Nicinus

I'm in an area with tons of residential architects doing custom homes, and none of the ones I happen to talk to use Revit. A few use Archicad or Vectorworks, and the majority use Autocad and some Sketchup. I'm sure it is different if they do more commercial work.

I don't think any one of them has said that Chief is a consumer product, they just haven't heard about it, and the few that have hesitated because it is residential only.

This may be one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. From what I've seen in the above Vectorworks video, and the capabilities I know to be in ArchiCAD, these both already HAVE these capabilities. So why aren't we just using these programs, if we really need these features? For me, the answer is that these higher-level programs are now so feature-laden that the complexity of use overwhelms what I need to get done. I look at the Vectorworks dialog boxes within boxes, and my brain turns to mush. From what I've seen, Revit is worse. There are many things that need to be improved in Chief, for sure. But I do not need clay-like modeling,  "Teamwork" features, IFC compatibility, or the ability to show phased work. For the type of projects that I do, the current level of features are pretty much fine. I don't WANT Chief to become ArchiCAD, because the relative simplicity of use that I depend on would be gone. I can now sit in front of a client and design some pretty good floor plans with furniture and trim, especially if using the House Wizard features. (Including in addition/alteration projects.) I can't do that with ArchiCAD, because there are so many damn settings to be juggled. I'm not doing "sculptural" works. If I were, I would use a different program. What I would lose by the addition of all of these modeling features would be too high of a price -- and we are fooling ourselves if we don't think there is a price in piling on features. In the hands of an expert user, any program is going to seem amazing. "Snobby architects" may use these modeling programs to their advantage, but that's not my market, nor the market of 95% of most projects out there.

I don't think Johnny is aiming for Archicad, he wants more Sketchup style 3D editing and I've never heard anyone saying Sketchup is complex. The simple fact is that Chief adds more and more poly solid and 3D tools with every version, and there is no reason this can't be done with elegance. I personally don't really need itas I own 3ds Max and am quite proficient with it, but since Chief aims to generate all condocs from a 3D model I assume it has to be an area of focus.

At this point I don't need team work functionality either, but I doubt Chief can go on forever without letting people share work.

David,

 

There is nothing wrong with using the CAD Detail method.  It's just not my preferred way of working.  I like to be able to change the "Existing" when/if I find there was something wrong with the "as-built".

Not to mention that it would be a more 'intelligent' way to have one model that everything is derived from, instead of having to have some parts of it as cad details from a prior version, that really aren't much more than pictures.

It's not that I dislike as-builts per se, it's just that I would prefer not having to finish it into the last minuscule detail before I can start on my new design.

Niclas,

 

You can add Walls, Normal Demo, Walls, Normal Existing, Walls, Normal New Layers and edit the appropriate walls to be on those Layers.  You can define the Linestyle for those Layers and control what shows in a Camera View Layer Set.

 

This all takes a bit of set up but it's not that hard to do and once done and saved along with appropriate Wall Types..........

You can't do that if walls or windows share the same physical space.

Not the worst idea - at all - and it seems feasible on some level. Hard to wrap my brain around the how but that's usually best left to those who would actually know how. I'm usually committed to the as-built from the beginning so it's not that much extra work or inconvenience but I think your idea has merit - but what if at some point you don't like it any more?    

 

BTW Nicinus I'm not sure iteratively means what you think it does. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iteratively or at least I don't understand the context you are using it within.

Like what anymore? A new design idea? I would just delete that design option/mutually exclusive layer/phase or whatever it is called and create a new one without disturbing the core model.

Iterating means to repeat and refine something until one gets closer and closer to the end result, i.e. you start with a rough idea and refine it over and over until you are happy.

Let me give an example. You have a Craftsman and are thinking of how a possible addition could work, and if it would be possible to add a balcony as well. The existing house is elaborate with many details. What if you could quickly measure up the exterior measurements with your Disto/tape and add the roof and some quick windows and doors, and then start to play with possible options. As you iteratively work on it you add more and more details to get a feeling for how it will look in it's context. The main model is the same, but the walls that are different are on mutually exclusive layers, one called Walls, Demolish and one called Walls, New. Same thing for other items. In Revit for example you can say that this part of the wall is in Phase Demolish and this one in Phase New. If you chose to show the model in Demolish mode it won't show the new walls and vice versa.

This workflow isn't possible today in Chief and you have to update the as-built and the new proposed model twice. I agree that the existing as-build can be essential for understanding a building, but not all of it and certainly not all brackets and millwork on a Craftsman. I like to show detailed as-builts as well and end up doing this finishing touches twice, once for the as-built and once for the proposed.

CAD software is meant to improve workflows, and just because we've always done something a certain way...well, you get the drift.

With a little tweaking it might be possible.  It would be pretty cool if the "Space Planning Tool" was 3D so we could move the spaces around and change their heights.

Now that would be cool.

If you just can't wait to get designing and dreaming up new ideas that's understandable but the early investment in a detailed as-built pays off in the long run - for me.

That's just it, I find it hampering to my creativity that I have to create a carefully measured and detailed as-built before I can start with my ideas. My process is iterative, I want to add more and more detail as the project is refined. The architects I know hate this part and typically outsource the as-built to the intern.

Nice topic, it touches upon a couple of interesting dilemmas.

One particular area of grief in Chief (and many other tools) for me is the lack of a way to handle ‘parallel’ design alternatives. Just like Lighthouse, I dislike having to first create a detailed as-built before I can start experimenting with design options on a copy. For a remodel I therefore typically do a very rough model first that I immediately start to play around with, and when I’m getting close I create the precise as-built, which I similar to Lighthouse’s first choice, and then save a copy of. I would love to see a way to handle this better, so that the detailing of the existing as-built and the proposed design can continue in parallel without having to update two (and in worst case several) separate models. Revit has a concept of Phases so that a wall can be labeled Demolish for example, which can then be hidden as needed. It also has a concept called Design Options where one can basically switch between ‘modes’ and everything you do from then on only affects that design option until you switch back to another. I’m not entirely sold on this idea, it reminds me of recording macros, and I have tricked myself into a mess on occasion with it. It seems to be a complicated workflow problem and not easy to come up with an elegant solution.

Another interesting discussion in this thread touches upon sketching of massing and how that can be expressed as freely as possible. Vectorworks massing tools seems similar to those in Revit, and the biggest benefit in practice seems to be to be able to create walls and floor plans from the ‘poly solid’ model that has been generated. In this aspect I don’t see it as something extraordinary difficult to achieve for the Chief programmers. After all, similar poly solid tools exist in Chief already, albeit not the ever so popular push and pull, and Chief can generate walls from a bubble diagram so why not from a shape. The few times I’ve created something very organic, Zaha Hadid style, was in Architecture school and I then used 3ds Max for the massing. However, just as working with pen and paper, scale can sometimes be deceptive when you have too much freedom, and once it is time to transform the schema into a practical building and reality sets in it often ends up very different. For the kind of houses I design I find that playing around in Chief not only works well, but it keeps me grounded. Still, I certainly wouldn’t say no to a massing tool.

What I did like in the Vectorworks video, and something I really miss from Archicad, is the extent a polysolid can be categorized and defined. The whole point, at least for me personally, with creating a polysolid bracket or front step concrete slab is to be able to define it as an object with properties such as volume, manufacturer, cost, etc. and have it go into a schedule. Both Archicad and Revit allows the adding of IFC properties to objects and this is something I hope is on Chief’s radar.

I found this to be a pretty good definition of what people would love BIM to be, a smorgas board for all wishes and requirements, all the way to rendering.

What it also shows is that with the right commitment and perseverance even a ‘dumb’ modeler like Sketchup can appear to be a BIM product. Don’t get me wrong, I love Sketchup as much as anyone else, and it’s a great tool for conceptual modeling that produces presentation ready graphics, but to call it BIM is more than a stretch. All the arguments used in the video could be applied to 3ds Max as well with the right plugins. There is not an information database in the bottom here, and there is no parametric intelligence. This is a tool that is comparable to Chief’s polysolids, although instead of being a useful addition, it is the core of the software and all the tools you see in Chief for manipulating for example walls, windows and roofs are missing.

Looking a bit further down the road, the promise of BIM to me is also not only a common model that everyone can adjust and harvest needed info from, regardless if it is for structural or maintenance purposes, but a tool that actually helps in the design. A tool that for example suggests different foundations whether the room above is a kitchen or a garage. Rings a bell?

What I truly envy with Sketchup is the incredible momentum and critical mass it has reached. Imagine people developing such plugins for Chief and doing these kind of seminars about Chief, invigorating the whole community and attracting new generations of users.

With you 100% on this one, Richard. What else do think is crucial in order for you to do CDs in Chief as opposed to Archi?

I have a Surface Pro 3 with an i5.

I have the blutooth mouse but using a mouse when you're walking around and taking measurements is a bit of a problem.

As others have said, it would probably be well worth the time to figure out your issues with X7 and make sure everybody is running the same version, instead of introducing another complication to your evaluation. Unless you are running very old hardware, in which case most alternatives would have problems as well, you shouldn't see much difference in performance between X6 and X7.

I'm using mine quite frequently but after a year of use there are some things to consider if you are thinking of getting one.

The unit itself is pretty good, but not iPad good. It would be better if there for example was a hardware button for the screen orientation, some times you just want to lock it quickly. The "home" button is also very sensitive and I hit it frequently by accident, and then Chief disappears. Contrary to some others experience I find the touch screen to be a real benefit, and it is much faster to zoom in and out and panning, than picking up the mouse.

The biggest problem is the pen. Chief isn't set up to be controlled by a pen like for example Word so it becomes a bit cumbersome. I've used it a couple of times to do field measurements and it is a bit fiddly to pick the right wall, selecting the dimension line, etc. In my case it still beats Room planner as I'm using the full Chief and also don't have to do a plan room by room. I need property lines, hardscaping features and so on. Would it in reality be faster to do it by pen and paper? I don't know, but those papers can be awfully messy and then when you get home you missed a crucial measurement or something doesn't add up.

If we could see another level of 'cleverness' here, like some form of local zoom where the pen is, a small keyboard to enter numbers, maybe a special screen layout for field measuring, it would be extremely useful. I'm not a programmer so I don't know if Chief can distinguish between a pen or a finger (I would assume it) but maybe the market for this is too small. Hoping for general pen improvements in Win 10 now that Surface Pro seems to be a showcase product for Microsoft.

Thanks Glenn, I was accidentially in object mode but was for some reason convinced it was room mode so it didn't add up. Don't think I've ever used object mode actually.

I'm doing a plan using someone else's template and wall definitions and wonder if someone immediately knows under what conditions using the material painter changes both the interior and exterior? I can manipulate them individually on the material tab

The wall type looks normal, but then we have this weird thing where a material can have another definition outside this.   

Can you show your elevation lines in red so we can see what elevation data you've entered.

Agree with Bill's assessment, very useful on the run.

Hmm, that workflow didn't occur to me. I would add it to plan first as a cad detail to get the proper name and scale and have it listed in the project browser, and then send it to layout.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why it wouldn't be to scale if I use the library? Am I missing something or is there some form of bug that won't keep it to scale if you place it in the library?

Thanks, I will start using the library as that makes most sense to me, and I can always move to plans if I run into trouble.

However, the issue is annotation, I typically have details in several different scales. It needs more thought but I think I would like to see some sort of link between the drawing sheet setup scale and the annotation layer, the annotation size should ideally adapt to the scale used to send to Layout.

Yeah, I've searched around on different threads and there was even a poll on this topic (that had voted on as well  ) but I'm not entirely convinced about the plan model.

For one, it seems much more logical to keep it in the library as it is always available, as opposed to updating a new detail into the correct plan. I'm also a big believer in working in real world scale.

But regardless, how do you handle text if you decide a particular detail needs to be in a different scale? Do you know you will send all your details in a certain scale so your text is already set for it?

Joe, when you say you never use library for details I assume this is because you want to have details in real world scale, but what if you added them to plan first and then sent to layout?

I've been basically going back to older projects to find earlier details or something similar enough, but have reached a point where I would like to build a more structured library, and this seems to work well for me. The only annoying part is if I can't decide the size of the detail ahead of adding notes, I will have to rescale all text. Can't quite seem to figure out how do this easily with annotations.

What is the suggested workflow? To work in real world scale in plan and then set scale when sending to layout, or set the anticipated layout scale already in Plan drawing sheet setup?

My view on this is that I would like to always work in real world scale in plan, but then when I set the scale sending to layout (or rescaling in Layout) I would like to switch the annotations to a corresponding scale as well. Is there a way to do this?

I sat next to this guy on a house tour bus in Vegas who happened to be a Softplan user, and he went on and on about some things he wanted changed in Softplan (I think stairs was one of his bigger gripes), and he ended the rant by saying if they don't fix it I'm switching to Chief Architect.

The reason the grass is greener on the other side of the fence is because it rains more there.

Jason got it right in my book. If I was the architect I would be super annoyed if someone told me he noticed something like this 3 weeks ago and didn't say something.