Archicad 9

[barathd]

If any one is interested there are some good videos previewing Archicad 9 at the Graphisoft site. Text editor and interface flexibility very impressive - perhaps this may nudge the Revit development team in this direction.

Regards

Dick Barath

[hand471037]

Company where I'm at now won't touch Archicad with a twenty foot pole. They were trying to use Archicad 8, but ran into so many problems and such instability that they totally and wholly abandoned it. They got really burned. They were promised a lot of stuff before they signed on, and were given a *beta* of 8 so that those promises could be met (which they thought was more of an 'alpha'), and quickly ran into trouble, apparently...

I'm not trolling, and I've heard that since then 8 has gotten stable and such. But after hearing about the mess that happened here when they tried 8 right when it came out, I'd be wary of 9 until it was out for a while...

[Steve_Stafford]

... I'd be wary of 9 until it was out for a while... The Archicad forum has had a number of threads about 9 and those who have been beta testing it seem very pleased. They seem to have learned from the release of 8 and did some extensive pre-release testing.

[Scott D Davis]

It seems that they are pleased on one hand, and disappointed on the other. The UI has been tweaked, but the new feature list has received some negative responses for not having much new. They seem disappointed that after two years of developement, many 'wish list' items did not get addressed. Some items, such as stairs, are still available only by getting an add-on API product. ArchiCAD cannot do stairs on it's own straight out of the box. If fact, there was a comparison done between Revit and ArchiCAD out of the box. (I'll have to find the source again) It was determined that to make ArchiCAD compatible with the feature set that is available with Revit OOTB, purchasing ArchiCAD and all the necessary add-ons would turn it into a $10,000 purchase.

[barathd]

This is just a simple observation of the REVIT UI. Is it not dumb to have an icon i.e. roof and then the word roof next to it? Seems's awful stupid.

[Marek Brandstatter]

Does anyone know if ArchiCAD 9's *views* are parametric (ala Revit)?

[barathd]

Pretty sure the views are parametric. Take a look at the vids.

[Richard McCarthy]

Yeh I agree we Revit UI should be made more concise.. eg, icon can be just ICONS or just words or both... Even better, if Revit team can pull this off I would be real pleased... on SCREEN UI like the lightwave UI widget (sliders on screen) so UI SHOULD be transparent and maximise user's screen space.

[Marek Brandstatter]

Barathd, I'll download the videos this weekend.

Just to make sure we're on the same page - parametric views imply that a change made anywhere (eg plans, sections, elevations, schedules, etc) is a change made *everywhere* - simultaneously, all in real-time - in every single view. This of course is what makes Revit so powerful.

I would be surprised if ArchiCAD have finally got this right. Isn't Plot-Maker still there?

[beegee]

I would be surprised if ArchiCAD have finally got this right. Isn't Plot-Maker still there?
Yes, Plotmaker is still there. You cannot make any changes to the model from within PM, which is a separate program to AC ( think of it like a viewer / assembler )

Otherwise, I think you can say AC is parametric, with the possible exception of Schedules. Schedules have updated the model since 8.0 when the Interactive Scheduler was introduced. The limitation in 8.0 and I think, still applicable to 9.0, is that schedules are only editable and updateable from their 'preview' window ... not from a placed schedule.

[Marek Brandstatter]

Ok I've dowloaded and watched the ArchiCAD 9 videos. Very quick impressions:

(1) The interface seems a huge improvement. I agree that Revit should also pursue advancements in the 'cosmetics' department.

(2) Library Management looks excellent - as its always been. Again Revit should take a leaf out of ArchiCAD's book here.

(3) But from what I can tell - Views and Sheets are definitely *NOT* parametric.

For example, watch the "Enhanced Performance" video (AC9_Powerful4.avi) where the sections-elevations are *laboriously* generated on what seems a very modest sized project. The dialog box crawls through the following:

"Calculating Vector Shadows
phase 15 of 24
less than a minute"

"Calculating Split Polygons
phase 19 of 28
less than a minute"

"Adding Lines"

"Adding Fill"

"Calculating Lines *
About 3112 minutes"

No kidding thats what is says - 3112 minutes! LOL.

In other words, the sections/elevations are being tediously generated and definitely not 'live' and always up to date - as they are in Revit.

(4) Plotmaker is still there as a seperate module (AC9_Polished3.avi) and it looks like its sheets also do NOT update in real-time.

Maybe ArchiCAD 10?

[billshorten]

just to correct a couple of inaccuracies

placed schedules can be updated 'though you have to choose to do it, they're not 'live'

archicad ships with a very competent stair tool which i find does anything i want it to

some archicad users think that the stair tool is one of it's weaker points

cigraph make a stair tool API which (at the moment at least) is free and offers enhanced functionality

bill

[juggergnat]

The one thing I'm curious about is the family situation with Archicad. A few years ago we were reviewing Archicad vs Revit, and the critical factor (other than Autodesk buying it), was the family editor. I'm curious about your thoughts. Archicad contains GDL, which is a robust family creation engine capable of a lot of things. But as far as I'm aware, there is no way to easily model custom families and insert them into projects. Yes, you can learn GDL, but its the equivalent of learning how to program. 99% of all architects will never care to learn how to program, or even work with scripts for that matter.

By comparison, the family editor in revit contains simple-to-master parametric dimensions, and also decent 3d abilities for you to model things. So if I want to create a custom arched niche, with a precast concrete shelf...I can model these elements in Revit quite easily, and insert them into a project seamlessly. In Archicad I think the learning curve to do this is very, very difficult. There are add-ons that simplify this process, but in our estimation the difference was extreme.

Were we right on with our assessment?

JG

[hand471037]

I've always felt that the real Achilles heal of these BIM systems, whether it be Revit, Archicad, ADT, All-plan, whatever; is in how efficient the creation and management of custom content is. Unless you really do the same project over and over, if you can't make what you need quickly, set up new jobs quickly, and alter your content quickly the system will never really pay for itself, or will never gain real adoption with the users.

Revit really solved this problem, in that Families allow for the rank-and-file to generate object-orientated intelligent content on an as-needed basis. With many of the other systems, only a 'guru' or 'CAD manger' can make new content as needed, which simply slows the whole process and minimizes who can help on the project. Either that or you have to buy the content from others, which is again rather limiting.

That's the reason that, when looking at BIM systems at an old office I used to work at, we decided to not go with ADT 2, and stay with Autocad. Later on, at another office, it was the thing that made us pick Revit over ADT or Archicad (even though at the time Revit was independent, with no one using it much). So Jug, we are totally on the same page. :-)

[juggergnat]

Jeff, I agree with you 100%. The more I use Revit the more I realize that one of their greatest innovations is the way that they have implemented families. What they've done here is quiet and behind the scenes, but basically revolutionary. Everything from simple annotation families to complicated windows and doors, or anything in between can be accomplished with ease, and in many cases...you can program parametric behavior for those families. It is really all the difference for firms that do anything even slightly custom. When selecting between Archicad and Revit, I would definitely advocate that firms consider this. You can customize the way your drawings look, and you can model quite a bit using the family editor templates. There are methods in Archicad to doing custom things, but generally they are work-arounds (like using a floor slab as a desktop) or add-on programs (like GDL toolbox).

This pays off in more ways then can be counted....

JG

[Scott D Davis]

The ArchiCAD'rs seem to agree....they see the need for a Graphical interface to create content, not a scripted, programming language that doesn't 'fit' with the way visual, creative architects work. Here's a quote from the ArchiCAD forums:



In my personal opinion, there is nothing progressive about GDL scripting, or at least the methodology of it, as a means of creating and modifying 3D models and objects. Sure, it's almost limitless and is quite powerful in the hands of an expert user; as is C++, or Fortran, or COBOL, Turbo Pascal (.... get my drift? ) But in light of the fact that most ArchiCAD users are trained primarily to draw, design and create first and foremostly through graphic visualization as opposed to, say, verbal Coding; wouldn't it make more sense to devise a means with which they can overcome this creatvity barrier in the Virtual Building universe, and which is congenitally attuned to their naturally honed technical and perceptive skills. Is it therefore any surprise that a program such as Sketchup is rapidly gaining in popularity with it's intuitive user interface that is not only easy to learn but more effectively capacitates architects and designers to articulate their ideas in a manner more congruent with the skills they were taught and that they daily use to develop professions and practices? I believe, that for all its power and potential, GDL scripting is nonetheless, simply outdated or is slowly becoming so, as programmers in other fields attempt to abridge the gap between casual user and highly technical and creative tasks.

[Marek Brandstatter]

just to correct a couple of inaccuracies
placed schedules can be updated 'though you have to choose to do it, they're not 'live'
What about sections, elevations, sheets, callout details etc - are they live?

[billshorten]

What about sections, elevations, sheets, callout details etc - are they live?

sections/elevations are live unless you deliberately choose to 'unlink' them

archicad doesn't use 'sheets' as such since drawings are assembled in a separate program, plotmaker. some people would prefer this integrated into archicad. personally, i think the separate programs make for a better workflow. drawings in archicad are saved as 'viewsets' which are laid out in plotmaker

details (using the inbuilt detail tool) are 2d (lines/polygons) drawings automatically generated from plans/sections. they can be automatically updated to reflect changes in the building model or left static. either way they can be elaborated with further 2d information. detail windows have no 3d intelligence, so changes in a detail window will not feed back into the 3d model

alternatively, details can be zoomed areas of plans or sections, which would retain 3d intelligence and changes would feed back into the building model. these, again, can be elaborated with 2d information if necessary

bill

[LRaiz]

There is some amount of confusion regarding full bi-directional associativity and it may be useful to spell out what it means. I don't really want to focus on the "my software is better than yours" aspect but would rather describe the meaning of terms "live" and "bi-directional associativity". Any product making claims to support bi-directional associativity has to be able to support examples of parametric and associative changes listed below.

Many existing products have some ability to update elements of a design when other elements change. However with an exception of Revit in many cases such updates are not automatic. Every case when a user has to take an explicit action to do an update creates a possibility of error and uncoordinated design documents. It also necessitates additional work by an end user. We also should not confuse the ability to display or edit a single underlying data model in multiple views with full parametric associativity between various elements of design.

There are 3 main classes of elements in any building design
(A) Building components (walls, roofs, doors, windows, floors, etc.)
(B) Views including schedules and sheets
(C) Annotations (text notes, dimensions, spot elevations, etc.)

I do not want to diminish benefits of other products, they are quite good at what they do.
On the other hand Revit is the only product on the market today which was engineered from the ground up to provide full bi-directional associativity between all 3 main classes of elements.

Below are the examples of this associativity and corresponding parametric change propagation from elements of class to another.

Building components to building components
a. Move one wall and connected adjacent walls adjust to become longer or shorter
b. Move walls and a floor adjusts to cover area enclosed by walls
c. Raise/lower a roof and attached walls grow or shrink
d. Thicken a wall and door frames adjust to new thickness
e. Raise a level and all elements placed of this level will follow.

Building components to views
a. Change to a building component is automatically reflected in all graphical views without additional user actions
b. Move walls and room schedule updates room areas
c. Add or remove building components or change parameters of existing elements and schedules update automatically

Building components to annotations
a. Change geometry and dimension value updates
b. Move things higher or lower and spot elevation reflects new heights
c. Move walls and room tags update displayed area values
c. Changes to properties of wall, windows, doors, etc. are automatically reflected in their tags

Views to building components
a. Any graphical view (plan, elevation, section, callout) may be used to effect a change to building component
b. Changes to building components may be made by editing their parameters in schedules
c. Changes to view phase or level of detail automatically reflected in display of all building components shown by this view

Views to other views
a. Move section or detail view backward or forward and callouts move with their parent section
b. View and drawing schedules (view/drawing lists) may be used to change properties of other views and drawing

Views to annotations
a. Change view scale and all dimensions, text notes, etc. adjust to maintain their sizes on printed output
b. Place a view on a drawing sheet and view tags update to reflect sheet number
c. Change view scale and scale tag in view title on sheet updates

Annotations to building components
a. Change dimension value and building component changes accordingly
b. Changes to property values shown by tags automatically propagate to building components
c. Change elevation value displayed by level tag and level moves up or down
d. Impose dimension equality constraint or lock dimension value and building components behave accordingly

Annotations to views
a. Flip direction of section view tag and view forward direction flips.

Annotations to annotations
a. Change sheet number in a titleblock and the change will propagate through drawing to views placed on this drawing and then to their view tags (section and callout heads).

All these examples are made possible in Revit not only because it has a patent pending Parametric Change Engine (PCE) in the middle of its software architecture but also because all Revit's elements are implemented with parametric change in mind. There are countless other examples made possible by the PCE and the unifying notion of associativity between all 3 kinds of design elements.

Unless a product is implemented from the ground up with a PCE type of architecture its implementation may exhibit some examples of associativity but its change propagation capabilities are bound to be limited.

HTH

[hand471037]

sections/elevations are live unless you deliberately choose to 'unlink' them

Are they live so that they can be worked in? For example, can I open an elevation, click on a wall, and then move that wall at will? Or can I change something in a schedule, and have it change everywhere else too? Or even pick something in a perspective camera view and change it for something else (and, as always, have everything update automatically)? I didn't think that Archicad was fully and completely bi-directional yet, but I haven't looked at 9 at all.

[Scott D Davis]

Here's a problem with using a program that needs to have 'sheets' updated when the model changes (and in a separate program):



My main wishes are for a standard interface when going from archicad to plotmaker and for plotmaker to only update individual views when they have changed, not the whole book when only one view has changed......Even with a fairly fast machine, much time is wasted waiting for drawings to rebuild when they haven't even changed. I guess it would be hard for Archicad to know which ones, though.

[Wes Macaulay]

All these examples are made possible in Revit not only because it has a patent pending Parametric Change Engine (PCE) in the middle of its software architecture but also because all Revit's elements are implemented with parametric change in mind. There are countless other examples made possible by the PCE and the unifying notion of associativity between all 3 kinds of design elements.

Unless a product is implemented from the ground up with a PCE type of architecture its implementation may exhibit some examples of associativity but its change propagation capabilities are bound to be limited.I had always taken the "parametric change engine" with a grain of salt, thinking it to be more of a sales term! But I see that the term is much more than that -- it describes how Revit functions at its very core.

[Steve_Stafford]

...with a grain of salt, thinking it to be...more of a sales term......and this fundamental behavior is what allows Revit and now Autodesk to make the claim to be the "first" such product. The claim that really annoys ArchiCAD users. It is THE compelling reason to make a change from the existing paradigm.

[irwin]

I had always taken the "parametric change engine" with a grain of salt, thinking it to be more of a sales term!
Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

[Wes Macaulay]

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.Ah, that's bad. But you must know that I now picture Wallace telling Gromit about the PCE...

"it's patent pending!"

Just don't let The Invention fall into the hands of an evil robotic dog, or the governor of California.

[mjfarrell]

which one is the robot? :lol:

[Marek Brandstatter]

I don't really want to focus on the "my software is better than yours" aspect
You dont mind if I do? :)

My views on ArchiCAD have been shaped by a very proficient ex-ArchiCAD user who joined our company at the beginning of the year. He joined us not because he thought we were a great company, but because of what Revit could do - and specifically what it could do in relation to his 'then beloved' ArchiCAD. We undertook a half day Revit-ArchiCAD showdown and I was astonished at how many things we took for granted in Revit (see Leonid's examples of parametric change propagation) - that ArchiCAD simply cannot do!

And by looking at the AVIs I'd say that ArchiCAD 9 is *not* closing the gap.

[billshorten]

Are they live so that they can be worked in? For example, can I open an elevation, click on a wall, and then move that wall at will? Or can I change something in a schedule, and have it change everywhere else too? Or even pick something in a perspective camera view and change it for something else (and, as always, have everything update automatically)? I didn't think that Archicad was fully and completely bi-directional yet, but I haven't looked at 9 at all.

sections/elevations are live and can be edited. the range of editing operations available is somewhat limited as some operations would not really make sense in these orthographic views

the 'interactive schedule' allows bi-directional editing of graphic and non-graphic information

3d views in archicad (perspective or orthographic) allow full, interactive editing of all elements. this is how archicad should really be used and is, i would have to say, what makes it a joy to use

moving on to other recent posts. revit's parametric change engine is the main thing that puts me off revit. until there's a usb interface with my brain i'm unconvinced that it is productive and will propogate changes the way that i want it to. i do realise that the pce can be turned off on a per element basis

bill

ps i've never used revit so i'm not trying to make comparisons here, just giving some, mainly factual, views from the other side

[Steve_Stafford]

...revit's parametric change engine is the main thing that puts me off revit......trying it might change your mind about that...

[Scott Hopkins]

archicad doesn't use 'sheets' as such since drawings are assembled in a separate program, plotmaker. some people would prefer this integrated into archicad. personally, i think the separate programs make for a better workflow. drawings in archicad are saved as 'viewsets' which are laid out in plotmaker

Bill,

Could you elaborate on the advantages of having Plotmaker as a separate program? As a former Archicad user (admittedly way back in version 6.5) I found Plotmaker to be extremely problematic.

[Scott D Davis]

moving on to other recent posts. revit's parametric change engine is the main thing that puts me off revit. until there's a usb interface with my brain i'm unconvinced that it is productive and will propogate changes the way that i want it to. i do realise that the pce can be turned off on a per element basis

This is one argument I hear over and over agan from ArchiCAD users, that Revit's 'parametrics' are too confining....this makes no sense to me?? How could it not propagate change the way you want it to? You move a door in plan, it should move in all other views of the project. You change a sheet name, it should change everywhere. What do you mean "i'm unconvinced that it is productive"? Is is more productive to have the computer make the change for you, in real time on the fly, or more productive for the user to go back and make changes manually? Or is it more productive to hit the 'update' button to regenerate a view, which can lead to user errors. Maybe its more productive to wait for Plotmaker to regenerate every view in a project just because one object that shows in one view changed. Revit will not let you 'fudge' something, and maybe that is the fear. The Parametric Change Engine is the single most important element of Revit, and because of it, the user can be assured that a change made anywhere is a change made everywhere. The PCE can't be turned off, although i could make 'dumb' objects that don't have parameters, but why would I want to?

[barathd]

Not everyone must be all that happy judging by the interest in this thread.

[Steve_Stafford]

Not everyone must be all that happy judging by the interest in this thread. That's a leap...

[Scott Hopkins]

an interesting quote coming from the Archicad-Talk forum...


I'm shocked that GS has not turned its attention to copying the Revit approach. It has to sooner or later and I think it would be better to do it sooner. It is insane that software of AC's maturity still has such an embryonic approach to things like dependency and parametrics. Roofs that don't know to to move when their supporting walls move, walls that don't know to move when their floors do, etc, etc. Absurd. Does anyone really not think this is the future? Of course it is and Autodesk knows it.

It seems clear that GS's early BIM vision has been largely vindicated. They have succeeded in hollowing out some of the dominance of AutoCAD --at least in architecture and this is commendable. More apparent is the fact that they have turned everyone else into "BIM companies" (pity GS didn't coin the term). However, I see them now as simply the most recent victim about to be marginalized by the kid with the new better idea: Revit.

[Marek Brandstatter]

parametric change engine is the main thing that puts me off revit.
Thats like saying "Functions and Formulas is the main thing that puts me off Excel". I'm afraid without them all you'd have is a dumb grid.

[Wes Macaulay]

revit's parametric change engine is the main thing that puts me off revit. until there's a usb interface with my brain i'm unconvinced that it is productive and will propogate changes the way that i want it to. i do realise that the pce can be turned off on a per element basisSeems "PCE" is getting a life of its own around here, huh? Funny, that...

Well, I thoroughly like the idea that if I make a change to the properties or location of an object in a drawing or schedule, it happens NOW. I do NOT have to think later if a certain schedule or section or elevation is up-tp-date. People who don't use Revit find that frightening: seems like too much power. It also seems that it should take a lot of time for the computer to ripple the change. But I guess that's why the Revit P.C.E. (patent pending) IS patent pending: it does it so fast.

And the PCE is on 24/7 in Revit. It's never 'off'.

ArchiCAD needs a PCE as powerful as Revit's. The good news is that the competition between the companies will improve both company's software. Teamwork's flexibility improved Revit's multi-user flexibility. Graphisoft just needs to keep it up with the cool features (like the 3 point photomontage)... then we can get some of them, too!

And this whole patent pending thing: the PCE code's not something people can look at and copy, so why patent it? Or are they just patenting verbage?

[Wes Macaulay]

And what's the best thing about Revit?

THE PROGRAMMERS.

You can have as many good ideas as you want, but it takes good, smart people whose thumbs are well aligned (ref to FK's funny rule-of thumb post) to make truly great software.

Any maybe ArchiCAD is too old a horse to make what needs to happen, happen. We wonder that about AutoCAD, too.

[Steve_Stafford]

...And this whole patent pending thing: the PCE code's not something people can look at and copy, so why patent it? Or are they just patenting verbage?... Patents protect concepts just as well as tangible products.