portrait

This is the response I received from the technical support: Overall, you are correct in that Chief Architect is designed primarily for residential design, and although larger scale, commercial design is certainly doable, there is a limit to the amount of data a plan in Chief Architect can handle. Generally, a more powerful computer that gets closer to our recommended requirements will give better performance, but there's still the limit of the program itself. Here are the recommended requirements if you haven't seen them yet: https://www.chiefarchitect.com/products/sysreq.html What you mentioned there would potentially help; having many individual room definitions has been known to slow plan files down. Mass-selecting your walls, opening them up and checking on No Room Definition would make them lose their room settings like ceilings and floors, but if you're only working in the floor plan view, it might make things more efficient. Doing this only for interior walls and effectively making large rooms that encompass the interior walls may work better for exterior 3D renderings. We have other techniques for managing slowness, like hiding layers of objects you're not currently working with, among other options, covered in this article: https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00521/troubleshooting-slowness-in-chief-architect-projects.html

I’ve been using Chief Architect for over 20 years now and still really enjoy it. I mainly use it for the design and drafting of Australian and American residential projects, though I occasionally work on commercial and public buildings as well. For those larger projects, I typically switch to AutoCAD for drafting. For a recent 300,000 sqft nursing home project, I initially planned to use Chief for the basic documentation — plans, elevations, and cross sections. However, Chief really struggled with the scale of the model: hundreds of rooms, windows, stairs, and fixtures caused severe lag, even on relatively powerful hardware. In the end, I could only use Chief for 3D design and had to move all the drafting to AutoCAD. A colleague’s newer system handled it slightly better, but we still encountered unbearable delays with every action. This made me wonder: Does Chief Architect have inherent limitations in how it utilizes system resources? In other words, if you were to invest in a $10,000 workstation with top-tier CPUs, GPUs, and maximum RAM, would Chief be able to take full advantage of that hardware — or is it simply not optimized for large, complex models (like public buildings with 400+ rooms and heavy detailing)? Should we expect that Chief will always remain better suited for residential and light commercial projects, regardless of system performance?

Hi mthd, I didn’t realize Arcon was still on the market. Plan7Architect does look simplistic at first glance, but I’d rather reserve judgment until I’ve tried it out. The videos seem aimed at hobbyists and enthusiasts, so they may not fully showcase the software’s potential. I’d like to review it if I have time to test the program.

That German software, Plan7Architect, presents itself as a competitor to Chief Architect and claims compatibility with US, UK, Canadian, Australian, and broader European standards. I used the program many years ago when it was still called Arcon, and it was actually quite solid back then. I haven’t tested this new generation yet, but it looks like they offer a perpetual license for between $79 and $160, and it can be installed on up to three devices simultaneously. https://plan7architect.com/

I use the material costing feature regularly and generally get pretty accurate results—except when it comes to concrete components, especially rebar and steel take-offs. The main issue is that the feature is quite complex. You need to make a lot of manual adjustments—switching between structural member definitions, the materials master list, and the “components” sections of individual elements and rooms. Once you understand how it all ties together and establish your own workflow, it works well. That said, I do think the Chief Architect team should consider simplifying this process to make it more user-friendly, especially for those who are just starting to explore the feature.

Hi Joe, The choice of measurement units typically depends on the country and the context of the project. Here’s a breakdown of common practices: Precision Measurements: For cases where precision is critical (e.g., joist and rafter lengths, or riser heights), millimeters are preferred. Room and Lot Areas: Room and lot areas are generally specified in square meters (sqm). For larger lots, hectares or acres (commonly used in the UK and Australia) may be more suitable. Floor Plans: The choice of units for floor plans often depends on the region: Continental Europe (e.g., France, Germany, Spain): Centimeters are commonly used. Australia: Millimeters are standard. Large Projects (e.g., airports, commercial developments): Meters are typically used. Property Line Lengths: These are usually indicated in meters. Height Datum: Height datum is commonly expressed in meters. Setback Distances: While there isn’t a universal standard, millimeters or centimeters are often used due to the need for precision. Hope this helps.

Is there a way to control the position of the marker, text, and numeric value of the levels on sections and elevations in Chief Architect? I understand that Chief Architect doesn't allow the use of custom markers, but is there a way to specify the levels similarly to the image below without resorting to a time-consuming manual workaround?

I know of no architectural software that can perform structural calculations. Structural load calculations require a different set of tools, which is why it's common practice to use separate software for that purpose. The main issue is how architectural data is transferred from the architect to the engineer. Sending plans in DWG format often causes errors and discrepancies. However, as the BIM process evolves, software companies are working to integrate design and engineering on the same platform. Revit, for instance, has three separate modules for design and engineering: the architect designs the building with Revit Architecture, the structural engineer performs load calculations with Revit Structure, and the MEP engineer uses Revit MEP. This way, the entire team uses the same software with different tools, and the final design is consolidated into a single file containing all relevant data. Archicad allows you to generate a structural analytical model, which can be exported to a structural engineer who then opens the model in their own structural analysis program. At the moment, Chief Architect is not part of this integrated process, but I don't think this will last forever. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have significantly accelerated software development, so I wouldn't be surprised if Chief Architect introduces structural calculations or enhances interoperability with other software like Revit or Archicad in the coming years.

Hi James, I have just sent a PM. Thanks for your interest.

We're always on the lookout for architects, designers, and drafters who demonstrate a strong proficiency in Chief Architect to join our design team of a Sydney-based design and construction company. Most of our work consists of secondary residences, including new builds and garage conversions, and we occasionally design extensions and regular houses as well. The ideal candidate should possess the following qualifications: Actively using Chief Architect for at least three years and must be proficient with basic Chief tools, including the terrain tools. How you have been using Chief Architect is important; we are not looking for 3D modelers. You should be able to create a full set of architectural drawings with Chief. Experienced with timber construction and have a good understanding of framing systems. Must be comfortable with metric units. Not essential, but the following qualifications would be great, too: Experience with Australian residential design, national codes, and standards. A degree in architectural design. Basic familiarity with AutoCAD. The position could start with a per-job basis agreement and could turn into a part or full-time job in the near future. If you think you have the necessary qualifications and this job is what you are looking for, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. Thanks,

Hi, I'm trying to build a system to create materials lists. While defining the wall wrap, I have noticed that Chief won't allow me to specify a size longer than 32767 mm (107' 6 1/16"). If I use an Imperial template, the maximum size I could use becomes 170' - 7 15/16" for any material. I would like to be able to use these 60 m long 'rolls', but the max length I could define is only 32.767 metres. Is there a way to overcome this limitation?

When the new subscription model was first introduced by Autodesk in 2016, we perpetual license owners didn't care about that much as the annual maintanance fee was relatively cheap. However Autodesk gradually increased the prices, and at some point the cost of staying 'up to date' became almost the same with the subscription prices. Finally, they announced that perpetual license owners will no longer be able to renew their maintanance plan as of May 2021. $600 for SSA vs $2000 annual subscription cost reminds me the year when Autodesk stopped selling perpetual licenses.

Thanks for the comments. I think i'll stick with lowering the floor heights method- so that the openings are higher than the walls and they become visible. Gathering the output as a CAD file is a major priority for me. The other feature i would be tempted with is the ability of getting shadow borders as a CAD data on elevation views and perspective. As far as i figure out, no program has this ability.

Nice, but windows and doors are not visible. That's what i'm asking for.

Thanks. But there are still two problems. First of all, when i switched to vector view, cross-slider is disabled again. I don't know how you were able to use cross-slider in that view. Secondly, i prefer a parallel projection. A real plan view. Perspective overview doesn't provide a real top view, it's still a perspective.