The Global ARCHICAD Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Discussions closely related to ARCHICAD. (Example: Do we need a Linux version of ARCHICAD?)

Moderators: ejrolon, Barry Kelly, Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, gkmethy, mtron, mnguyen, Csaba Kézér

User avatar
By Rex Maximilian
To their credit, as they announced on the forum earlier when it was clear that v23 would be delayed by months, they will honor any subscription that ran out before receiving an upgrade, by receiving v23; if I am to understand it correctly.

But this is a not a good look for GS. Not the delay necessarily, but the silence. It's deafening.
User avatar
By Rex Maximilian
vfrontiers wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:49 pm
Agree... this is bad enough... What's really going to be tough to swallow is next April..
Hi Duane... what is April in reference to? Did you hear that it would be delayed until April?

How have you been by the way? Long time no chat!
Tomek Piatek wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:12 pm
Just chime in a little here. It appears that there are two separate issues here:

Firstly, complex software is complex. It's hard to evolve, maintain, upgrade. Especially so for a system that has endured for as long as ArchiCAD. There is a tonne of software architecture baggage under the hood that can't just be ripped out and replaced. Software development just doesn't work like that. Otherwise we'd have GS rewrite AC every year. Clearly that would not work at all.

Secondly, and more importantly, GS have screwed up managing their customers expectations. They have failed to promise less and deliver more. That is all on management and they need to figure out a way out of this.

I think most people are aware of the difficulties, complexities and hurdles involved in software development in a general sense, and in particular, with a software as complex as ArchiCAD is.

Which is why many of us also questioned the wisdom of their decision way back when to shift to a yearly upgrade cycle that tends to inevitably lends itself to these kinds of issues - i.e.....progressively more diluted versions released each year, with fewer or less impactful features or new tools (if any); more instability with the need for more hotfixes to get it to a stable working and production-ready version; which itself being a function of a short beta-testing and debugging period to iron out the bugs and problems; long-standing unaddressed issues and requests from users which are subject to their almighty roadmap that no one outside the development team or inner circle knows anything about
,...and now delayed releases.

Look, I get it.
A yearly cycle combined with a subscription payment model provides a more stable revenue stream for Graphisoft - hence a large reason for the switch and the decision.
But at what cost? Especially to us, the users, and more so smaller users who frequently tend to get overlooked.
At the end of the day, the die is cast and this is the world we live in, and I don't think they'll be going back to a longer release cycle any time soon (even though circumstances like we're going through now seem to suggest that they would benefit from it almost as much as customers if not more - at least on the developers' side)

As for expectations, if they are finding a mismatch between what they are producing and what customers are expecting, then they only have themselves to blame for that, thanks in large part, as has been pointed out, to their reticence in communicating more frequently and with more clarity to their customers almost to the point, seemingly, of contempt.
If anything I would argue that they actually now benefit from a considerably lowered expectations bar from users thanks to years upon years of not really delivering on a lot of things people hope to get addressed in the program (just visit the Wishlist Section anytime to get an idea). So much so that when they do actually address a long-standing issue (like the Stair tool, for example, or this new version's, "Beam cover fill" long-standing issue) it's treated like they've practically invented the cure for cancer. While all along people forget that these are things that have been sitting in the Wishlist request section for the better part of two decades.

At this stage in the game, them promising less would be just about what most customers expect anyway since we barely hear from them outside their Key Client User conferences, and as for delivering more? Given their track record, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
User avatar
By Tomek Piatek
I hear ya. It really is a shame that the industry is in this pickle. I've been a long time Revit user and Autodesk behave in a similar manner. They release "features" that are really implementations of basic functionality that has been missing for years, they release new features that seemingly no one has asked for and they definitely ignore the small fish. And for whatever reason they never address the "low hanging fruit" - all the stuff that is simple to fix/implement and on its own not all that important really but together would make for huge improvements in usability.

We can only stay professional and advocate strongly for change, but eventually people grow tired and a bit cynical. I totally get that and sympathise with these sentiments.
User avatar
By stefan
A yearly release-cycle in itself is an absurd thing. Back when we were on 3-year cycles (with 2 years of intermediate bug fixes) you'd usually be very excited for an upgrade. Now not that much. I'd rather have upgrade every three years and have stability, bug fix and performance tweaks in the intermediate time.
And if they want, they may throw in some goodies alongside, before they are ready for prime time integration.

ARCHICAD 23 is in my opinion a good update. Not too heavy on staggering new features, but new column/beam and opening tools are three new or revamped modelling tools. That is three more than the last Revit releases of the last few years had.

It is also finally a fully focused IFC4-capable environment (many of the former limitations are gone - albeit it remains a complex beast to fully configure). And IFC viewers are not all that well aligned to IFC4.
By DGSketcher
Tomek Piatek wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:33 pm
And for whatever reason they never address the "low hanging fruit" - all the stuff that is simple to fix/implement and on its own not all that important really but together would make for huge improvements in usability.
So true. It doesn't typically affect the underlying data structure either, it would just make things easier and quicker if the UI was more considered, simplified & consistent.
User avatar
By Steve Jepson
stefan wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:40 am
A yearly release-cycle in itself is an absurd thing.....
Yes! I just deleted (spared you all my diatribe) on why that is so true in every way. Suffice it to say that I agree.
User avatar
By Scott Bulmer
For what it's worth my license key automatically upgraded to AC23 this morning.
User avatar
By Steve Jepson
Scott Bulmer wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:45 pm
For what it's worth my license key automatically upgraded to AC23 this morning.
Thanks Scott,
I checked and was able to upgrade my license key using the License Manager Tool :)
Won't be long now.