jorgearaya

This is what I've been using for the longest time. http://ecabinetsystems.com/

Michael, on the contrary, I am most comfortable with Chief and ArchiCAD for overall drafting, having the typical details in CAD gives me more control and interoperability with consultants for collaboration. CAD is not efficient in Chief, I wished they’d spend more on that side of the program instead of forks and spoon symbols... if you know what I mean. As far as the look, I try to keep the plans output consistent whether is ArchiCAD, Softplan or Chief, so that it’s more of a “presentation” format thing, that way no matter who is working with the plans, they are looking at the same format, structure, look and feel. AutoCAD is just that necessary evil (like Windows) we use for all tasks CAD only. I strongly believe AutoCAD is the most inefficient platform for residential and commercial production drafting. I know this stirs the pot with the CAD fan base, but it’s an irrefutable fact. This you didn’t directly asked, but, I started drafting using Chief, then ArchiCAD, Softplan, and the last has been AutoCAD which I have both the full and Lite versions.

All details done in AutoCAD LT saved to their directory x-ref’d as needed per project Cad details sheets are independent of Chief and printed separately.

Hello all, Here again offering drafting services, can help with completing your design or completing construction documents for permitting. For pricing information go to www.motmots.net. Located in Fresno, CA. Thank you, Please respond via PM

Just wanted to follow up on the comment about Building Information Modeling While everyone in the business of selling software claims BIM, it doesn't necessarily mean "True BIM" and I don't think that statement even exists today. The most misused and misunderstood word in the market today is BIM, and unless the users are taking the time to catalog and document every piece part and component that goes into the building, it will always be misused. Interoperability is a "work in progress" for everyone, that is why Industry Foundation Classes came to exist, and openBIM is carving the way into the future. BIM is another word for "Database", if the latter does not exist, then the first one is an empty word. Having or not the ability to shade or highlight a line has nothing to do with BIM. Revit users struggle with Residential drafting more than any other users out there. The only two major players in the Residential design market are Softplan and Chief Architect, whether or not they can handle interoperability with Revit. Database is the key for BIM, if your model has all the instructions and can produce an accurate database of all the components of the building then you have "True BIM", the caveat is likely the user needs to input all the parameters into the software for it to work. BIM Software must be capable of representing both the physical and intrinsic properties of a building as an object-oriented model tied to a database .

Look at this post https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/22367-roof-can-it-be-done/

Here are my thoughts about it. Our trade requires a toolbox with several tools for specific tasks We receive plans in all kinds of formats that we can in turn either convert to or work directly on To streamline the tasks and expand the services to as many markets as possible we “add” tools to the toolbox Archicad, Chief Architect, Softplan, AutoCAD Bundle. All very similar to learn and use (except AutoCAD) So, not really a conversion right? Chief is a great tool! No disappointments at all (Now, none are perfect either). Good luck!

There's a Roof Height section in the build roofs dbx where you can tell the roof to be lifted from the ceiling height, change the Birdsmouth seat to 0 and uncheck it (note that if you uncheck it and not change the value, you may get different results) After the roof has been "built", the options to raise/lower are no longer available unless you rebuild the roof from scratch. If you use the "Edit all roof planes" lock the pitch and raise the baseline, the roof will rase, but, also there will be a space between the top of the walls and the underside of the ceiling. The end result may not be what you are looking for as the program creates a ceiling under the roof (that will creep through the exterior walls) Raising the overall ceiling to the desired height and adding a shelf ceiling to the standard ceiling height will also create a ceiling like surface that will creep through the walls. Good luck!

Since a lot new macros have been added to the program, adding the %wall_type% macro, allows the wall types to be copied and after renaming the label appears correctly. This is considerably faster when creating company standards, if you work for several of them.

The flat roof can be done with another floor, make the walls railings, no ceiling and drop the height as needed. (Roof planes can also be set to 0 for flat roofs) Complex roofs and framing can be done in layers, creating one roof plane over the next adjusting settings for each one, manipulating the framing for each roof plane to create the trellis components.

The roof on the picture with the parapet walls is very simple to do, here's one way to do it You can add another floor and remove all the typical things from the room settings, make it the height you need, four feet or less. Put a roof over the new room, but stop the gable ends at the interior gable end walls, this will leave the two gable walls free Lower the entire roof baseline to the desired height, this will drop the roof and extend the end gable walls, but they will be flat top Copy and paste in place the roof you created, open it and change the surface and structure to the lowest dimension possible, use air gap for material Uncheck all the framing stuff, fascias, gutters, etc. Select the air gap roof and raise the baseline to the desired height of the parapets (this roof should be invisible in 3D) Change the line type so it is light and hide it in a layer. Pull the end gable sections of the air gap roof past the two end gable walls, this will cut the flat walls to the shape of the air gap roof and it will create any attic walls needed. Add a wall on the center of the roof ridge, now, the roof will stop the wall from passing through. (This is done on the new floor you created) No room definition, no locate, balloon and attic checks on wall settings. Pull the main roof to butt to the sides of the new wall so it passes through. Raising or lowering the air gap roof will allow you to work the parapet height.

Help>Display Objects

I tried posting this in the Sofplan forum where they were asking our feedback about Chief and Softplan, but, the moderators have not approved my post!! Here you go! Posting as guest, haven’t been here in a long time. Both SP and CA are powerful enough to use as production tools for residential projects. Both have an equal learning curve and quirks Both have great things I wished the other one had!! Both suck at linework but, both do the job, That’s why we still run LT Text may be better in CA with Rich Text SP can be network install, CA can not (but, libraries can be saved to the cloud in CA and SP) CA has a larger library base if you are into interiors Both can import/export .dwg CA has more importing/exporting formats SP can export to MiTek and Javelin SP has more clicks for basic functions SP solids not as easy as in CA Terrains probably just as bad in both (I could spend more time on that) CA draws in groups, or based by room, once you enclose 4 walls you have a room, walls, ceilings and roofs are grouped in settings Cad to walls in CA if you can set the layers in the .dwg ahead of time, but, openings not accurate (uses defaults) The 2020 version added a lot of features already familiar in previous versions of CA SP is definitely slower in terms of how quick can things get done. (User dependent too) Layers, Layer sets, Annotation sets in CA, one can create as many as needed SP has softalk, softlist, CA has schedules and Keynotes CA has the Ruby Console where one can add lots of macros to text. CA can run on Mac OS and Windows, files are interchangeable SP only runs in Windows I am sure both sites have "Features" lists that one could compare as well… So, the big down is when we get sidetracked and want to tackle large projects with either platform, they don’t do well handling large files. (This could be expanded into a topic on its own) Which is best? That is like asking a carpenter what is the best wormdrive/circular saw out there!! The typical answer is the one they have had more experience with, that is why a lot of the previous posts here lean to one more than the other. (Not to mention the fanbase) They’re as good as the driver behind them, we have been using both since oh 2012 and there’s always that (oh I can do that better and faster in...CA or SP) By the way we use in order of priority ArchiCAD, Chief, Softplan, AutoCAD LT. All great tools to have and don't forget, we never stop learning! Oh I almost forgot there are a lot more videos for CA than SP Extensive knowledge base for CA for just about any topic. Softplan has videos but are very sales oriented, the minimum basics, nothing specific, no plan sets, etc. That's all folks!

Perhaps your question should be, how well does chief handles large files? Or, has anyone had experience with large buildings? I certainly have not, we modeled an eight unit three story complex and had to move it to ArchiCAD. Back then Chief and the computer or a combination thereof were not able to keep up. Look through the Galleries and see who has large projects. The same goes for Softplan, and for the other one, unless I’m being paid a lot of money I wouldn’t bother even trying.

Softplan is a great piece of software, take the time to learn it, it has more clicks for some things, but, it has a lot of great features, it has automated many things as well. Can be network installed (if that option is purchased). Things that have been common in Chief for a long time, are barely new features in SP2020, it is getting better for sure, I have had it since oh, since 2012 maybe? Their monthly payments are more consistent than CA, meaning they don’t go up and up and up.... The powers are keeping things consistent. Good luck!

The simplest way to do this is to use a roof plane to do the starter board!! just butt the ends! Roof planes will follow the baseline, will make all corners, hips, valleys, etc. Very complex designs can be achieved by creating layered roof planes, meaning built up superimposed on top of the other, i.e. Roofing o/sheathing o/purlins o/sleepers o/sheathing o/planks o/framing and so on... It's just a matter of replicating them and changing the elevation slightly.

This has been floating around on the web "control over elements" and how some people dislike the fact that in ArchiCAD most elements have a lot of settings that they find cumbersome. I think it is more because they are lazy and haven't taken the time to "learn" the program, read the manuals, etc. When creating company standards, these features are a real plus to any program, where different builders have similar products but not exactly the same, having the ability to control elements, objects and create libraries for each builder is an advantage (favorites in ArchiCAD). Now, it all depends of what type of work one does, and if you really need to model every bolt and nail to the nearest 100th... If you know what I mean. For Construction Documents and production work many times it is not required, if you want to design and draw like you build, perhaps going into detail is better I repeat again, take the time to learn "in depth" what the possibilities are in any platform, you will see that the similarities among them are there and annoying enough to think that they all have the same underlying "engine". There's no best (at least imo), which is better? We have seen that debate over the years and it leads nowhere I think about what is efficient for the type of work presented and choose accordingly. ArchiCAD, Chief Architect, Softplan. (Revit is not made for residential, even though some are pushing that concept).

Open the original .pdf and print it to .pdf using any .pdf printer available, may need to try more than one. The re-printed .pdf will now look fine after importing into CA.

Hello, Just wanted to let you know that with the new licensing, upgrades, the product key for the upgraded license is the same as the previous one. What does this mean for you? If both versions are installed in the same computer you can still run both versions side to side If you got a new computer and only installed the upgraded version, the old version won't run on the old computer if the upgraded version is "active" on the new computer If you move from location to location i.e Office, Home, field and have the software installed in three different computers (or more) and you'd like to use the old version for archiving purposes, or need to open an old job, the upgraded version will have to be deactivated from wherever it is active. (before one could just use its own "old" key for this) while keeping the other running (working at the office, etc.). Tech support claimed that they made these changes because "we" the users complained that there were too many license keys to remember! That did not work on our favor at all! Even though the EULA said that one would have to stop using the old version after it was upgraded (which made no sense) because of old projects, old plans, etc. Anyway, there it is! Enjoy!! chief-architect-end-user-license-agreement.pdf

1/4" per foot minimum scale for floor plans, no plan checker will work on that, they will ask you to put it in the proper scale, use larger paper if you need it to fit the page, 30x42 is the next size up.

PM with phone number and best time to contact.

Hello all, My office may be looking into having some renders done on some of the homes we've drawn up in Chief so far, the render is very basic, look at the link for samples that were probably done in PS. https://www.gjgardner.com/clovis-madera-county-ne-fresno-county-home-builders/home-plans Currently my plans don't have a terrain or landscape as we only do construction documents, the site plan it's only 2d. (we would not need to model the actual site, just enough terrain to do the view). And just like the post above, I need to mention that the office is looking for a "quote" not hourly, if we send 1 home what the cost will be for it, if we send you 10 what it will be for those and so on.

Finally getting a little break here at work, Thank you all for pitching in, I figured out what had happened, yes, I messed up on the templates. So I was tasked with creating templates for several model homes (different roof pitches) I created one with all the requested features, and I used that one to create the second one, however I just went to defaults>roof>pitch>changed it to 6>saved as template with a new name When I used that new 6/12 template to draw up a home and built the roof, I got the results I noted at the beginning of the topic here, some planes were 4/12, some were 6/12, some base lines were inside the rooms, not over the main layer of the exterior wall. After all your input and doing some book reading over the weekend (yes, brain freeze!!!) I forgot to go to defaults>walls>exterior wall>roof>and check what pitch that was... Well it was 4/12 from the original template. The results however were weird as you can see above. Thanks Mike!

It is fascinating how many different ways to interpret what I wrote you guys came up with, great input and thanks for taking the time to respond. In short, there is no need to have to go to more than one default (D) unless you are making the change in some walls to be other than hip (Chief Architect's default roof (D) is hip. The default (D) needs to carry over and change where other "defaults exist" like the walls. Mike there, read the manual, I am in line with what it states, unless the book is wrong. I get to work on that file tomorrow, will share it and send you what the settings are and what the results I get are, perhaps that will make you see what is going on, and hopefully we find what is causing it, user error maybe? We'll see.

Good deal, I agree with the fact that there may be something "goofy" with my default plan, I will share it on Monday as I don't have access to it from where I am this weekend. Thank you all. I may have brought in the plan template from previous versions, I don't recall, this may very well be a brand new version 20 template I have been working on for a while. And just to clarify this wall default and roof default. Roof defaults govern the build roofs dbx You can change settings in the build roofs dbx and rebuild the roof to see the changes If you need other than hip, wall defaults will take over and other roofs can be built from there Wall defaults that have been not edited prior to building auto roofs have no bearing over the roof defaults, ie. Say all your walls have a roof pitch of 4/12, but your roof defaults are now 6/12, when you open your build roof tool, it shows 6/12 as the default roof pitch, you then choose to build the roof planes at that point, no other changes are made, your built roof should be what pitch? 4 or 6? I will let you answer that one.