RodCole

But, what if you were able to use the best of both Chief and Vectorworks together? Or any other app of your choice for that matter as the need arises. Use Chief for the model creation and Layout, and use Vectorworks for the heavy lifting where it's features would shine. Not one or the other, and also not a Chief model and then revert to 2D CAD that is not pulled from a model, but instead recreated from scratch. What I would like to see is better integration of both capabilities, Chief models and Layout as well as the best of other 3D solid modeling applications. Not one or the other, but rather both working together. The basics are there already, but the file exchange and other relatively minor roadblocks are simply not being properly addressed IMO. By nomenclayture I take it you mean that you are trying to find a particular tool, or possibly how to work with a particular feature and then get frustrated with the inefficiency and time loss and decide to cut your losses and revert to what is at least a known quantity for you and your team. But, what if the tool is not present in Chief, yet another app has the perfect solution. Wouldn't it be better to take what you have created so far in one program and leverage that for futher developement and then return the result quickly and efficiently back to the originating app? This is not far fetched by any means. Chief is actually quite close, but then again so very far away due to ineffiecient file exchange and limited symbols capabilities.

I had a question similar to yours a while back in the other forum. Doug posted a reply that I believe stated that about 800' by 800' should be a safe limit. What I have found is that I can go much larger than that, but at some point z fighting becomes an issue. There are times when doing sun studies that I would like to have a much larger surrounding area than just the immediate lot or property. I use TurboCAD Pro Platinum along with Chief, and there is a new feature there that allows for decent sun studies as well. You can convert Chief terrain into solids there as well and slice to your hearts content. But back to your question, I have not yet tried a large terrain in TC, but it does present a few more options. I tried a 16 acre lot once in Chief with a hill in the background that probably doubled the total area. It worked, but the z fighting made it more trouble than it was worth.

3DS for now, it is the best so far for 3D geometry, no layers though. I use TurboCAD Pro Platinum version 21. Powerful stuff, it has the ACIS Solid modeling engine, just not as automated as Chief for Architectural. If you would like to know more, then post in the BIM thread so as not to Hijack this one. Thanks

Basic file compatiblity with other high end 3D modeling apps so I can get stairs and other complex designs done quickly and efficiently. I really do have two wishes

Curious, has the callout you are concerned about actually been sent to a layout sheet yet, or is it merely a plan view of the callout? Even if a callout is showing up in Layout in plan view, that does not mean that it has been sent to Layout yet. Try opening the camera view and sending it to Layout again and see what happens. It is a bit difficult to picture just what it is that is causing the issue without seeing it since these types of camera issues can get rather involved.

I very much appreciate Doug's comments regarding the dumbing down process that goes on when even a couple of programs attempt to interact with each other. My feeling is that this speaks directly to what is over complicating the issues and delivering unacceptable results for very high prices. I believe it is this direction that software marketing is taking in general that is the real stumbling block to real world solutions for the average user. I also believe that what is most important is to get to the fundamental issues that are actualy important from an end users perspective. If I was given the choice of having a high priced software that could seemlessly interact with other software in a predifined, dumbed down manner I am pretty sure I would pass on such a wonderful opportunity. No matter what the media hype and marketing directors think. I for one don't really care what marketers think, they don't use these programs on a daily basis, so their oppinions hold very little value IMO. What is important to me is having the tools to get the work done that provides the most benefit to my customers, and that, thank goodness, has not changed one little bit. To over simplify it "What is it?" meaning they know what they want when they see it, and they want it customized to suit their needs and personal taste. And, and, and, "How much will it cost" in order to make purchasing decisions. In order to meet these very basic customer needs I would like to have the tools available to get the job done quickly and effieciently. To me that means that if one program does not provide the result I need, then I want to be able to use one that will. I also do not want to have to recreate the wheel each time a file exchange is required. No messing with layer names or coordinate systems, none. Just swap it and place it at it's exact original location. This is really just about the basics of geometry and coordinate system compatiblity. Layer control for symbols would be a big help as well, not just materials. Then I would like to be able to assign and report meaningful information from the model in a format that will either meet the need in house, or be able to export it in that same format to an application that can. This needs to be done quickly and efficiently as well.

No problem Ed, never for a moment considered your comments to be anything but constructive. I would like to add a bit to the discussion about inter-operability/file exchange to hopefully add some clarity as to why I consider it to be so important. Traditional CAD programs have been around since around the mid 1980's and have developed into very powerful modeling applications including 3D solid modeling. These are not just 2D programs anymore. What they do not do well is parametric modeling in the manner that Chief does architectural modeling. Some try, but they fall a bit short of the mark IMO. So, what is the big deal about interacting or exchanging work between programs such as this when Chief already models many aspects of Architectural design better and faster than these other apps. It is quite simple really, it is in order to take advantage of what they can do that is better than what Chief can do. From my perspective BIM is about utilizing what is best of various software apps to accomplish the desired goals. An example would be clean file exchange between a high end solid modeling program and Chief in order to get the stairs the way you want them in both 3D and 2D plan views. Some of the features available from this type of exchange would be hidden lines as dashed in 2D and 3D, automated section details with hatching, full 3D sectioning, exploded views,.... The list of benefits is actually quite long, and worth pursuing. In fact, it appears that what Revit is doing is adding features that have been around a long time in the traditional CAD world and automating them for commercial design applications. So, why not allow residential designers to interact with these existing design tools by eliminating the roadblocks to efficient file exchange? Seems like some powerful leveraging from my perspective. Many of these features will eventually be part of Chief at some point in the future I would imagine. But, then again, there will be many advantages to leveraging multiple applications for some time to come.

There are a lot of advantages to having a second view sent to layout for your working settings when you return to the plan. The advantages of the working view far outweigh the extra time it takes to set it up IMO. No need to have anything showing in the Layout for the working set. Just adjust the layout view border so that nothing is showing in the layout. You can also place them on a separate layer and turn the borders off using a Layer Set in Layout. You can actually set up any number of these working views. That way you can display the plan as you want, and have preset working environments as well that automatically call anno sets and layer sets. I use the Layout as sort of a Dashboard for displayed views and working view sets.

I hear what you are saying Jim, but I do see it a bit differently though. Sure the economy of scale involved in providing meaningful costing services would be different between a large development company and a small design firm, but it shouldn't be if we both had workable tools req'd to get the tasks done. From my perspective it is about the customers need regarding seeing what their design will look like and then getting realistic cost information to base buying decisions on that should be the focus of Residential BIM. Given the right tools, there is no reason why a small time designer should not be able to provide these types of services the same as or better than a larger firm. From my perspective it is about having the right tools to get the job done for my customers.

I appreciate the comments everyone has posted to this thread so far. Thanks I would like to point out a few things that I think may be of interest to those who have been following this thread. First is that BIM, or Building Information Modeling is not a proprietory term. It does not belong to any praticular software company or group of software developers. Originally drawing intelligence issues were handeled by CAD attributes, which were rather difficult to use, using CAD programs and outside data management software such as access or excel. Due to the difficulty of setting up these coordinated systems, software developers began trying to simplify and automate these processes for their customers. That is great news for the most part, but whether the application actually delivers on their marketing promises depends on many factors, not the least of which is how well versed they are in the building industry. The problem I see with the current state of affairs regarding BIM is not the concept itself, but rather the pie in the sky promises made by marketers and the half measures actually provided by developers. Rather than providing better tools for data management, developers have jousted for market position using sound bytes about how wonderful their programs will be at some future date. My point is not so much which software is better, that should be personal preference IMO, but rather what features are important to modelers in general regarding design deliverables. Until end users of programs such as Chief provide meaningful feedback for marketers to follow, we will continue to see the tail wagging the dog in regards to BIM and other issues as well. To clarify my personal interest, which I am glad to see seems to be reflected by others as well, is the meaning of interoperability. For large commercial projects it is promoted in relation to the coordination of various software by one management software. For residential projects I believe the needs of designers is far different. We need file compatiblity, so we can take best advantage of available software features. Also the geometry moved between software applications should be seemless. No messing around with object placement, I would like to see an option to place the geometry at its current location when inserted. Layer control for symbols would be very useful as well. I would also like to see a major revamp of the Material List as well. I would like to see tools provided to the end user that allow the user to decide how the data is reported, and a more streamlined process of using that data in programs such as excel or even access. I am glad we can copy and paste, but that is by no means a meaningful solution to processing data.

Lew Could you give a few specifics of what you think should be addressed first in regards to Chief and BIM. Not so much the acronyms, but the functions and processes that you would like to see implemented. I remember that you are retired, but I also remember that you have been following the developement of BIM for some time now, and have worked with and are familiar with Chief. If you don't mind, would you provide a list of the features that you think would be most important.

This topic to me is somewhat like the invention of the steam engine. You really don't need it until you have to compete with it. If BIM is done correctly, then it would a great boon to design deliverables, and the end of 2D CAD as the driver of construction documentation. The problem I see with BIM as it is currently done is that it is not complete enough to require meaningful change at this point. An example would be BIM as promoted currently. Do parts of the model in 3D, but not too much because it would be too hard and too time consuming. Then we can still do cost and material estimates instead of true material costing based on objects in the model itself. I understand why it is that way, I just am not in favor of half measures where BIM is concerned. Another version of this is to construct a 3D model, and then revert to traditional CAD for CDs. From my point of view, if you are going to do BIM then do it, not half measures and sell it as BIM. From my perspective, it is time to establish what is important about BIM from the standpoint of designers and their customers, not the software industry. Then we need to do it.

I know you have been a proponent of BIM Lew, and that should be a good thing. I am not so sure that other Chief users would not be interested in BIM if they had a better understanding of the importance of BIM for the future of the design industry. What I am hoping to accomplish with this thread is to see just what aspects of BIM are most important to building designers and their customers. That way we may be able to sort through some of the media hype and focus on practical needs. BTW Chief does do many aspects of BIM very well, such as visuallizations. It also does a respectable job a many other aspects of BIM as well. What it does not do, IMO is in regards to interoperability with other apps. I believe that to be more of a condition of the industry as a whole rather than a faiing of Chief as such. But, it is something that needs to be addressed for any meaningful progress to be made in this area. I am refering to free and open interoperability here, not some version of the Claw from Toy Story only under another trademark. The reason why things are the way they are is not as important to me as what needs to be done to correct it. That means making it clear to companies such as Chief what the needs of their customers are in regards to BIM.

Edit: BIM for those who have not heard of it is Building Information Modeling. I have been working on ways to implement my own version of BIM recently using CA and other apps. Some of the fundamental premises of BIM are that you should be able to create a model and then leverage the use of that model using a variety of apps in order to best accomplish the req'd tasks. An example of this would be to create the model and then very early in the design process be able to provide Architectural Visualizations and Cost information. From there model details can be provided to the engineer in order to streamline the process of design and construction documentation. Another thing that I have been working on recently is providing 3D pdf files of the model as an additional deliverable to the job site. At this time this requires the use of other software in addition to CA. The reason I started this threat is that I would like to see what value others place on BIM and what features they would like to use in there work if any. Where Chief is concerned this is my personal wish list. 1. Costing........ Improvements to the Material List. Many great features, but it needs a lot of work in order to be practical. 2. Better file import and export including layer names and initial coordinate placement of symbols for interaperability. 3. Expand on and improve the camera callout features of X6. CAD Details, more callout shapes ect.... 4. U3D or 3D pdf file export with dimensions and text. 3D workplane for correct placement and orientation. 5. Continue to improve CA ray tracing and the integration of other rendering engines regarding Arch Viz and annimation. There is a lot of hype and techno babble out there regarding BIM these days. What I would like to get to the bottom of is what it is that is most important to the end users of a program such as Chief regarding real world implementation of BIM. Please feel free to comment on what your interests are.

Me too. I just put in a request for this in the suggestions forum. Might not hurt to put in your response there as well.

Regarding being able to copy cameras, I agree completely that this should be possible. It has already been requested in the Suggestions forum, but it might help to request it again. I would also like to see that callout cameras be able to rotate in plan view. This would make it easier to have the cameras preset and numbered correctly in a template plan. It was also suggested that we have some means of setting callout camera defaults so that we would not have to change every setting every time we needed a new callout camera.

I for one have been very pleased with the Layout features introduced in X6. As mentioned before, producing a clean elevation is more often related to the model and the users experience with CA than any fault with the program. That is not to say that there could and should be improvments to be sure. An auto update feature to Layout Views as a preference would be very desireable IMO. If you are serious about CA and need to know whether the layout capabilities will meet your needs then I would suggest that you start a thread on that subject and ask away. Should be an interesting topic, fire away.

If you check the save in plan option then the layout view will not update if you make changes to the original pdf file. I rarely check save in plan, and I also keep all files related to a plan in a project folder as mentioned by others. Recently started working with pdf files in camera callouts for handeling detail views instead of CAD Details. Still a fairly new process for me, but it has a few benefits that I like such as file compatibility if you want to send a detail to an outside party that does not use CAD as such. PDF files are up to date in all applications that access the pdf file and ready to send out if req'd. Work in progress, but I like it so far. PDF files also work better in camera views than imported dwg files as far bounding box issues are concerned. I would also like to see chief be capable of inserting a U3D or 3D pdf file into a camera view that would then be sent to layout. By the way, the pdf files I use are kept small, even the U3D files so I have not encountered any issues so far other than working with something new. Who knows what might happen down the road. Edit: There is one thing I might mention that I have found so far when working with pdf files in camera views and that is that the pdf file in the camera view sometimes looks like things are missing. But when sent to layout and printed they look fine. That is a bit unnerving to deal with. Not sure why that happens.

Mike Riddle also founded Evolution Computing in the mid 80's with EasyCAD, my first CAD program, and FastCAD, my second. Mike still owns and operates his business currently. I am still leaning in the direction of ArchiCAD since it was promoted through small dealers, many in connection with universities here in the US. I don't doubt that it was a small startup that promoted the product. Probably not the developer though. Still like to know if what you saw back then could do roofs. That would be an important clue.

I started with V2 as well, but instead of the drawing board I recreated the exterior of the model using FastCAD 3D. Don't remember exactly when framing members became available in Chief, but I can remember doing those at times with FastCAD as well.

I would follow up on what Richard mentioned in regards to ArchiCAD. I saw a demo of a program in the early 90's that, from what I can remember was called ArchiCAD and was for a Mac. It did look a lot like what Chief would later become. Not really up on the history of ArchiCAD, but it seems like the program I saw was developed in Germany and had a network of small distributors in this country. One clue would be if the program had the capability to do roofs. That did not come along in Chief till later, but the program that I saw did have roofs.

I have been looking into purchasing a new desktop lately myself. Decided to wait till intel gen 5 is out and new hardware is available. Sounds to good to be true, but will wait to check it out anyway.

If you could describe what you are interested in doing with the material list it might make it easier for others to help. You can also use a combination of the Material List and Excel to accomplish things that are not part of Chief's capabilities. Not a big fan of the format of the Material List in general, and that includes the Master List except for a few things. That is why I like to use excel and pivot tables. As mentioned above, there are some excelent tools in the Material List such as Structural Member Reporting that make for a good starting point. If you were really good with Access then that would be another way to go

Very nice project Scott, I am sure it is well deserved. One thing that I might point out is regarding how it would be good to have Xref "Exterenal Refernce" capabilities in Chief. It seems like I posted about this quite a while back in the suggestions forum. I have played around with it a bit when TurboCAD Pro Platinum introduced layer control in there Xref feature set. At the time it was quite buggy do to being new I suppose, so I never got back to checking it out further. The point is that it would be very powerful to have the ability to import other Chief files within a main file while having the ability to control layer display for each imported file. Sounds easy enough to me, but it is not something that is widely available in CAD applications that I know of. One of the advantages of Xrefs is that since they are linked files rather than embeded, they can be updated to reflect any changes in the referenced model. It doesn't help anyone now, but a feature like this would be very helpful for situations like yours. Looks like a good time for me to take another look at TC's Xref features to see how well it is working now. It might be a good way to deal with remodels as well. Another reason why it would be good to have 3DS export of Chief models inclued layer names. Please keep us posted on how you decide to deal with these issues.

I have an HP 500 C that the drive belt went out on. A friend of mine sent me a video that shows in detail how to fix things on HP plotters. The videos are made by a parts supplier where you can get the parts, tools and instructions on fixing your own plotter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhq1IBMiB84 Hopefully this link will get you to one of the videos. Info on the supplier is near the end of the video if I remember correctly.