Wishlist

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.

The Archicad doors and windows are about the worst... they are nearly as bad as the old stair builder, in terms of usability and features we actually need.
Just start over. Cadimage has a lot of the features we need, but has it's own pitfalls.
...
some things that have come up just this week:
Q: "how do I set my sill thickness?"
A: "you can't. turn it off and model it with a beam"
Q: "how can I set the door position in the frame - IE centered on the frame?"
A: "you can't. Turn the frame off and model it with beams and columns"
Q: "how can I get a right triangle shaped window?"
A: "You can't. model it with slabs and beams in plan and save it as a custom window"
Q: "how can I get a 4 panel pocket door with doors all on the same side?"
A: "You can't. Each door leaf needs to be a separate door and then add an extra for the frame... (and it won't look great in plan or open in 3d)
...
I think if we filled a thread with all the features we need doors and windows to do, but can't without massive work-arounds, we'd rival that "why does BIMcloud have so many warnings and errors now?" thread I started about a year ago!
...
dont get me wrong, the doors and windows out of the box are great for the spec homes I do, or projects where there is nothing specified that they cant pick up off the shelf at any lumber yard. But thats not what most of my work is.

As the project files in Archicad can get quite big pretty quickly (100-1000MB) and not all Projects require a Teamwork file, it would be very useful if the saving process could be done in the background (as for example Photoshop does it, or as the Teamwork Snapshots work as well) so that we could continue working and not have to wait these precious seconds It's even more useful in home office scenarios, where the office VPNs can have a bandwidth limit imposed, or if the internal office server is old/slow.

• 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

Since the introduction of the new MEP Modeler, it is no longer possible to define maximum lengths for ducts/pipes as was previously available in the MEP Preferences.

This functionality was very useful for controlling segment lengths and ensuring consistency with real-world fabrication and installation constraints.

It would be highly beneficial if this option could be reintroduced in the new MEP Modeler.

Some of the goodies items, particularly the covering and polycount add-ons, are invaluable to proper file management and detailed model solutions.
...
keeping these as extra, and not keeping them updated is starting to become problematic. In particular, the polycount add-on; it is missing quite a few key tools introduced in the past couple versions. In one example, we get a total polycount of 5,000,000, but in the list of visible/selected elements (all visible and selected), only see around 1,000,000. It turns out, it is processing polygons for MEP elements, but not listing them off. So in the MEP model, I have no idea if there are 1 or 2 elements contributing 4m polygons, or if it is the accumulation of all ducts and pipes together adding up to that.
Additionally, the polycount add-ons "all polygons" vs "selection" only works in plan view. If I want to check a selection in 3d, or section, or... no dice. 
This tool has been vital to proper file management, but keeping it as an outdated, ill maintained, and an afterthought seems like just omitting a key part of proper file management.

There are many types of Doors and Windows. During the design phase, if you need to change the type of the door /window, you mostly need to select a different object and then redo all the changes within it from scratch, because all the door / window settings return to defaults for the object. One way to mitigate that is to have favorites but that's just not feasible if you use different frame widths, principles or other stuff between projects.

This is a screenshot of available doors, for example:

It feels like there should be one object that replaces all of these, with different options within the object:

• Single / double / asymmetric double door
• Sidelight left / right / none
• Transom / no transom
• Arched frame (that creates arched top part, be it transom or frame for door leaf)
• Handle inside / handle outside (different types)
• Etc.

With windows, it's very similar, although there is a Variable Window which covers most situations... but there's also Variable Double Window, so it kind of beats the purpose, because it could have been also made possible with Variable Window.

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.

Modules are a great productivity tool to manage repetitive complex elements in Archicad,

however the current Hotlink Module technology is extremely outdated and thus Archicad is lagging behind all other BIM authoring tools.

The first - and most important - step to Make Modules Great Agaain is to make it possible to create and edit modules in place.

What does it mean:

Imagine an apartment complex that consists of several identical apartment types.

These apartments consist of a few bathroom / kitchen / laundry etc types.

These projects (just like Hotels / Hospitals / Prisons / etc) typically can be imagined as Lego. Each module is a Lego piece that you put together smartly.

Currently the most effective method to use Modules is the so called Iceberg Method.

In this method we create a module in a negative storey, then we publish these modules to .mod files and then assemble the building using the .mod-s.

While this method was smart 10 years ago, today users would expect to be able to

- select a bunch of elements in plan or 3D,

- call it a module and

- start placing the modules in plan or 3D as needed.

If something needs to change, users would expect to just

- select any of the placed modules, unwrap it,

- make the changes and instantly update all placed instances of that module.

This is how it's done in the competitor tools, so Archicad must adopt this technology before it's too late.

In fact, pls GS learn from others and make Archicad work better!

Note:
Modules are not necessarily used as whole building elements.

I often use modules for complex furniture or furniture assembly, complex, repetitive facade arrangement, repetitive window arrangement etc.

Also refer to:

Modules: required improvements 

Make Modules Great Again - 2: Embedded Library Management 

Make Modules Great Again - 3: Attribute Management 

Make Modules Great Again - 4.0: Schedule Modules 

Make Modules Great Again - 4.1: Schedule Mirrored Modules 

Make Modules Great Again - 5: Modules Source Storey 

Make Modules Great Again - 6: Labels in Mirrored Modules 

• Gullies as Atriums: Currently, the minimum size of a roof opening (Atrium) seems tied to the pitch. At a 2% slope, ArchiCAD requires a very large opening (55 m) to process the geometry. This minimum threshold should be reduced to 10–20 cm to allow for standard drainage gullies.
• Global Perimeter Settings: Currently, users often have to define perimeters as gables polygon by polygon. It should be possible to set the entire perimeter to a specific edge type (like a gable/vertical end) in one go.
• Advanced Drainage Patterns: The tool should better support complex flat roof scenarios, such as butterfly roofs (two slopes meeting at a low line) and cricket headers (extra slopes to divert water around skylights or chimneys).

@GabrielGG 

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 I'm copying elements between files/design options, I want the ability to select "copy to active Design Option." 

When I'm copying from project A to project B and those elements are on a Design Option that doesn't exist in project B, project B creates the missing Design Option—and keeps it hidden.

I want the option to create the design option AND show it, create the design option AND keep it hidden, OR paste elements to the active Design Option.

I would like to have the ability to open a folder to which a current Publisher Set is going to publish my files.

We currently have an option to Show files in the explorer AFTER publishing, so the possibility exists. I would like to be able to check the dedicated folder BEFORE publishing. It could work based on a right-click in the context of a Publisher Set or on a Publisher Set itself in the Navigator.

Perhaps it is not a most urgent wish, however it would help speed up the publishing process.

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.

Archicad currently does not support saving and working on solo .PLN files directly within cloud-synced folders such as Dropbox, Google Drive, or OneDrive. The save operation generates temporary and lock files that conflict with real-time sync clients, creating a race condition that can result in save failures and, in rare cases, file corruption.

This is not a niche edge case. The majority of small and mid-size architecture firms in 2026 use cloud storage as their primary file management infrastructure. Telling users to avoid cloud-synced folders and instead work locally then manually copy files is not a realistic workflow. It introduces human error, breaks version continuity, and contradicts how every other professional desktop application in the industry operates. Adobe, AutoCAD, Vectorworks, Microsoft Office all handle cloud-synced folders without issue.

The request is straightforward: implement a save mechanism for solo .PLN files that coordinates with cloud sync clients, either by pausing sync during the save sequence, using atomic write operations, or adopting a save architecture compatible with how modern cloud storage hooks into the OS. The technical pattern is well established across the industry.

This is not a nice-to-have. For firms that rely on Dropbox or Google Drive as their file backbone, which is most small firms, this is a fundamental reliability gap that creates real data risk daily.

Heres the problem: When moving the origin of a fill or cover fill, one has to grab the fill handle. However, when the fill handle is set on top of a node of that same element, one cannot grab the handle without moving the node. So it's move the node...move the handle....and then move the node back.

Here's what I propose as a solution: Add the fill handle button to the pet palette if they are in the same location. When you click on the node you get all the typical options for that node and you get the option to move the fill handle.

See screenshot below.

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

Oddly enough, people who use ArchiCAD tend to also use various graphic design applications too.

As a result, there are typically hundreds of accumulated installed fonts on a user's system.

Currently the ArchiCAD font selection drop down within GDL objects is thus excruciating to use - the only navigation option within the dropdown is by RSI-inducing mouse wheel scrolling - meaning the user can spend a frustrating minute or two scrolling, every time, before they find the font they want.

What should be in these dialogs to help the user get directly to the required font is:

1. Slider gadget down the side of the list
2. Name search field
3. And of course, a favourites option - where the last used 5-10 fonts appear at the top of the list in their own small quick select preview window, with the dialog focus starting on those favourites, rather than at the bottom end of the list, hundreds of fonts away.
4. Optional office standards 'enforcement' override that simply defaults to (and self-updates when there are changes) to a centrally managed office or project standard font & pen.

All of the first three navigation features should also be applied to drop downs for line styles, fills, and all other properties selection dialogs.  Including when those dialogs are invoked by library parts.

Right now we don't even have consistency between font and line style dropdowns - line style dropdowns do currently have the slider and search field at least, even if lacking the favourites.  Fonts however have nothing but the scroll wheel.

Related to this 'office standards enforcement' idea is that any object containing text should be subject to it -  notes, dims, markers and text elements, and even text generated by GDL, should respect the user's office standards, even in the case of GDL if the fonts, sizes or pens are hard coded or controlled by deeply buried parameters that would otherwise take an age to find, and even when the object was created long before office standards enforcement was contemplated.  The GDL interpreter should have an interrupt for any text generated

Where the results are not as desired, the override mode can be disabled for that object instance.

This would cut through the timewasting pain, trial, and error that results whenever many ill-disciplined hands touch the project, or even when you make a careless mistake yourself, or import objects and files from other office's projects and platforms, or even your own office, that were created long before the adoption of your current office graphical standards.

This could be a separate wish, except for the fact that as an option 4, there would be value in including the 'enforcement' option in font dropdowns - right where the user can simply click to instantly respect the prevailing font - or explicitly choose to make an exception and override it

Kia ora,

It would be amazing to have custom line types in ArchiCAD using a fill with selected outline and fill colour.

In addition to this could arrowheads have the option for an outline and a different fill colour?

Can the lines of the arrow head join with a sharp angle rather than a rounded angle, regardless of their thickness?

Here is an example of what I mean:

Thank you