Stability/Compatibility over Fast Development/Features

[VincentCuclair]

For quite a while now (years) I have been trying to convince the people upstairs that stability (and indirectly compatibility) are far more important than fast development and feature richness. It seems that other developers (competitors) are falling for the same trend, I just installed ArchiCAD 14 and am trying to work with version 13 files and it is so SLOW! I hate it when I work faster than my computer/program can keep up!!!!!

See how similar these threads are!:

http://195.144.20.106/viewtopic.php?t=35063&sid=33d6f104b251786f75d17c211f1cc1b6

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=174614

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=149275#Post149275

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=152586#Post152586

Apparently it is more important to have 'cool' features to market than that they actually work properly?!

NV I must STRESS again that stable software is far more valuable than 'flashy' unstable software.

It's a disgrace when Beta versions are released as the 'real' thing.

Do you really think that cars would keep selling if they have the capability to clean your shoes, play videos etc but have problems shifting to 3rd gear every other time or the engine dying once in a while when waiting at a traffic light? Do you really thing people would keep buying that particular make? Hardly

Edited February 25, 2011 by Vincent C

[GWS]

..... I've signed up for Service Select but, if VW2012 STILL doesn't fix most of the things bugging me in VW2011, I plan to cancel.

I suspect that I'm not alone.

My thoughts exactly!

[rDesign]

It has been asked before on this forum for Nemetschek to publish a Bugs list, and their response was that it would be too much work to maintain.

But there are other companies that do provide and maintain an Open & Fixed Bug list for their users:

Bugs - ArchicadWiki

It is a waste of our time to submit a bug to NV, only to be told that they already know about it.

Tim

[NTZeek]

It has been asked before on this forum for Nemetschek to publish a Bugs list, and their response was that it would be too much work to maintain.

Tim

Wow. What method do they use internally to track bugs? Do they do it all? A bit disconcerting.

[billtheia]

It has been asked before on this forum for Nemetschek to publish a Bugs list, and their response was that it would be too much work to maintain.

But there are other companies that do provide and maintain an Open & Fixed Bug list for their users:

Bugs - ArchicadWiki

It is a waste of our time to submit a bug to NV, only to be told that they already know about it.

Tim

Boy, that looks pretty useful.

[billtheia]

It has been asked before on this forum for Nemetschek to publish a Bugs list, and their response was that it would be too much work to maintain.

Tim

Wow. What method do they use internally to track bugs? Do they do it all? A bit disconcerting.

Exactly.

[Teresa Hull]

But there are other companies that do provide and maintain an Open & Fixed Bug list for their users:

I know of several Wiki sites for software and consoles that I have found to be very useful. Some are propagated by users, and some by the company. It does start to get hard to know where to go for resources when the resources are scattered in many locations ... But when you NEED an answer or some guidance, it is a blessing.

It is a waste of our time to submit a bug to NV, only to be told that they already know about it.

Indeed. I am sure that this idea is not lost on the folks at Vectorworks. I trust that a better plan is in the works.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Teresa Drake

[VincentCuclair]

An interesting fact about Revit which I just discovered because my company has upgraded to Revit 2012, Revit is not backwards compatible, with yearly releases that has to be a big disadvantage. What happens when the other disciplines come in at a later stage and they run older versions? = back to dwg import/export and IFC!

[VincentCuclair]

Here's another one, when the need to export 3D models arises Revit only supports 3D dwg and IFC exports, do they really think people want to be bullied into using Revit?

[Christiaan]

Vectorworks is not backwards compatible either though.

[rDesign]

The difference is that Revit does not allow you to downsave to an older version of Revit: all members of a team must run the same version of Revit.

At least Vw allows you to downsave to an older version.

Regards,

Tim

[VincentCuclair]

Vectorworks is not backwards compatible either though.

I just checked and walls are walls, doors are doors and windows are windows (stairs need to be replaced by older ones with default settings BUT they are still there and can be used as a trace and are in 3D..........so to a degree it is backwards compatible at least one version back. (at least usable by 3rd parties which is the whole idea with compatibility).

[Christiaan]

Okay, downsaving is handy for one-offs, but you wouldn't want to base a back-and-forth collaborative workflow on this.

[billtheia]

I think that, technically, you are talking about FORWARD compatibility (previous version of VW able to open newer version of file.) VW is already BACKWARD compatible (newer version of VW able to open an older version of file.)

Forward compatiblity is a great idea but I don't think that there is a single CAD application that does it. I don't think that ACAD has ever been able to do it - newer versions have always changed the file format. Even MS Word stopped doing that a long time ago.

While I agree that data exchange with older versions of VW is important, it would require a "locking" of the file format, thus limiting (or eliminating) the ability to add new features.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

I think that, technically, you are talking about FORWARD compatibility (previous version of VW able to open newer version of file.) VW is already BACKWARD compatible (newer version of VW able to open an older version of file.)

Forward compatiblity is a great idea but I don't think that there is a single CAD application that does it. I don't think that ACAD has ever been able to do it - newer versions have always changed the file format. Even MS Word stopped doing that a long time ago.

While I agree that data exchange with older versions of VW is important, it would require a "locking" of the file format, thus limiting (or eliminating) the ability to add new features.

That would be a major thing if added! You could then specify which version it has to be and still use the new improved methods. Off course, this means a lot of work and changes to be made to all objects so that they know on which version they need to draw theirselfs.

[VincentCuclair]

Just wanted to state that in my experience VWs 2012 is one of the most stable and compatible versions (after SP2 which was release quite rapidly!) since VWs 11.5. Definitely a big step away from the Beta feeling.

Good job! Well done NV people!

(Now make sure that it is so in future versions too because I'm convinced it is a very important factor when it comes to choice of software and software loyalty! As it is with hardware too.)

Edited January 19, 2012 by Vincent C

[AndiACD]

i have actually lost work due to VW's incapacity to read old files, as such, if they can't be bothered to ensure "Cross-Version" compatibility there should at least be offered a "Dedicated Translator".

We all work on current projects, true, but all to often reference with OLD Files is essential, so access to prev versions is an "absolute".

It HAS to be available! AND we really can't spend weeks at a time converting every file from MiniCAD up to date every time a new version of VW rears it's ugly head and the Kick up the rear for the "Magazine Subscription" that goes with it for another edition that still doesn't give what we ask for . . . . .

STABLE, WORKING CAD TOOLS. All of them. No paint, walnut venir, gold trim, or chrome, leave the rust, just so it runs!

"Well."

[Kizza]

Just wanted to state that in my experience VWs 2012 is one of the most stable and compatible versions

Missing functionality aside, I would have to agree.