bouhmidage wrote:Software development services are like architectural services - they require training, experience and professionalism. There is no such thing as free software, just like there are no free architectural/engineering services. It might be invisible to the end user, but someone always pays.
Another point, Free objects and plugins will streghthen archicad position in the market, revit plugins and objects are almost free, in the other hand, archicad has usefull and good plugins, but with extra cost...
jl_lt wrote:And here is one more.
If this was an excel spreadsheet, there would be many circular references alerts by now
-As i read in an article the other day (cant find it again), a lot, if not most, of Revits manufaturer content we see isnt even made in Revit. Its done in inventor or other modeling software for industrial design, which is where the objects are originally designed and manufactured via CAAD/CAM. As Autodesk owns most of these software, the translation to Revit is easier if not automatic i might guess. Trying to compete with this process would seem nonsensical from a Graphisoft point of view.
Braza wrote:Aren't we trying to over complicate things here. Ok parametric is great for core components like windows & doors, which GS cover quite well and can be manufactured to suit. BUT if I want a manufacturer's specific bathtub shouldn't it be a fixed object? I mean I would not expect to ring up a bath manufacturer and say "Your Aqua-tub is 1700mm long but I need a 1735mm one to fit my drawing can you make one?". If a manufacturer offers CAD components in a range of sizes & finishes then each one should be unique inline with their product codes. Having third parties redefine a component's parameters can only serve to introduce errors. I do think there is an over expectation on provision of components, you only have to consider the LOD (Level Of Detail) issue to appreciate how quickly the geometric data of an object becomes irrelevant and the BIM data becomes inversely valuable. The only point at which truly accurate geometric component data has any value is in client detailed presentation & rendering. In many cases generic objects will readily fulfil that need. You need to ask what you are trying to deliver, if a simple morph with appropriate BIM data can represent the required component then why worry that My Component Co, doesn't have a 3D parametric CAD file for their widget?
The problem is to make it parametric inside Archicad and there is when, for example, offset modifiers and other similar options could make the difference. To make the process easy and automatic, Archicad could have an option to link a morph object to an external file (with all 3d formats). If the manufacturer modify the product in their native CAD/CAM software, they would just have to resave the morph linked file. Then inside Archicad we would add parameters (offset modifiers, BM, Surfaces, etc...) to set, for example, commercial sizes, color, finish options. All product iterations would be automatically update in the Archicad file.
>>>>..."3. Partner with ChaosGroup and give us the ability to use Vray inside Archicad. Further, make the materials seamless between the regular 3D window and the Vray rendering engine (i.e. you create a Vray material and it automatically knows what to show in the regular 3D window instead of having to manually create two different materials and hope for the best)."[
"7. Seriously improve both the stair and rail tools (especially the railing, as it's a bit of a nightmare to get it exactly how you want it right now). A great example would be creating a custom railing panel, but the software isn't smart enough to know how to scale and stretch the profile to accommodate different angles."
8. Vastly increase the library to include truly usable objects such as interior window shades, curtains, trees/plants that look real, the list goes on."
9. Allow slabs to be rotated. Why on earth do I have to turn a slab into a morph to stand it up ?"
"10. Solve the issue of the pet pallet jumping around constantly where you have to chase it with your mouse in order for it to snap to a stable position on screen. This has been an issue since I started using Archicad at version 17, and I'm guessing long before that too."
"Graphisoft keeps putting out a new release each year but they never seem to understand what needs to be done to actually impress their user base and get them to stick around."
Though I have no interest in switching to Revit, it always amazes me how fast and stable it is when I see others working in it."
kittonian wrote:This is one of my biggest frustrations in terms of usability / editing. If a core tool allows a node or edge to do something it should be consistent across views. Curtain walls is probably the worst case where you have to jump between views to be able to edit a subcomponent, even the baseline has these issues. What is irritating is these matters aren't considered bugs, so the usability never gets addressed even if you report them.
5. Allow much more in-depth editing/creating in sections/elevations. The limited access we currently deal with is a bit silly, and constantly having to edit in floor plan or 3D simply because the options aren't available to us in section/elevation is cumbersome.
Bricklyne wrote:Bricklyne, you need to get out more. I mean check out all the competition.
I'm actually surprised they managed to stabilize it if it's "fast" and "Stable" since, the last time I used it steadily and professionally (around 2011/12), it was one of the most comically unstable and in some cases (read: BIG project files) super slow and buggy.
This is actually not good news since it means that Autodesk are getting their act together and actually closing the gap with Graphisoft in this regard (not that surprising given the vast resources they have), and not just relying on their dominant market presence to sell the product.
That should be a warning shot across the bow to GS, if they're actually bothering to pay attention.
Speed and stability were two things that they used to have the market cornered on (and in some situations, still do).
How long before Autodesk is actually releasing versions with actual useful (and requested) ground-breaking and innovative features - the kind we constantly keep begging GS to integrate, but which they never listen to us about?
Brett wrote:Based on your suggestion, I checked out Archline XP. It has one "global partner" in the U.S., Novedge in Berkeley. (Just a few miles away from me.) Interestingly, Novedge doesn't even have Archline listed on their website as a product they sell. So I don't think Graphisoft should be worried about U.S. competition from this product.
Just one example of a better solution is from the ex Archicad employees down the road in Budapest, Archline XP. Check out all the videos on Youtube and compare their toolset to Archicads. You will be surprised. A new version that enhances all these will be released very soon.
Revit, Vectorworks and even the latest version of Cheif Architect are all way ahead in usability and standard features than Archicad is now.
Richard wrote:Yes, unfortunately, they are woeful at marketing just like there colleagues down the road. I doubt they would be interested in the American market with Revit the main player. Every modelling tool in Archline XP is a lot more thought out and logical, and some are even automatic.
Based on your suggestion, I checked out Archline XP. It has one "global partner" in the U.S., Novedge in Berkeley. (Just a few miles away from me.) Interestingly, Novedge doesn't even have Archline listed on their website as a product they sell. So I don't think Graphisoft should be worried about U.S. competition from this product.
Richard wrote:I came fro CA 15 years ago and have watched it grow in that time. Assuming you are using both on the same project, love to know your work flow? What do you do in CA and then finish in AC?
I've used Chief Architect for over 20 years, and have been a beta tester for each new version including the last, so I know it pretty well. While it's true that it does have some features that Graphisoft doesn't (such as decent cabinets), Chief Architect has nothing like the information management, flexibility in 3D modelling (shells, morphs, terrain, etc.), teamwork, ability to handle large models, referencing between views, etc. that Archicad has. Chief is great for simple residential projects, but I have pretty much dumped it for construction docs. I have great respect for Chief, but it's really not in the same league as GS.
Ma_Scht wrote:We sure do! And with a few tweaks and adittions, some of which have been discussed here, it would become an almost unstoppable software.
if I look at all your endless posts, it seem - all of you have got a very good and especially time safing CAD/BIM software. ^^ hihiii
thank God!....this topic seems like it never ends and with LONG LONG diatribe responses.
Sheesh.....if GS would only adopt the Autodesk "Gorilla Marketing Tactic" this discussion would be a mute point.