Nicinus

I absolutely love the Dulles video, it's a couple of years old now, and good inspiration. However, it is a very particular building and lets face it, neither of us will ever do something like this. Zaha Hadid and other organic architects use nurbs based tools for these studies anyway. But to your point I'm quite familiar with the massing tools in Revit, but even if it is a neat tool you can't seriously see that as a serious deficit in Chief, right? I'd like to see a tool similar to this, it is very useful for FAR and energy calculations but nothing that affects my daily workflow. The only times I've ever used massing tools in real life was in architecture school when designing a sky scraper and a hospital. I did all more advanced studies in Maya or 3ds Max, and then documented them in Autocad.

The way to fix it is to put on the cloud and let SSA users add tags and keywords that we all can benefit from. I would also like to see a top category such as Masterformat so that I can easily separate out things like paint colors, etc.

I'm the kind of guy that needs to understand the work flow, and I found some of the house building overview videos on Chief's sample scenes being very helpful. Once I understand how it is supposed to work I can usually hammer it out by experimenting and asking people here on the forum. I must say though that the library system is an absolute mess and it is no coincidence that the Chief demos always have everything needed conveniently collected in user libraries.

I don't want to side track this thread further, it's really a separate topic but suffice to say that I disagree with a lot of what you're saying. Rooms vs shapes? Product videos sometimes makes things appear very easy, but there is often a reason the grass is greener on the other side, it rains more there.

No worries Johnny, we all have different backgrounds and viewpoints. Ours appears a bit different. You purchased a copy of each, took extensive courses in them, and then landed on Chief? Wow. I envy you being able to do that kind of due diligence. I spent 4-5 years in each but this was sequentially, I never had the funds nor time to evaluate them against each other. Regardless, and in order to aid the OP, assuming he has 3D experience or it won't matter much, dare I at least say the thought process and workflow is similar in these tools with some notable exceptions? He would obviously find that some tools are more refined in one package than another, and that some have strong and weak areas, but in general the work flows are pretty similar. I actually do find the room paradigm/lack of level control in elevations to perhaps be the biggest difference compared to others, can you think of another of the same magnitude when it comes to work flow? The ground level is quirky but I kind of wrap that in the same box. (Since you got me started, as a side note, I find Archicad and Chief very similar elsewise. Archicad has a ton of tools, very strong in 2D and condocs but lacks framing tools, etc. Revit has less tools but is more innovative with families, modeless operation, etc. Not entirely sure, but I think the only one developed by Nemetschek is Allplan, whereas both Vectorworks and Archicad were acquisitions.)

Lol. I stand corrected, they are all polar opposites to Chief.

I came from Revit/Archicad and if you have previous 3D experience I think you'll find about 80% very similar, the most unusual aspect is that it is using a room based paradigm and that you can't control levels in elevation views. Once you gotten used to that you'll find that it is very rewarding. It is super versatile and the developers have big ears, I expect great things going forward.

But that's just what they are doing by charging for very niche segment libraries like forensics and medical, right? I for one do not want to see a price increase in order to include libraries that are primarily relevant to government related contracts.

I don't either, but since this is a policy change that is already in effect, future affected libraries will cost from start, so I don't think this will matter in our cases.

Search on Home Theater Seat, I use a couple of these without issues.

I used to work for a company selling video editing equipment, and the forensic market turned out to be interesting. The reason Chief wants to charge for this kind of libraries might be that they want to determine the real interest, as opposed to those that download everything of habit regardless if it is related to actual work or not.

It's mud alright. To me it would make more sense if a newly created symbol had the same block name as the symbol name, as it is now a new symbol/detail. The existing blocks in the current plan can of course stay the same, but if I add a new symbol called WindowElevation I think it should show up in the block management under that name and not block41 or something. This is messy and in my view complicates it if one wants to automate the detail titles sent to Layout. I seem to be one of the few that keep my details in the symbol library that I paste into a new plan cad view, decide annotation scale and off to Layout.

Thanks guys! I guess my real question then is why? Does it make any sense to someone, or is this just a byproduct from how Chief works internally? It seems very confusing to me so if no one has a good reason I will suggest that these converge.

I’m looking at optimizing the way I’ve been doing things with cad details and have encountered some oddities that I can’t figure out. - What is the difference between a block name and the name a cad block has in the library browser? I have a few details that have a generated block name if I open it, and another in the library browser. - This one I need to look closer at but I accidentally created a detail while in layout, so it belonged to the Layout file instead, which I then made into a symbol. This symbol behaves differently when inserting into a plan. It has several layers, present in the plan as well, but when I insert it all layers consolidate to one layer? I can obviously avoid this by creating detail symbols (its more of a template) in a plan, but since there is no way of telling symbols apart Im interested if someone else has encountered something like this?

I spoke to the Chiefers yesterday and there is indeed a 30 day grace period if you miss your expiration. I also had an old email on file for my reminders so should work much better in the future. Still, I agree with Graham, from a marketing perspective the concept of penalties is ill-advised. We have enough of these in society and don't need need this terminology when purchasing products. I think it would make sense to be able to renew your SSA from the date you left off up until the point of a new release, after which it would be a question of upgrading instead with a new SSA.

Just in case I started something I just want emphasize that I have nothing against the fee itself, it's Chief's product and it's up to them to charge for it however they want. I do think the $95 penalty for missing to renew it could be handled a bit differently though, most easily by just attaching the renewed SSA where the old one left off. Really no need for a slap on the fingers. As for the reminders I did search back can't seem to find any reminder beyond the mail saying I need to renew before Jan 11 or it will jump up another $50. Then again, I do get a ton of email so I guess I must have missed it.

Ah, so that is why my cost jumped to $540. I find penalties destructive in a vendor/customer relationship and have a few comments: - If there is to be a penalty, make sure there is a reminder system in place (at least in my case I did not get one), only an email saying I need to upgrade before Jan 11 or prices would jump. - Have at least a 30 day grace period. Mine ran out Dec 13 and I was traveling most of December - Not aware of penalties like this on any of my other software, but if I renew it does attach to where I left it, so really no point in waiting unless I doubt the software going forward.

Is there a way to convert a rich text to plain text (that can be controlled via text style)?

Remarkable. I really dislike that this kind of 'rubberband' solution is necessary to clean up ceiling heights that's gone a astray. We really need a proper level/storey pole tool in X9 to balance the reigning room paradigm.

I think this a very good point/request and it would be great to be able to select an area where tools like roofing works without disturbing anything else. This would be particular useful with multiple buildings on the lot such as garages and guest houses, etc. but also remodels where you are working on one portion of the house but are done and happy with the rest.

It sounds as if you understand the problem, you just haven't seen it yet. In my case I'm masking out a nearby garage and the dimensions of the main building do not stay on top of that mask.

I have some millwork and other things going on as well as a small guest house on the property and wanted to avoid adding a ton of new layers, so I thought it could be an easy way forward to just cover it with a 'blanket'. Since material lists etc can be done by region or poly line I see no obvious disadvantages, except that I couldn't get the dimension lines to behave. But either way, why can't we control drawing group for dimension lines? Because they belong to walls?

I have a semi attached garage that I don't want to show on the floor plan (and I don't want to make a symbol out of it), so I've covered it with a white box. Long story short, I need the dimension lines of the main residence to be in the same area as the garage but on top. I've managed to partly solve the issue by first sending my white box back, and then making it default again, but it involves a lot of tinkering and easiest would be if I somehow could set my dimension lines into the front group, but there is no such option for neither dimension lines nor walls?