I think it would be a huge mistake for GS to try to compete in the multi-discipline arena unless they plan to quadruple in size. Let other companies worry about engineering BIM. Graphisoft is a rather small company. They can't afford to start diversifying.

GS barely has the staff to keep up in the architectural arena. If they started making structural, MEP, and civil packages, it would only slow them down.

To quote "Good to Great", each company should find what they can do better than everyone else and do it. Doing anything else just detracts from it. Look at SketchUp. It does one thing very well (simple conceptual modeling), and everyone loves it.

Starting into new areas would mean breaking into all new markets for Graphisoft. I've seen Autodesk Building Systems, Revit MEP, and RAM (structural analysis) up close. GS would have years of development ahead of them just to catch up with these highly mature and functional products. We're talking about software good for both modeling and documentation (like ducts that can cause a lower duct to dash in plan or lights than can be assigned to an intelligent panel that reports when it's overloaded)

Trying to be all things to all people is what watered down AC11 so much. Instead of focusing on better BIM tools like maybe:
- a better database creation/reporting system
- better internal integration (ever try to maintain attributes between hotlinked files or update something with nested hotlinks??
- geez, data can't even exceed one cell in length in a schedule because there's no line wrap.
- Archicad might be the last CAD/BIM program out there that can't add text to an associative dimension (plus/minus, VIF, MO, etc)
...instead of this, they gave us more 2D drafting tools (Worksheets, Linework Consolidation, and an occasionally useful, unfinished Interior Elevation tool, woo-hoo!) to placate former Autocad users.

Let Autodesk go for the all-in-one product. For a long-term strategy, I would rather see highly specialized products that can all talk to each other, allowing each discipline to use the product(s) that best meets its needs.

Joseph wrote:
......

Is AC falling behind?

Joseph

No.


But seriously, ArchiCAD is not falling behind simply because Revit has a Structural and MEP-based sister-software. Remember that it was a conscious decision by Graphisoft to not only separate the development of Virtual Constructor ( the probably the Graphisoft - or rather, the formerly-Graphisoft equivalent of Revit Structural and Revit MEP) from the development of ArchiCAD despite the fact that Constructor is built on an ArchiCAD engine with MEP, and even construction-simulation modules, but also to completely offshoot a completely new firm (Vico software) to handle the Suite altogether. This isn't just based on the fact that Graphisoft knew well-ahead of time that the adequate development of both programs were beyond the resources of Graphisoft alone, but also in full recognition of the fact that ArchiCAD is first, foremost and unquestionably an Architectural DESIGN software. WE can argue all we want about whether or not Structural and MEP are, or should be within the Design mandate, and as such whether or not they are aspects that should also be served by ArchiCAD or Graphisoft for that matter, but given the current state of the profession as a whole as well as the significance and role of Architects in the AEC hierarchy, Graphisoft wisely opted not to go that route at this point in time and particularly given their resources in comparison to an Autodesk.

It's part of the reason why ArchiCAD has such great interoperability with other software, particularly those used by engineering consultants and colleagues as an acknowledgment by Graphisoft that it is not a Swiss Army knife do-it-all software. And never will be. Personally, I still hope they would release and develop some limited MEP modules and addons (ala Ductwork from ArchiCAD 9) leaving the decision to install or include them to the respective clients, but I would still agree with their view that it is not as much a priority as making certain the base software is running smoothly and addressing the most basic needs of the average architectural designer and user.

......but that's just me.

Bricklyne wrote:
......but that's just me.

No, it's not!

TomWaltz wrote:
Let Autodesk go for the all-in-one product. For a long-term strategy, I would rather see highly specialized products that can all talk to each other, allowing each discipline to use the product(s) that best meets its needs.

Amen.

TomWaltz wrote:
I think it would be a huge mistake for GS to try to compete in the multi-discipline arena unless they plan to quadruple in size.

I think this misses the point. When your engineer switches to Revit Structure, your investment in Revit as an architect just became much more valuable. For Autodesk, becoming (and controlling) the standard is all that matters (ask Microsoft about this). The network effects of owning the tools to the complete design cycle are undeniable and huge. And as I have shouted in other threads, this (along with the tying of Autodad upgrades to Revit) is the death knell for ArchiCAD.

Can Graphisoft make a good structures package? Should they try? Of course not: They can't even publish the current drivel without gobs of bugs and frustrated users. Thus, I agree with Tom that getting others to do it is the least bad option. But for that to happen you would need killer SDK's or a fantastic interchange format. The former is not very likely and the latter is not there yet.

Autodesk has done what all aggressive competitors do: they have given their competition (Graphisoft) a set of options that are bad, worse, or impossible.