Wishlist

Due to the vectorial nature of fills etc, our PDFs end up lagging and freezing, often to the point where some are unusable. There are workarounds, but these usually involve substituting certain fills for plain or simple ones. That's often not an option when trying to visually annotate different building elements. My mindset is "we've got the resources let's use them". There's websites where you can flatten PDFs but hit and miss success.

Our current most efficient work around is; once we have published the PDF from Archicad, we then open the PDF in Adobe or Foxit and print to the "Microsoft Print to PDF" virtual printer, we then tick "Print as Image".

My wish is:
In the Publisher, under Document Options, there should be a "Print as Image" option like above, to avoid the below...

Perhaps in here:

Wouldn't it be great if FINALLY we could set calculation units PER schedule. It's insane that in 2023 2026, we still can't do this. Some schedules need to round to the nearest whole number, other to the nearest 10th, etc. WTF. This should so obviously be part of dimension styles. And should have been for the last decade plus.

The Beam and Railing Tools allow users to slope the reference line and follow a slope. I would like the Wall Tool to be able to do the same with the option to have the top of the wall to run parallel to the slope or horizontal. The other option is to lock the reference line to be horizontal as the Beam tool does. However, it would be good to be able to edit the wall to make it slope after it is placed and have the top of the wall to either follow or stay in place.

AND it would be truly great if the reference line could be stepped to follow stepped footings for example. So we don't need to break the wall in to segments and edit elevations. (BTW, It would be good for the Beam Tool to step too.)

As building energy standards become more demanding, we need design tools that allow these to be considered early.

At least in the UK, Passivhaus and PHPP are regarded as being one of the most robust and longstanding.

However it is still a struggle to get solid transfer of data to PHPP to allow it to be used as a 'live' design tool.

Some kind of 'Live Connection' such as with Grasshopper, would allow the technical performance and design to be combined more seamlessly. PHPP is recognised as a 'gold standard' tool in many markets, so it would make sense to support it as we move to more demanding climatic conditions (design for shading/solar gain etc) and stringent energy standards where early design decisions are making more difference. 

Expanding MVO (Model View Options) to cover all elements, allowing users to switch between Local Settings and MVO for uniform control, would significantly enhance workflow efficiency. Currently, some objects support this, but extending it to all tools, including native ones, could offer more consistent and streamlined control.

For instance, the Mesh tool benefits from individual settings like Ridge Selection, yet integrating these into MVO would allow for global adjustments across different view types. Perhaps theres also room for incorporating Projection settings into MVO. For example Roof/Slab Outline settings in one view vs the next.

Another nice feature that would be great to be able to add to the Publisher Sets would be to assign a specific layer combo and penset to a publisher set.

We have a PUBLISH - PDF and PUBLISH - DWG layer combos, and they differ hiding the Titleblock in the DWG layer combo, so that when we publish DWGS for layout sheets we don't layer on the  master with the Titleblock is hidden (for fear of drawings being ripped off by - yes I know you can explode a PDF).  So it would be great to link those to specific publish sets so you know you are always using the right layer combo when publishing a specific type of drawings.

With Penset we utilise a Working and Print pent set.  Working being colours related to weights and material types, print being all black/grey.  Most of the time the Print penset stays selected on the layout sheet, so the elements place on the master or directly on the layout print in black, but every so often someone will accidently unintentionally change it and no realise.

(Can you tell I'm publishing lots of drawings this arvo!)

Cheers,

Scott

2 aspects to this wish:

A way to determine which system will perform better in archicad, either a built in benchmark, or some way of seeing view load times, rebuild times, frame rate in 3d views etc

Currently the only reference for performance that I know of is the minimum and recommended specs which rarely get updated.

Secondly these performance metrics could be used to help diagnose performance issues - ie: is a particular view taking longer that the others, or a specific object slowing everything down, or running out of ram etc

I'm fairly sure some of this info is already available in the session report window, but having it all in a concise, accessible format with repeatable results to compare systems or projects would help.

Selecting elements based on different properties is fundamental to CAD/BIM workflow and the intuitiveness and generality of the criteria expressions makes it one of AC most potent functions. 

Currently criteria expressions have to be created for each use (find and select, find and check, graphic overrides or scheme settings) which is not only inefficient but the different interfaces means slightly different and limited ways to do it. 

Instead I would like to see a dedicated manager for creating criteria expressions which are globally available for all current and future (hint: visibility) uses. The interface can then be built with full focus on the expressions paving the way for realising their potential.

Some starter points:

• Make it possible to organise (name/tag/description) and search expressions.
• Make it possible to create variants of expressions with different values - removing the need for multiple independent expressions for e.g different stories, measurements, systems et cetera. Perhaps by defining variables which easily can be set when using the expression.
• Make it possible to create compound expression consisting of multiple expressions - reducing the need of repetition and long expressions.
• Make it possible to evaluate expressions in the model rendering a list of the extension.
• Make it easier and quicker to create expressions. Currently criteria first has to be chosen in the list, then the operators set in the editor using the mouse, then values set in the editor once again using the the mouse. It should be possible to do in one go without using the mouse. More command like: search and select criteria <press enter> search and select relevant operator <press enter> search and select or enter value <press enter>.

Finally it should be noted that criteria expressions are an obvious stepping stone to the introduction of AI into AC the form of natural language processing turning prompts like "all doors on the second floor with a width of 900" into expressions. Natural language prompted selection - the marketing team won't break a sweat.

Don't know how this is still not a thing. Why do sections and elevations have 'Auto-rebuild' and 'Manual rebuild' where as details and worksheets are converted to dumb fills and lines??  This means you essentially can't add detailing like dimensions, labels or annotations to a floor plan callout with out checking it every time a change is made on the associated floor plan. Making them consistent with floor plans, sections, elevations should be a simple fix and a huge benefit to users.

Additional info:

I've seen work around for dimensioning by using hotspots, as listed here: https://community.Graphisoft.com/t5/Design-forum/detail-auto-rebuild/m-p/124760

This is a horrible workaround as your dimensions are not linked to model elements and do not update accordingly.

Our current work around is also horrible. We place a worksheet marker on the drawing, then save a floor plan view at 1:50 and place a 'background fill' around everything except the worksheet callout boundary. We then have seperate layers used for dimensioning that callout. Its messy, you can't have callouts close together, and display orders also become an issue.

Copy Paste from older files shouldn't override new with old settings
For example I have an expression based property, during the development of our resources, that property (expression) has been altered/improved. If someone copies an element from an old file which has that same property and pastes it to a new file, the new property is overridden with the old. By default older should not overwrite newer.

"Trace as Reference" drawing when editing Complex profile, so section or another active drawing will be shown in background of Complex profile editor. This way you can easily adjust complex profile to fit to drawing. Drawing must be placed in same position as it was in active plan/section/façade view, so you will have feeling that you editing complex profile in project not in separate editing space.

May be this issue has been solved in AC 26 but I gess not.

Railing wiew settings (pens, hatch, materials, surfaces, etc.) take tooooooooo much time to select separatly for each part of the element, in 2d and 3d.

For managing material, I just created a building material called "railing" for which I choose color in each project, but that meens all the railings of one project appears tre same color.

But for managing pens, I need to go into each part, choose the apropriate pens separately for 2d and 3d, then close this part and do the the same in the other one, etc.

For that purpose and for more issues, I would love :

- A menu grouping the pen settings of the whole element (not just for plan wiews but also for sections and elevations) the same setting box for 2d and 3d pens.

- A tick option for choosing the same material for all parts.

- A tick option to force the railing stay horizontal at the selected level. (In situations without stairs, it's time loosing to check slope in section views...)

- Copy-paste tool for parts of the element into the element editor.

- "take and give properties" tool for parts inside the editor.

- And may be more.

It should be possible to correctly create a good railing with much less steps !

And please, don't create the future window tool so complicated as railing is !

When modeling I often feel hamstrung by a lack of control over the visibility of elements in model space which can be traced to the fact that its tied to layers. 

Ignoring any discussion about layers raison d'être in todays object oriented applications I just note that its strange to rely on a coarse and rigid structure as layers for visibility when we have access to a much finer and flexible selection functionality. 

At the same time there are functionalities already in place that undermines the hegemony of layers regarding visibility.

• We can hide elements in 3D by type.
• We can hide elements in 3D by selection.
• We can hide elements in both 2D and 3D by renovation filters.
• We can as of AC27 hide elements in both 2D and 3D by design options. /edit240521

I would like to see a effort to consolidate all this control functionality in to one tool and base it on the same logic as the Find & Select tool.

My rather spontaneous concept idea for intuitive visibility control is a toggle between 'Show All' and 'Hide All' with an exception/inversion list based on Criterion Sets or Criterion Set Combinations. 

Show All

Hide All

-----------------------------

Exception/Inversion

Criteria Set 1

Criteria Set 2

Criteria Set ...

Another functionality that would be useful is the ability to set hidden elements as reference - locking and fading/wireframing/x-raying them.  

Hi there,

I don't know – maybe all the things I'll write here are already mentioned in this forum... actually if not, I wonder why...

Anyway... I thought I bring this collection of issues about the graphic overwritings... hoping the tool will be reworked soon and get all (and maybe more) improvements in.

1. Differentiation of cut and uncut lines
   It is the absolute basis of every drawing (and in Archicad available for every tool) to distinguish between this kind of lines. Why "destroys" the GO this option?
   In case of renovation, we need red cut fills with black contour lines and red lines for the uncut parts.... but we can't have this currently and can't use the GO for this case.
   
   
2. Control of Building Material (Skins)  and not just complete elements
   Without adopting the basic settings of Materials, e.g. it is not possible to display composites for drafting properly. E.g. The difference between in solid material and insulation has always to be visible. To get that with overwriting, hatches to (black or gray) solid fills we've set the background fill to this color... but later on in construction planning black background is wrong.
   (An other method is, to use different pen sets to achieve correct displays... but It's another workaround  to organize this all... it could be easier and more universally...)
   
   
3. Control of GDL-Elements via GO
   We mostly have stairs... and because these are GDLs we are not able to overwrite them (just can use the workaround from the point above...)
   
   
4. Hiding elements (edges) completely also in ground plans
   Why could this function that came with Version 25-2 not have for elements in ground plans?
   (There is still no "invisible" line in the lines menu...)
   We could do so much more with this.
   
   That leads me to the next point:
   
   
5. Hiding surfaces without transparency setting in elevations and sections
   Transparency for glass etc. and hiding opaque surfaces are two completely different things. Why can we have it only together?
   We've to make glass opaque globally to get the option to hide, e.g. demolished building part surfaces.
   Why only this way? 
   
   

6. Hiding Skin Separators causes missing Contour Lines
   The last point here is really my biggest one.

   THE PROBLEM

   In the GO we’ve this checkbox. It’s a useful function to fade out these lines… we can use the same composite throughout…

   But the big bug is, that not just skin separators get hidden, but also contour outlines. So contours are missing and elements like floor structure and furniture, floor and slab, building and soil merge together.

   (Yes, in some situation there can be applied a workaround here, called ‘the thicker line wins’, to cope with this bug… but it is still a bug…)
   
   

   ARGUMENTS

   And yes, of course you will argue now, just the expression ‘skin separator’ doesn’t fit really. Because the checkbox has to be activated if lines between different materials are overwritten with the same rule, shall be hidden. (And this function is one of the most important I’d say…)

   But even if we can choose only to see separators of skins and different building materials or none of them, it is not acceptable that lines between different (overwritten) materials and different elements are (mostly) not displayed.
   Before GO came theres was this simple rule... that separators between elements with the same (overwritten) fills got eliminated… all other one remained. This worked fine. Why could we habe this not again?
   
   CONCLUSION
   This "bug" makes the whole GO unusable for drafting display in sections. (In every planning process we have sections. If we can't use GO there… we don't need it for ground plans either.)
   To get a clean drawing, I've to add a lot of 2d-lines there.

   
   Almost everything merges together... look at this example...
   
   

   

   
   So if you do nothing else with the GO, fix this first, please.

It would be great if Graphic Overrides could be assigned to Layer Folders so that all layers within a specific folder can be overridden at once.

One of the features in Archicad that I use regularly is the Minimal space feature coded in most objects and Doors. I have a problem with this valuable tool as it is underdeveloped and a pain to use. A perfect example of not paying any attention to any practical feedback and then historically ignoring the tool after release. Based on my experience, I see the following deficiencies:

1. The tool need be extended to ALL Objects. At present some of the most critical like, furnace, fireplace, heaters, etc., do not have this feature. The lack of which can cause code compliance problems.
2. Need provide a tutorial to allow the user to add this feature to user created objects. The feature mostly uses a standard macro that could be added to any object assuming the proper configuration.
3. Allow the space feature to be turned on/off on a individual object basis, based on some criteria.
4. Allow minimal space criteria to be configured in the schedules for all Objects.
5. Likewise, allow listing of spaces for each Object in schedules.
6. Allow color coding of spaces on an Object basis.
7. Allow listing of all Objects within a zone – not just a count
8. Provide a minimal space on/off shortcut key independent of the MV. Also, a toggle icon.
9. Provide minimal space criteria for critical Objects, similar to the stairs tool. Provide out-of-bounds listing warnings.
10. Provide a reset to defaults.
11. Collision detection between spaces and elements – color code collisions
12. Add 3D Minimal space display

Probably others could add more. I made a video describing my solution to automating the setting of spaces using a Excel worksheet , a Python script and an AddOn to change the Library parameters. The files can be download from my GitHub site referenced in the video. Not thoroughly tested – use at your own risk. I would be interested in any comments or additional application using the files. If you are interested, please give the video a ‘like’, if not. Please give a ‘dislike’. Your likes/dislike are the only way to communicate what features we might want to see expanded for Architecture. Please participate and not just complain.

The video link is:

Minimal Spaces 

Hey!

No reaction to multi-segment Columns to the Zones after updating them. There is no automatic solution, only a handle Zone, which is unacceptable. 

Here is an answer of the GS Technical support:
This is a known issue, DEF-7187. Unfortunately, we haven't received many reports regarding this, so the issue is currently on hold. The workaround is to use single-segment columns.

This limitation has not been fixed yet in Archicad 26 and Archicad 27 3002. Many users need it and have a real problem with it in big projects.

How many reactions do you need to fix it? 10? 100? 1000 upfingers?

This might be best explained through an example.

Imagine if you had a property that contained the embodied carbon of an element (kgCO²/kg).

Then you had an expression-based property that converted the kgCO²/kg to an RGB value.

Not sure exactly what that would look like, perhaps R = kgCO²/kg x 50, G = kgCO²/kg x 10, B = kgCO²/kg x 75.

Concat Expression R & G & B.

The end result would be a graphic override that could on the fly change the colour of an element based on its Embodied carbon.

At the moment you need as many GO rules as there is values.

Endless other applications

Hope that makes sense.