Richard_Morrison

I haven't been able to find the viewer app for this.

No, the viewer doesn't save in other file formats. I've been having a little success with exporting a Chief model in Collada format, and using this viewer: http://glc-player.net/index.php Pretty straightforward, but the navigation tools aren't the most intuitive for a client.

While the Client Viewer works well, I am getting increasingly uncomfortable with sending my clients the original Chief files. Has anyone experimented with other 3D viewers (cross-platform desired) with any success? What export formats have worked the best?

Well, I suspect it does affect me in that I probably have a better appreciation of the issue than most. (LOL) Actually, you can work both ways in ArchiCAD; if you set up the dockable Info Box to be rather complete, then there is seldom a reason to open an object in a new window. Most editing commands can be done on the fly without opening another DBX. On another issue, ArchiCAD display is more PEN-based, rather than LAYER-based. Changing an object's layer in ArchiCAD has no effect on its display properties other than visible/hidden; you need to use a different pen set to get heavier lineweights, for example. So for ArchiCAD, having immediate and direct access to an object's display properties is important, because you are more likely to be changing those than the layer. Actually, one of the most powerful features is that of "Favorites." For every entity you typically use, you can set all of the parameters and then save that entity as a Favorite. (Sort of like saving to the User Library, but faster.) When working in ArchiCAD, I certainly miss Chief's layer-based display feature.

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.

Perry beat me by a few seconds, but I'd suggest you use MY spelling instead of his.

It's called a valance, and you can do that with a polyline solid. (Do this in an elevation view.)

I like cool interfaces. Who doesn't? But I like software that works even better. (If I could produce better plans even faster with a DOS version, I would.) With the improvements to Hotkeys, there is less and less need for a GUI. One nice thing about Chief is that every version still feels familiar. You can go back many versions, and it still feels like the same program, except lacking the improvements you've come to depend on. Is it better to have a radical redesign of the program GUI, or to have an "evolutionary" approach that makes each version less of a learning curve? Personally, I'm not feeling like the GUI gets in the way very much, even though it's a little graphically dated. Sure, it would be swell to feel like I'm working with an up-to-date program, but I'd rather have improvements to stairs and framing. As long as Chief is making baby steps with the GUI at each version, I'm okay with it.

Todd, After putting the breaks in, you need to make friends with the "Edit Object Parts" icon.

Why do you all need multiple templates when you've got the "Import Default Settings" command? So you're doing a project pretty much like, say, the Zitzwitz Remodel, 10 sec's gets you about everything you need with no opening of plans and copying of objects.

For a reveal, a thin black polyline solid or polyline molding will look very good applied to the surface of the wall. You can't tell if it's recessed or applied, and looks good in elevations.

John, the difference in price between the Lite and the Premier products is about $700 from what I can gather. I just looked at the feature comparison, and for a professional contemplating using Chief as my base platform, I wouldn't waste my time with the Lite version. There are so many disabled features and efficiencies that I can't imagine trying to do serious professional work without them. OTOH, if you are billing hourly, maybe the slower CAD version will make you more money?

The "Walls, Normal" line weight will only be used if the individual wall layers are turned off. If the layers of the wall are turned on, then the line weights will be taken from the wall definition. EDIT: Oops, sorry. Just saw that Glenn W. mentioned this.

Also, as the program evolves, there is less and less need for macros. Take a trip down Memory Lane: http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?34156-Keystroke-Macros . What people were using macros for back then seems ridiculously easy now.

While the stair issue is incredibly annoying, it can be worked around as Joey has shown. However, the "auto update" (or I should say the "non auto-update") issue in Layout needs to be corrected ASAP. You can send out incorrect elevations with no idea that they are not up to date, and this represents a serious liability issue from my standpoint. Luckily, I have only experienced serious embarrassment to date.

I got an e-mail from the Sales Department, and need to correct my original post slightly. There was a note at the bottom of the reminder message: *If your SSA expires, a late fee will be applied and the one-year SSA period will begin from the time of renewal. If a new version has since been released, then you are subject to regular upgrade pricing. Upgrade pricing fees can be found on www.ChiefArchitect.com." This was at the bottom, and out of the reading window of my Outlook, so I never saw it. But you don't find out what the late fee actually is until after the expiration. Sales agreed it would be good to include that information.

I inadvertently let my SSA expire. There seemed to be no urgency, or problem with letting it go for a few days. Imagine my surprise when I got a notice a few days later offering to renew it for an additional late charge of $95. NONE of the reminder e-mails I received mentioned this. It is not mentioned anywhere on the SSA Renewal page, nor is any obligation to keep SSA continuously active mentioned anywhere in plain sight. I came very close to just telling Chief Architect to kiss my a** and leaving it for good. Fortunately, the sales rep said there was a 30-day grace period (again, not mentioned anywhere), although I couldn't renew online anymore without paying the late charge. For the record, I have no problem with Chief's policy of a late charge, if that's what they want to do. But they need to make it clear on the website what the actual policy is, and not bury it somewhere in fine print. It would also be helpful to have the renewal reminders mention this.

I think you will find that Chief is excellent for planning a single floor, with a single designer. For the scale of project that you are describing, I would consider ArchiCAD, both for the Teamwork function, as well as its robustness in creating CDs with larger projects, especially using hot-linked modules.

Yes, it is. But Chief's ease of use in some areas has made it a love-hate relationship with the other software, too. It's like having a wife and a mistress at the same time. And I think I may be getting too old for that.

One of the reasons to visit here is to learn what is realistic to do in Chief and what is not. For multiple flights of stairs, it will be better to just draw them in 2D in the floor plan, and turn off the 3D stair layer. Chief can't produce decent 2D stair representations at this point.

Look, the surveyor is dimensioning to the nearest 1/10th of a foot. That means that the dimension theoretically can be only accurate to plus/minus 1/20th of a foot (5/8"), assuming that the surveyor is capable of measuring absolutely PRECISELY. (Which is unlikely.) You are now in the land of officially fooling yourself regarding possible dimensional accuracy.

And it grows hair on your head. (GD&R.)

Keith, Note that the footprint polyline is set to "CAD stops move." When you get the angle of the building rotated to match the PDF, the setback line "fences" that Jim drew will stop the footprint at the exact location. Trying to figure out a mathematical way to calculate a surveyor's very human approximation isn't going to happen in a useful way. Either the left or the right setback is ALWAYS going to be off. You get to choose which approximate dimension is correct, or you can just put the house somewhere in between and it may be off by a little over an inch. You aren't building to rocket ship tolerances here.

I agree with Todd's assessment, generally. Chief is definitely the best for fairly conventional residential construction. Cabinets are outstanding. Where the problem occurs is if you start trying to do "finicky" or non-standard construction. Modeling then becomes a nightmare trying to get it exactly right. So you end up doing "good enough" modeling, and trying to describe these areas with 2D details. Tilted walls with windows -- forget it in Chief. (Not something that most people do, though.) Trying to do extremely accurate terrain modeling makes me tear my hair out. If you've spent time with ArchiCAD, the missing tools (both CAD and 3D) are felt. If you haven't, then you will be very happy with Chief.

Sorry, Jim, I see that you were already doing this. Looking at what you've done, I suspect that the surveyor's field measure of the setback was done to the corner of the bay, rather than the corner of the house; he just drew it wrong when he got back to the office. Rotate Jim's plan a tad to match the PDF, and the left corner is within .2' feet of the stated distance.