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: Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, Barry Kelly, Gordana Radonic, nbalogh, mnguyen, gkmethy, mtron, Csaba Kézér

Why don't we use Nokia Symbian no more? Why is Microsoft Windows Mobile OS history now?
The app library was not big enough. GS needs to bring AC to a higher level, which does take time, but this we can wait for a bit longer. In between GS has to update the default libraries as some library elements go way versions back. Most of them have been GDL updated, but the basic geometry didn't change at all. GDL complexity is part of the problem. Until somebody figures out how to establish a visual GDL editor, GS will have to find ways to flood the user community with library parts, or we will all walk the Nokia path. BIMObject has already jumped off the train, no more Archicad plugins for future versions.

I have given a suggestion on recognition of how big the user community is, but all those localized and closed off fortresses don't help with the above issue:
Archicad is powerfull enough to fulfill the needs of users and do complex projetcs,
Graphisoft doesn't listen.... and that's the point
* Users recommand Graphical GDL editor : no answer , a powerful unusable language is a miss, and it won't be used when all A'rchitects deal with time, no time to learn, no time to write codes, we need to design parametric objects in 3D
BIMobject won't release any app for archicad and this is a great step BACKWARD for archicad agains it's competitors
* Unfinished Basic fonctionnalities : Correctly presented walls after SEO :'( walls are used in 99.99% in our projects, a HUGE problem like incorrect representation will push users to switch to another sowftware who can represent things correctly , when i talk with my students about SOE , they say : i can't work with a software who represents things wrong, i'll switch to revit .... ( workaround arents enough )
Stairs, Railings, mesh ( environment design) roof tools, need to be more user friendly with less contraints ..
* More organized UI , lots of menu are placed in a very hidden or inappropriate place, and difficult to reach,
* Cost estimation : establishing mathemathic operations bitween schedule columns / elements propreties so we can calculate cost per Square meter or cubic meter etc, excell would be needed just for final tweaking
* Independance from 3rd party solutions, A lot of basic things are done with 3rd party solutions , cladding, roofing, terrain modelling, electrical wiring, tiling ( wurtain wall is here for such a job but not 100% operating )
Mr. bouhmidage . i think all the sofware companies have established a niche over time and it seems they all kind of respect each other. Hey, do you like this parametric thing where you can link a lot of components at the expense of flexibility, freedom in modeling and your sanity. Then go with revit. If the opposite, go with Archicad. And so on. Ii try to do my best in not falling in this trap, that is, wishing for something that goes against the nature of each software (if given enough time, after eons of copying each other, would all Bim software be the same?) but at least they should try to maximize the potential of what they already have. I think this is what they are doing but very slowly.

As for your points, what´s kind of frustating is that with most of these, they actually already have the technology to do it. For example: with the SEOed walls or pitched roof trimmed wall, if you turn them to a morph, they actually get represented correctly with their plan and projection and everything, so why just not do it with a live element?. I understand that Archicad tries its best to make you not abuse the SEO because it would most probably lead to bad modeling techniques that would not resemble real world elements, but there are times where its innevitable. Also, where can i get students that care about correct representation? the ones i know couldnt care less about it!
Last edited by jl_lt on Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mr. jl_lt, Thanks for your reply ! lets's talk point per point,
* Archicad is totally flexiple regarding modelling technqies, i agree with that, and i achieve almost anything i want in real life construction exept of complex deconstructivist shapes that can't be handled easily even if you use morphs or shells, i tried a lot several technqies and there is some software limits, but not that important, ( this modelling techniques are for students which like to create crazy shapes etc)
* When it comes to " custom parametric objects" i think, that a software user should have acess and full control of all it's components, GDL remains a black hole for years, undiscovered area of archicad, due to the programming and coding techniques and the " special learning curve " We all need custom parametric objects and we need to create them easily
* Walls are walls, not morphs, all the modelling process is for a final result : GETTING DATA AND SCHEDUELING, that's BIM
i draw a wall, i trim it, i see it correctly on plan, i schedule it like a wall to get it's composites, surfaces, propreties, if i convert it to morph, i'll loose all this parameters when scheduelling, and if there is a modification, i need to redraw a wall and reconvert it, and if the wall contains an opening door / window, i'll loose all it's data too,
This workaround solutions kills the software,

As a professional GDL scriptor, I´m writing.

1. GDL is not that obscure as you may think, and I´m afraid to say that you're not wrong in felling such way cause Graphisoft have been failing in that aspect, but to make the story short, you need to ask the right question to the right people, which I see that you couldn't reach them, and I'm glad to offer help at least to have a good start.

2. If you have some experience working with Grasshopper & GDL, you will find that both of them operate on the same principles, but with different applications, and for the time being although I understand that ArchiCAD users need a graphical GDL interfase, I actually oppose it, as it will:
2.1.Limit GDL capabilities and increase its overhead.
2.2.Need a lot of Graphisoft's resources dedicated for this issue when I think those resources should be invested in somewhere else with a better turnover (at least for the time being).
2.3.Be interpreted as a cheap limited copy of Grasshopper intent, and I'm sorry to tell you, no body will want if they can put their hands on Grasshopper.

3.A lot of the problems you have mentioned are the result of one of those two things (probably):
3.1.A deficient training.
3.2.Or the need of specialised program.
I see the main problem being that Archicad is a piece of 1990's software trying to wear some 2010's clothing but still dances like it's in the 90's. I have been with Archicad since V8 (15+years) and there are some functions that have not been touched in that time. How is that even possible??

For instance.... the layers palette is still just one big list like it always has been. Users have asked for it to be updated and allow for nesting of layers in folder systems so to make that function more efficient but GS doesn't do anything about it. This is a function that gets used 100's of time a day by all AC users but GS gives it no value. This attitude has to change if they want to attract new users.

The whole GDL programming structure needs to be totally updated. A graphic editor is a MUST to allow users to create content quickly and efficiently. If this is what Archicad is going to remain built upon in the foreseeable future it needs to spend a whole lot more time and effort making GDL creation more accessible along with the ability to create custom UI's outside of the stupid little archicad selection settings window. I use Unreal engine as an example of how to manage parameters and shapes and apply them into a scene. Granted the language is different but UE4's graphical programming of parameters and references would be an amazing solution for GDL scripting.

With all serious data now being managed in the cloud I find it arrogant that GS calls its solution 'BIMcloud' when in fact it is still a local server based piece of software. Sure you can use a cloud based server which, not doubt the bigger players use, but for the general user I just want a cloud solution that is easy to implement. GS already has the system they just need to offer a true BIMcloud product to their users so that we can store our teamwork projects on-line and share them with anyone like we would with a dropbox folder.

Further to that the sharing of the BIM model with other users is also very 1990's but without the USB drive. Autodesk has presented their vision of the collaborative BIM future but I have seen nothing similar from archicad. I remember seeing a schematic of how an archicad model is shared between various design offices using IFC and it was a mass of arrows to and from different points. All I could see was a massive opportunity for errors.

If the teamwork structure was replicated in the cloud and all sharing/collaboration was dealt with directly from that system then we are looking at a very powerful solution. The cloud based teamwork system could provide a live .IFC feed from the teamwork databases that other users could link to. This would allow a better connection with autodesk's products used by engineers/MEP designers etc. The teamwork system could also facilitate a live linking of .ifc files directly back into the teamwork database. This will put the management of the collaborative model in the hands of the teamwork manager as opposed to the individual archicad user.

An on-line teamwork system would also allow sharing of the model (in whole or in part) with clients. Utililize the BIMx system to read the teamwork database directly so there is no need to 'publish' the BIMx file just share a 3D View with someone and they could view it in a web browser using the BIMx web viewer. Every single view/layout within archicad should be shareable just like dropbox.

Finally... the visuals. GS was right to get in bed with Epic Games as the Twinmotion link is light years ahead of the inbuilt archicad rendering system which needs to be dumped. Personally I use Enscape because the lighting is better IMHO but long term twinmotion will become far more popular. It would be great to be able to assign the TM renderer to archicad views and in a perfect world the openGL window would be replaced with a TM rendered window which has amazing visuals but we can still control all the objects like we do now. If that was implemented then AC would have something to shout from the rooftops!

In conclusion GS needs to listen to ALL their users and implement improvements (even small ones) on a more consistent basis as opposed to yearly cycle + bug fix updates. Why not just update the layers palette and send that out as an update??

It would go along way to helping us users feel like we are being listened to and GS are being active in developing its software
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 25