Best suited with: 1) High quality RAM 2) First time users on architectural design 3) Quick layouts with customization Not suitable for: 1) [If] more flexibility in design is required 2) Less RAM 3) Transferring standard details into a project
Most of the time, I am using LabVIEW to develop automated controls for lab-scale and pilot-scale systems. LabVIEW is great for its graphical programming interface, which is easy to learn and understand. The program also has a lot of built-in VIs to perform different complicated I/O, data processing, controls, and graphing tasks which are extremely useful and convenient to use. My only problem with LabVIEW is how hard it is to clean up and debug the program, due to its being a graphical interface. It is hard to search for specific variables when debugging, and some of the online debugging features don't function well in real-time.
Design modeling: the user interface allows for a pretty intuitive and integrated creative process. It's great for exploring and communicating ideas, and in cases where the process is not inhibited by the need to switch to different software for different stages of work, such as when moving to develop the design in detail. It also allows for a much more seamless process when changes are requested, so that all material from initial visualizations all the way through to detailed design information are all always in sync and up to date. No redundancy of effort is triggered through the logistics of needing to pass the design through multiple software platforms (eg Sketchup => Revit =>AutoCAD) as each design iteration evolves.
Design documentation: it's reasonably clear that ArchiCAD has the best implementation of BIM in the architectural domain, compared with the nearest rival Revit, and is unmatched for design development and coordination between disciplines, supporting large multidisciplinary teams who can all work simultaneously via the cloud or a local server on the same integrated model.
Somewhat responsive developers: unlike some others, if an issue is reported, there seems to be a fair chance of the developers engaging with the user and for the issue to be addressed in a subsequent update.
Increasing the size of the files in ArchiCAD to allow it to be used for more complex applications can be more comfortable and user-friendly.
Improving it to support more tutorials, add-ons, resources, and e-books.
Withholding releasing and developing new software and concentrating on improving the existing version can greatly help in the life of architecture and engineering.
We have rapid responses from their support team, and they often go the extra mile to pinpoint the root cause of an issue and assist the team in resolving it. They are honest when a problem is down to user error, or a glitch on the version we are on.
AutoCAD uses line works in actual presentation whiles ARCHICAD uses real structural walls which are easy to use and present compared to line works. Revit largely and mainly focused on structural design and is more complex to use compared to ARCHICAD which helps one focus on different aspects of drawing and is easy to integrate with rendering software like Lumion 360 panorama.
We have used MatLab's data acquisition toolbox in the past which was not too bad either, especially if you prefer the text-based programming format. The only problem with that was that the library of compatible data acquisition hardware was somewhat limited and if your hardware is not from one of the more popular brands like NI there is a good possibility that you won't be able to use it with your MatLab script. LAstly, the amount of supporting material (tutorials, etc.) is very limited as it is not a very popular tool
The low multi-year cost is a huge savings, compared to more popular competitors, the total cost of ownership is about 1/4 of an Autodesk design suite.
An effective training program can be implemented in under 40 hours/employee to reach intermediate level, as the intuitive interface is easy to teach. This appears to be significantly less, perhaps 1/3 of competing software.
The underdog element is still an obstacle, as converting ArchiCAD projects to Revit for our Consultants is a challenge. While ArchiCAD outputs perfectly good IFC (industry-standard BIM interchange format) files, Revit has yet to import them 100% correctly. Therefore, working with others takes a bit more overhead than when using Revit.
We are able to save money by writing our own programs instead of outsourcing.
We recently bought a new force test stand and we are able to use LabVIEW to write a program that fits our needs exactly instead of making due with what came with the stand.
When our customers ask us to do data acquisition, we know that we can always make a solution.
