on schedules in a project.

For example, on a schedule for brick wall, I'd would like to have the wall length in meter, the wall opening in centimeters, and the brick dimension and tolerances in millimeter. That isn't currently possible.

Additionally, since I would need 3 decimal spaces for the tolerance, I would have to set up the calculation unit to meter with 3 decimals, so the length of the wall and the opening would also have 3 decimal houses, which is unnecessary long.

It would be great to have a "Hide zero decimal" option for the calculation units, like we have on the Dimensions setting.

Just basic orthographic lock for dragging/moving. Not snap guides, not distance guides, not locking the direction in only one direction like just 'x' or just 'y', not suggestive snapping, not grid based snapping, just simple 90º ortho in the x, y, and z direction. Autocad did this in like 1980 something? And Graphisoft can't do this in 2026? Please fix the basic interactions instead of feature-puking half-baked implementations.

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.

Instead of turning on/off shadows in the elevation settings, it would be much more practical to control those in either view settings or model view settings.

As for now, I need to have 2 sets of elevations, one with and one without shadows, or I have to accept that shadows either show or don´t show for one elevation throughout the whole project.

• 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

Of the 3 publishing methods, to create:

• Flat file structure -> shows exported file location
• Folder structure -> shows exported file location
• Single file --> Does NOT show exported file location

Instead, the success dialog box is effectively redundant/useless as it displays no new information. It repeats what is already shown by the green checkmark and in the status column (see screenshot).

When a Bimx model is uploaded to the "Bimx model transfer site" not the local / user time is displayed as upload time but another time (I suppose the server location time). This is confusing since I use this time when using the same version name. Please display user specific / local time as upload time. 

Also the time and date format should be as local used. We do not use AM and PM and we write first the day then the month.

Hi everyone!

Element ID Manager can be extremly helpful, but its potential feels limited by the fact that it can only use Library Part Parameters as criteria.
If Properties could also be used for filtering and assignment, it would unlock a much smoother and more flexible workflow, especially in larger projects.

Is this something to consider?

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 , 

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.

Is there an option to change text in the text tool from lowercase to uppercase and vv. Perhaps as an option in the "Favorites" menu.

Feature Request: Multiple Renovation Phases

I am an Archicad user with extensive experience in BIM modeling, and I believe an important improvement would be the ability to define multiple and sequential renovation phases beyond the existing three options: Existing, Demolished, and New Construction.

This feature would allow for:

• Tracking design variations, where changes are made to elements that were already planned in a previous phase.
• Managing complex construction workflows, avoiding the need for model duplication or cumbersome workarounds.
• Dynamic state transitions, where a "New Construction" element in one phase automatically becomes "Existing" in the next.

I recently worked on a project where this limitation made it very difficult to manage different construction phases efficiently. In Revit, this feature is already available, and its absence in Archicad significantly complicated my workflow. Implementing it would greatly enhance project flexibility and version control over time.

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.

Fellow Archicad professionals,

The AI integration landscape is moving faster than anticipated, and we're at a crossroads that will define Archicad's relevance in the next 18 months.
Current reality: While Revit users are already integrating Model Context Protocol (MCP) with advanced AI models (Claude, GPT-4, DeepSeek), Archicad remains isolated from this rapidly evolving ecosystem. This isn't just about convenience - it's about fundamental workflow transformation.

What MCP enables:

• Direct AI model access to BIM data structures
• Real-time design optimization and error detection
• Automated documentation and specification generation
• Intelligent clash detection beyond traditional methods
• Natural language model queries and modifications

The competitive gap: Projects that would take weeks in traditional Archicad workflows are being completed in days using AI-integrated Revit environments. This isn't theoretical - it's happening now in major firms.

Our ask to Graphisoft: Prioritize native MCP protocol support in Archicad's API roadmap. This integration should enable:

• Secure, read-only model data exposure to AI models
• Controlled write operations through validated AI responses
• Standardized data formatting for AI consumption

Community action needed: If this resonates with your experience, please amplify this request through your Graphisoft contacts, enterprise accounts, and development channels. Individual voices become powerful when unified.

The question isn't whether AI will transform BIM workflows - it's whether Archicad will lead or follow this transformation.

Timeline matters. Every quarter of delay compounds our competitive disadvantage.

Who else sees this as mission-critical for Archicad's future?

Currently, Archicad allows keyboard shortcuts only as combinations of different keys (e.g., Ctrl+Shift+S). Users cannot assign double key sequences (e.g., pressing “G” twice in a row) to commands.

Proposal

Enable double key shortcuts: assign commands to a sequence of two consecutive keystrokes (e.g., “G” → “G”) instead of requiring simultaneous key presses.

I think the complete orientation of windows and views should be upgraded.

In the working window, the orientation function is limited to compile the last different orientations set during the drawing session.

but for it to be efficient at the least it should be possible to name and save an orientation as a reference in the project. Look in the image, in my project 2 orientations differ of 0,03°. Which one is the good one? If I draw walls locked on X and Y but using those 2 orientations from time to time my connection wouldn't be perfectly 90° which can be cumbersome when dimensioning things later.

I should be able to set a "north wing" orientation and a "east wing" orientation  set once and for all through the project. This could also used in views in the sheets where I can set a plan to orient itself from one of those named views.

I used Revit for more than 10 years and this feature (crop box) is build in since the birth of this very good tool. I'm using Archicad now and happy with it now. I don't want to light up a discussion detailing the pro and cons between those two very good software. But for a so basic function in a building modeling software like the one we use each day, this have to be implemented ! Please.

Currently in Archicad, DWG and DWF translators are stored inside the Archicad installation — not in the project file.
This is similar to how Work Environment profiles are handled, and it creates real problems, especially in company workflows.

If a project uses a specific DWG or DWF export setup (for example, for a consultant, contractor, or submission package) and that translator is missing or different on another Archicad installation, the exported files can be incorrect — even if you use the same publisher set.

This is a serious risk when working in teams, across offices, or sharing files externally.

The idea:

Translators for DWG and DWF should be saved inside the project file (or at least embedded optionally, like IFC translators).

That way, when you open a project, you always get exactly the right translator settings — without needing to manually import/export translators, or guess which "version" of the translator you should be using.

Summary:

Making DWG and DWF translators project-dependent (embedded into the .pln or .tpl) would dramatically improve file consistency, reduce errors, and make Archicad publishing workflows much safer and more predictable across teams, companies, and remote work setups.