Nicinus

What if you change from color to black and white in the original view, not in Layout?

This is the way I normally do it, although the other way around. I typically send in color and then print to pdf as gray scale so that I can get the material hatch patterns in a soft grey color.

Greg, last time I used Revit it couldn't do slanted walls either? You would have to use massing as a reference, which is messy and inflexible. Did joe's suggestion work for you?

The Color button?  [F8]

Larger plans with a lot of stuff becomes very slow, and comes to a crawl if I have multiple windows open such as one plan, one elevation and a perspective overview that needs to be updated in parallell. If I close everything but for example plan and shut off all layers I don't need it typically becomes acceptable again.

Don't know about the mixed licenses, but the X7 upgrade was a very trouble-free experience for me.

The way I read it is that being a builder doesn't typically mean you are a designer, and that the longer education someone has in general the more knowledgeable he is. There are exceptions to everything, but just as there are bad architects the same way there are bad doctors and lawyers, in general an architect is more trained in designing houses than anyone else. Sounds pretty obvious, right?

yet, a DIY might be able to do a decent design

 

look at FLW and Sullivan and others who never got a degree

and did designs against the "norm" of their times

Are you honestly comparing FLW and Sullivan to DIY?  

They were both mentored by architects for many years, FLW under Sullivan and Sullivan himself studied architecture both at MIT and École des Beaux-Arts in Paris.

In some states you can become a licensed architect without graduating even today, but it takes many years of experience under an architect. And then 7 pretty serious exams.

Almost odd how many feel anybody can be an architect, but no one would ever question the expertise and experience of a lawyer or a doctor and try to do that himself.

It is a little bit like marketing, and how some people do their own ads. I guess it is because it looks easy or familiar that one think there must be nothing to it.

One thing that's missing from this discussion is that Chief is more layer-based for display properties than other CAD programs. If you want flexibility in how your objects behave in different layer sets, it is more important to get them on the right layer with a Default display, rather than tweak the properties of individual objects. I'm not sure how useful the "quick properties" DBX would be for this particular program.

Knowing that you have a background in Archicad, Richard, I somehow wonder if this doesn't affect your view given that Archicad also is one of the few that still uses modal dbx's.  I loved many features of Archicad, which perhaps is the most complete package of them all, certainly for more contemporary designs, but moving from Revit to Archicad was very painful in this respect.  I remember I couldn't believe something as powerful as this still used a modal interface, and this was a frequent topic on their forums.

It is more than display properties, it is basically all settings that affect objects, size, hatch, position, etc.

If I worked for Chief and I read this post, it'd make me feel like I wasn't doing a good job.

Well, that's certainly not the way I hope my particular suggestions come across, I love it and think most of us are here because they do as well. For what I do, I honestly prefer it to Archicad and Revit, but that doesn't mean I'm not hoping to see some of the stuff I left behind implemented here.

I think some of these discussions gets a little intense because someone says that something is important, and then someone else says 'nah' and you have to reload the cannon.

Just an FYI - 

 

Modal interface, such as CA now, means the app enters a mode where its only "thinking" and operating on a specific subject/state until the user makes another input leaving that mode.

 

A "modeless" based system just means the app doesn't have to "enter" a state to consider a specific operation from the user (might not be the best explanation).

In Chief's case perhaps a way to think about it would be to never have to do 'Ctrl-E', instead the whole dbx could be a constant open window on the side like the library browser.

Sorry if I'm being dense here. But I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that a modeless interface is not a good idea or something else?

No, I'm saying that if you as the developer thinks a modeless interface would 'produce small improvements in some cases', I feel you don't understand the significance of this part of a modern interface. For those who remember, the leading high end animation tool Softimage 3D was killed by Alias Maya in the 90's for failing to address this in time.

The modeless interface is a good and important thing.

 

It would produce a small but measurable improvement in productivity in some cases.

Wow, statements like this from you as the developer makes me fear for the future.

I would say my entire post is not 'entirely true' but do you think the point I was trying to make, which is that it's much more complicated than a single business factor, is relevant? Oh wait, that's the same point you made too. I agree with you.

Sorry, not my intention to steal your thunder and I mostly agree with you, I just wanted to emphasize that it isn't only because they are large bullies that they are successful. Sketchup came from nowhere and carved a niche because it had a great GUI combined with clever tools.

Do you think that a new GUI, for argument's sake let's say it's the best GUI in the world, would that be a vehicle by which Chief would/could grab massive market share from its competitors? I mean would an ACAD house switch to Chief because the interface was 'the best in the world? Would a Revit house do the same? Individual users, much better chance but massive share grab? What do think? Genuinely curious.

No way. Functionality is king, but GUI the marketing vehicle. It's the combination.

I agree it really is a combination of many things. In the early days WordPerfect was way better than Microsoft Word but Microsoft bullied its way into market dominance using its OS as the vehicle.

 

That same Wordperfect company had an Adobe type PDF creator and reader that ran circles around Adobe's offering but Adobe bullied its way to market dominance.

 

In the music business ProTools dominates the market - not because they make great software or have a great GUI but because they have enough market share to dictate the next direction of music software. They are adding features now that have been available in other software for years. People hate the fact they have to use ProTools and their terrible upgrade policies and feature less software but they remain the leader and show no sings of being toppled because their GUI might suck or they are slow to add features.

 

ACAD dominates Architectural software, not because they make great software but because that Lion's share allows them to charge incredible amounts of money and change the entire direction of Arch software when they choose. They continue to be successful because they run a god business and their market share allows them lots of leeway in features and GUI.

 

In the music software world there are many smaller labels that are becoming more popular but if you don't know ProTools you won't work at a large production house - ever. I imagine it's the same with ACAD.

 

So getting and keeping your lead is way more complicated than just having great software with a great GUI. The above examples prove you don't have to have either to succeed but you do need a very focused business plan and must be able to execute same.

Not entirely true about Protools. They dominate because nothing came even close 20 years ago when the battle lines were drawn. They definitely had the best software and GUI. Same thing with Avid, which at the time was light years ahead of the competition and they still dominate today. Others are challenging, and Final Cut made a serious dent until Apple abruptedly dropped it and now Adobe is trying with Premiere Pro. But the fact is, when it comes to long form editing nothing really touches it, and for news and broadcast, no one offers the same system solutions.

One has to remember that all dominant players have become so because there were a reason. After you reach critical mass it then becames a tough player to bring down due to all the trained people and existing work pipelines. Adobe beat Quark Express by iteratively and aggressively produce better and better software until even the biggest magazines relented and agreed it worked better. These are not consumer goods decisions like VHS vs Betamax.

Cicadas are bugs

 

I've thought about sautéing them in a garlic butter

but in the end couldn't do it

 

some have covered them in fancy chocolate to make them more appealing

 

but in the end - they are still bugs !!!

 

get rid of the bugs first - then go fancy

 

Lew

There will always be bugs.

I wonder about some of the analogies. Remember the buggy whip? Well cars got rid of buggies and the whip didn't evolve fast enough...

 

Chief occupies a very unique niche market within the architectural and design world. Are they really risking going away because their GUI is outdated? It's irritating and old fashioned but I don't think they are at risk of disappearing like the above companies did?

 

Who is their real competition? It's not really ACAD, or Revit or Archicad. SoftPlan for sure but their price point ensures survival until another player comes along - into a very crowded marketplace. Wouldn't mind that myself but don't really see it.

I think you hit the head on the nail here. And to be honest I'm not even sure the Chief guys thinks there is a problem. A big portion of current users have no experience from tools that have eliminated modal windows, and have a very pragmatic view on that tools needs to work before starting to 'work on the paint of the car', and I would assume that also represents the mentality of Chief as a company or it would already behave different in some ways. Sketchup was created by a small team of visionaries who felt design should be a more elegant and natural process, and I'm sure those guys were as flabber gasted when some users started to demand layout tools and other condoc features.

At the end of the day Chief Architect is one company's vision, and it will follow their targeted user demographics needs, but it will still be interpreted by how Chief management see the world.

As for me, if we could get rid of the modal windows and spice up some of the 2D/3D modeling tools I think we're in great shape.

Simple answer is no. The greatest tragedy is that I'm slowly becoming unemployable because my ACAD/Revit skills are degrading at an incredible rate. Plus I'm 50 years old. No firm is going to hire an old Chief user.

Age is a number, cheer up!

The ribbon interface is one thing, I think I read somewhere that it was created by Microsoft in order to facilitate the pen interface of tablet computers when Gates first introduced it, and primarily visual.

Modal properties however is crucial, all modern tools have it like 3ds Max, Revit, etc. One other exception is actually Archicad that also still struggle with them!    

One of the toughest decisions a software developer has to make has got to be between rewriting an existing functionality that has reached a ceiling, or adding something new.

There is probably a lot of truth in this, Larry. New users are where software companies grow. At the same time I don't neccessarily think the average existing user is ignorant about some of these things. All who make an elevation surely must be concerned if they produce drawings where these aren't current. I assume the average Chief Premier user is relatively hands-on, given that there are cheaper products like Home Designer otherwise. 

The other thing to consider is who those potentially new users are? Tract, stock plan and cookie cut builder? I would assume these are the original target market, which may start to become saturated. I obviously don't know but if they are reaching for the one man architect firm, and I think they could, things like this are very important.

We have seen poll posts in the past.

How about getting a priority list from Admin of say 25 things to fix or add into CA.

Then all CA users can mark their list in order of thier priorities then CA can publish the results?

I think this is a great idea, but even if Chief was willing to publish such a list (I don't know, but it could be seen as something feeding the competition perceived weaknesses), the downside is that it would be restricted to what they think are the key things to adress.

If a number of regular users would publish their own thread with their list of the 10 most critical/desireable suggestions, Chief could then (assuming they care) study and compare these lists and see which features/items seems are the most requested and if there are some ideas that make particular sense. 10 is a good number in that it limits the scope, forces people to think, but still allows some desired things that may not typically come up.

Everyone creating their own thread would allow other users to discuss and scrutinize it in case the OP has misunderstood or just don't know how to do something. OP could update his/her list as things gets addressed and needs change. There are certainly some users here, whose top 10 lists I would love to see.

Just an idea. Or it could just be what a thread like this one but with the 10 most desireable things instead of 1.

This was probably the one most different concept for me when I started to learn Chief, and I'm not aware of any other program with the same room based paradigm. It is very clever and has many uses, but is so different that it takes a while to adapt as it affects so many areas. I find it a bit cumbersome when having to do story wide changes, and having to make sure all rooms have been set correctly.

I would love to see it combined with the more traditional level thinking, where a datum can be set and named, and then referenced from for example wall dbx as top level etc. This could be used in the defaults for structure with values relating to them, making some values more logical and easier to decipher. It would also be helpful for annotating elevations.

I would rather CA to fix all the "work arounds" first (stairs, niches, elevations, columns, etc and etc) than for them to spend their efforts in improving the rendering engine  - I think what we get works great for quick presentations (I have seen others who create some nice renderings inside Chief) - my 2 cents

+1