I have SEVERAL capabilities I'm missing, this is just the basics I can think of without keeping a journal of each time I am frustrated with my CD progress and functionality in the program:
CAD/drafting items (text, dimensions, cad lines, etc) unique to the view WITHOUT requiring a layer set for each view type. It is so much more effort and energy to keep a set and model clean and organized than I have experienced with making construction documents in other programs (with the exception of CAD, it was just as bad with AutoCAD).
Live view links and the controllability that came with those. Specifically, detail, elevation, and section callouts that would either link to a larger scale version of the view OR a drafting view if you specified that. Then you could click that callout and open the drafting view to draft it. If that view moved on the sheet, or to a different sheet, that callout updated with it. No checking or editing every location that view is referenced, it just did it for you. (And as Michael mentioned before, this was all one program)
In that sense - I'm also constantly worried that drafters are deleting information that shouldn't be in one view rather than figuring out what layer it is on and what layer it is supposed to be on. There is so much more risk of accidentally removing information and not catching it, which means higher liability and risk.
on that note as well - why don't views have a detail number unique to it when placed on the sheet? And the possibility to auto generate a view label that is consistent from page to page, with detail number, view name, and view scale already generated?
Phasing of objects. You should just have one model with existing and new items in the same model. Existing items that were to be removed where phased as such and you could set a view to show existing, existing demolished, new, and any combination of those. That way demo to new was extremely easy to show and you knew the dimensions and extents of the demo was accurate. This also meant if an existing dimension was off it was extremely easy to adjust for that change in ONE place. not two (or three, or four, depending on how you document in Chief).
parameters in families/library items to store information that can be scheduled or manipulated. The Specification dialogue box is SIMILAR to this but lacks customization and control that you can get elsewhere.
I think creating customized library items (or families in Revit) is also much much harder in this program than Revit.
.
I primarily used Revit before my current company where we use Chief. (to be fair, I did jump from Commercial to Residential. So my idea of documentation tends to be more detailed than my residential contractors want from me).
My biggest disappointment with Chief so far is that there are a lot of features and capabilities, but you have to know exactly where that one button or setting is. And most of the time it is not where I would expect it. In other words, the user interface is not beginner friendly, and knowledge from other drafting programs (revit, cad, inventor, vectorworks, rhino, 3dsmax....the ones I have experience with) does not transfer well. Of all of those. Chief feels like some frankenstein creation that combines CAD, Sketchup, and Revit and I'm not convinced it picked the best parts of each.
I do think for new construction it does make it quick, easy, and relatively painless to put together a basic design. But as soon as you get into customization, remodeling, and construction documentation it gets drastically more difficult.
