Talk:Archicad

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

IFC[edit]

The "IFC" link is incorrect. It points to the International Financial Corporation and not the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) from the Alliance for Interoperability (IAI). – It is correct now.Chris81w (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

Hellows! This article needs some sources and stuffs... It looks like the marketing division wrote this...

Agree. Formatting of company and brand names seems to be in line with how the staffers write for their website, not how Wikipedia works. Plus citations have been included that don't support the assertions made. Paul W (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have just reverted a host of edits intent on capitalising brand names to "ARCHICAD" and "GRAPHISOFT", breaking links to articles written with original product/company name capitalisation. Personally, I this smacks of company marketing interference - potential COI? Paul W (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have reverted some anonymous additions made (possible COI?) which cite works that don't support the points made. Possibly ArchiCAD staffer is trying to promote a marketing message (and the same content was cut and pasted into Building information modeling). Paul W (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion perfectly clear, please do your research first before reverting (ArchiCAD staffer???):

Graphisoft on BIM: the concept underlying the Building Information Model is not a new vision, but one upon which our company was founded over 20 years ago with ArchiCAD’s “Virtual Building”;

Graphisoft has been developing, delivering and refining BIM solutions far longer than your competitors combined

A Brief History of BIM: which makes ArchiCAD the first BIM software that was made available on a personal computer;

Building Information Modeling Two Years Later, 2005: ArchiCAD being conceived as a BIM system from its inception over 20 years ago;

Modern Construction: In 1987, Graphisoft's ArchiCAD first implemented BIM under the virtual building concept.

added two more for you - BIM tools and design intent: Radar CH (then become ArchiCAD) by Graphisoft (Hungary, 1984, V1.0) it is considered the first commercial BIM product on the market;

Drawbacks of BIM concept adoption: A wider application into practice this concept (BIM) acquired only with the development of personal computers when the ArchiCAD software from Graphisoft Company appeared on the scene, which incorporated the idea of Virtual Building — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.117.205 (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my research, and also identified some inadequacies in your interpretation of the sources.

The "Graphisoft on BIM" link (Jerry Laiserin, 2003) does not assert anything like "ArchiCAD became the first implementation of BIM in CAD software". Laiserin writes: "Graphisoft has been developing, delivering and refining BIM solutions far longer than your competitors combined — making ArchiCAD one of the most mature BIM solutions on the market." It is mature, yes, but not necessarily the first (Other 1980s products such as Sonata and Reflex preceded the launch of ArchiCAD but were more mainframe or workstation-type products).
The "Brief History of BIM" reference needs to be moved to support the first section of the following sentence.
The Newforma white paper reproduced on Laiserin's website again simply makes the point about its maturity (20 years) - not about being first.
Your "Modern Construction" citation supports your view up to a point (depends on one's interpretation of "commercial BIM product"), as does the "BIM tools and design intent" citation.
Your "Drawbacks" citation, like the "Brief History of BIM" needs to be linked with the PC assertion
The "Graphisoft on BIM" link (Jerry Laiserin, 2003) does not support the assertion that "Today, more than 120,000 architects are using it [ie: ArchiCAD] in the building design industry." A Graphisoft employee refers to "over 120,000 users of our BIM technology" - this is not an independent source, it does not mention architects, and it does not mention ArchiCAD.

A key requirement of Wikipedia is that articles should accurately reflect the sources cited and reflect the balance of views expressed in those sources. I have made some changes reflecting the above points which I hope meet Wikipedia's standards. Paul W (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I expect you will make the same changes in the BIM article that you reverted.

ArchiCAD 11!?[edit]

Can anyone cite the source about ArchiCAD 11? The newest version in 2007 isn't ArchiCAD 10? :S --190.40.99.35 05:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could take an easy view to the biased non-NPOV -promotion if the ArchiCAD cult members would not actively remove content from articles about competing software! A good program can stand on its merit; ArchiCAD needs these harekrishnas who sabotage other articles. What a shame: it used to be a visionary piece of software 20 years ago.

Not that writing a NPOV-entry of one's livelihood would be easy! SirteP (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ArchiCAD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706171849/http://aecbytes.com:80/review/2013/ArchiCAD17.html to http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2013/ArchiCAD17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]