revit 2010 and autocad 2010

TurboGlider wrote:
What are ArchiCad missing?

People who know how to use it.

What is it not missing is a lot of vocal scratchers of the surface.

Sorry to all offended by my opinion, political correctness is not my strong point. There is too much of it to the point of ridicule.

My 0,02$:

Those IMHO students who started the tread miss one point that is missing on the Autodesk side: I mean "user friendly" licensing... while Archicad license can be sold due to eg "crisis time", the Autodesk licenses cannot.
Imho the licensing is one of the most important thing when starting bussiness or switching the cad software. After reading Autodesk licenses I would not decide to buy any of their products....

Best Regards,
Piotr

i think that in GS , they've thought about this question : this article is worth re reading... it had its objectives at that time.....

blobmeister wrote:
....... In Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the 1% is up 40%. At least 60% of competition entires in Europe are organically shaped. Many firms use Rhino and grasshopper on a daily basis and see Revit even with it's new tools as a lame awkward software.

.....yes, but even 'lame, awkward' Revit with its new tools is much closer design/modeling versatility of Rhino/Grasshopper while still maintaining a true BIM/parametric workflow, (thanks, in large part to Autodesk's concerted efforts in recent versions to really improve the Revit modeling toolset) than ArchiCAD may ever get. And that's saying a lot.

GS took a big step forward in this regard a few years ago with the introduction of Maxonform (at the very least in even expressing just their intent in addressing ArchiCAD's weakness in modeling non-rectilinear geometry); even with all its warts and weaknesses (lack of parametricity and bidirectional fluency between MF and AC being the biggest one) and then followed that up by taking two gigantic steps backwards in summarily killing it and all support for it while leaving their clients in the dark regarding their alternative plans for improving future versions.

Reading this thread; this very depressing thread, (or at least the responses) one can see the reasoning in their decision to ditch Maxonform with no clear plan as to how (or if ever) they plan to address ArchiCAD's modeling weaknesses.

Every time the subject or topic of Freeform modeling or organic modeling comes up, especially in reference to ArchiCAD's deficiency herein, and particularly in contrast to Revit's (or Vectorworks', or Microstation's) increasing versatility, some no-doubt well-meaning, but ultimately apologist poster responds with the now all-too-common retort:

"Well I don't really need improved modeling tools (ergo no one else ever possibly need them????), and I don't model blobs ( as if that was ever the point in question), so Graphisoft don't really need to improve their tools."

or one of my personal favs: "why model stuff you can't ever construct" (which is why the developers of software like Rhino, invest so much into improving the fabrication/panelization translation end of their software, or so I thought)


Again, as I've pointed out so many times before, all of this tends to be so besides the point or the original question regarding ArchiCAD's modeling weakness that it always seems completely oblivious to the complacent vocal minority **cough*apologists*cough**. When AC can't even model a custom stair handrail to a spiral stair, or even a conventional rectilinear stair, and one has to resort to ludicrous work-arounds to design something so banal, how can anyone still defend the lack of an improved modeling interface in ArchiCAD? And this is just one of many many common examples in VERY conventional architectural design that I can call up (and have done in the past) and that doesn't necessarily pertain to, or specifically refer to Blobitecture or the domains of the Zaha Hadids and the Gehry's. The same tools used to design those slick looking buildings and facades that other developers like to use to market their software are essentially the same tools that apply when resolving the 'meat-and-potatoes' design issues that come up in everyday non-competition design sans-acrobatic work-arounds.

But as I said, you can easily see how GS decide on tackling such an issue especially when they stumble on a thread like this. They simply decide between the lowest common denominator of the users assuring them that everything is fine and they don't really need to improve anything versus the more onerous (and granted, expensive) option posed by the ever diminishing minority clamouring for improved modeling tools to at least allow them to compete on a somewhat fair level with their rivals on other software and platforms with improving tools. Take the cheaper option obviously; especially when everyone keeps telling you that everything is fine.

Normally, I wouldn't bother with a thread like this these days; it would seem obvious now, to anyone that's been paying attention, to what direction GS-AC is headed, and no amount of user input seems likely to change that. I just happened to find the article posted by the previous poster (TMA_80) really interesting in the sense that obviously Graphisoft have actually considered the significance and necessity of having robust modeling tools and capacities in the modern changing Architecture design environment. They are not ( or at least were not) blind to the wide disparity between their product's shortcomings and the evolving demands of modern design. Unfortunately, that the article was apparently authored by former top man Gallelo, only portends sad times ahead for any prospective new users looking to get a new BIM platform as one can only fear that he took that attitude and that vision with him when he left the firm. Which is pretty sad.

No, but you guys are probably right, we all don't really need all these new tools and a generally improved ArchiCAD toolset.

.....sorry for the long response. Too many thoughts percolating on this issue.

Bricklyne wrote:
.....sorry for the long response. Too many thoughts percolating on this issue.

Bricklyne don't apologize .. i think you would be surprised at how many of us are sitting here silently thinking exactly the same thing. I am firmly in this camp .. thankyou for (again) speaking up on this subject (i just lose all my puff when it comes to writing about this issue now).

There are many long-time users here who i greatly respect but their attitude regarding this issue is often very depressing. Perhaps they are commenting tongue in cheek. I can understand where comments such as 'we dont need new tools we just need better users' can come from, and I think you can model just about anything you need to in AC at the moment.

Doing it easily is another thing. Although you can break down just about any structure into elements you can model with AC changing them is such a nightmare that people just say 'you can't do this in AC' .. because time being a factor means you cant. Being able to define complex relationships between elements is the key to resolving this. Yes AC should add some complex solid modeling tools too but a system along the lines of Generative Components will be much more important (It sounds like Revit is heading in this direction as well).

the shape of things to come

That is a great article .. I had somehow missed it. I think this clearly shows Graphisoft knows where the future of architecture is heading - note reference to car maker. Disregard all this talk of organic blobs, the critical thing to take from this industry is the highly advanced design and manufacturing process. Even plain boxes would gain from this.

What GS is struggling with (i think) is how to achieve this given it really requires a major code rewrite to do properly (i'm no programmer i'm pretty confident everyone agrees on this). There are some major changes in the wind - wether this is a sign of groundwork on the above i don't know. I am confident the approach taken with the Curtain Wall Tool is an indicator for the future. Which is fine - provided it works and is highly flexible.

I can hear the 'oh nooooos!' already

That's exactly what I think.

GS could have a best policy of licensing their products, and could have a price much low than their competitors, but AC had problems in the productivity, so you could loose money anyway.

I agree with those who said that AC can model almost anything you could imagine (even with additional plug-ins), but what about the time you spend doing that? And the quality of your designs produced directly from model? Are these enough for you? Not for me.

I consider myself a good AC modeler, and still feel need for more modeling tools, more freedom and more productivity to develop my models and my designs and my quantities and schedules from the models I create. AC simply isn't complete enough for that. Isn't flexible enough for that. Isn't accurate enough for that.

Revit, even lacking some AC features I enjoy, respond greatly to all these aspects. Schedules and quantities database based on the model, organic model, great designs from the model (no 2d correction required like AC on most cases), simple and powerful workflow and work environment, timming and demolitions on the fly - no workarounds - and a fantastic way to develop parametric objects without programming knowledge requirement that work exactly as I want, and a powerful rendering engine allow revit to fulfill my needs much more than AC. So accepting Revit price and Autodesk licensing known issues is the less of my problems, because the productivity gain pay's it in no time.

I'de like to see GS accomplish with Archicad the power of Revit, but I'm not seeing that. GS based his comments with the no need of complex modeling, or the users issues, or the numbers that mean nothing to us. I don't want to know if only 1% or even 0% of the buildings are freeform. I want to be able to make that if I want. I can't even make a simple custom railing to a stair without workarounds, or a stair that isn't in the library or in the stairmaker options. - this isn't freeform, this is a very simple architectural component. So the problem isn't on the user but in the software lack of features and tools.

I know that many of you don't agree with my opinions, but is because of you who accept AC weaknesses that GS don't develop the software accordingly, and now they are far behind their competitors in many many aspects. And as AC is inferior to their competitors so are we - users...

A change is required: or GS change AC or we switch software... That's what I made...