HumbleChief

Tried again in the framing overview and it worked again. 

http://screencast.com/t/brpudeSOm

BUT it does NOT work when building the structure as in your video.

http://screencast.com/t/2fNoK7c9Lr

Anyway thanks again and I'll stop highjacking this thread

Scott ,as usual a great video. I'll (try to) remember those techniques.

Here's a bad video perhaps showing how to get just the plywood to show? Not sure it answers your question but seems to.

http://screencast.com/t/UVxTzDjd

Sluggish compared to X6 but no crashes.

Yes of course Glenn, once you understand all the technicalities that you just illustrated it makes perfect sense. But here's my point. When you select an object in Chief you have, in many or most cases, the opportunity to set the height of that object through a dialog box. A positive number raises the object and a negative number lowers that object, in the Z axis. When I select the Terrain I would like the same opportunity to raise or lower the terrain with a similar thought process.

I don't want to have to remember the secret handshake involving thinking about the pad height as zero and all the other thought processes involved that you so clearly outline.

It's absolutely making my point. I select the terrain, I want it 8" below the finished floor 1 (we assume is 0") - give me freakin dbx that I can enter -8" in then it behaves like every other dbx for every other object.

I understand the way it is set up now but the implementation adds to Chief's complexity to have an object, in this case a terrain, that behaves differently than every other object. Why should we need to remember all the needed complexities? Click the terrain set its height  - done.

I came from Corel Draw and do/did indeed find Chief's methods quite different from mainstream apps and also agree with your point. I was making a different point about apps seeming 'quick and easy' which none are until you have many many hours under your belt - no matter the app.

Larry,

 

Check your Foundation Defaults.  How thick is the Footing?

Also, make sure you have a defined terrain.

Joe, You are always so quick with help and you don't know how much I appreciate your help but in this case I'm not asking for help, I'm just trying to answer your original question about why there's so many questions posted here. For me it's the shear complicated nature of the software and the bizarre (to my way of thinking) method by which Chief defines floor structures etc.

I always get it figured out but MANY times I'll bail out and finish detailing by hand as the structure is overwhelming to figure out. Am I the only one? Maybe one of the few on this forum but among Chief's many users? I'll bet there are a lot of us out there.

Got it figured out (as far as i'm willing to take it) but took more than an hour for me, on the simplest of plans. I usually don't continue past a certain point because time is running out and I need that section/elevation so I just finish by hand. I feel a bit embarrassed by my lack of skills but there you have it - and i just don'r get it.

BUT, I'm not going anywhere and I love Chief in so many ways it's just that Chief's way of thinking does not fit my brain so good and I'll leave it at that.

I'll continue the saga, perhaps for my own benefit, but it may help answer the original question of why there's so many questions.

http://screencast.com/t/jNJzZbx0M5zi

Here's an example of my experience with the structure dbx. I know it's user error. I know I set something up incorrectly and will start over and will eventually get it right. Frustrating little picture with arcane letters and stuff and I should understand but I don't.

I don't want to post the plan. I don't want it fixed. I want to understand the crazy thing.

http://screencast.com/t/3vr5JViYnxu

Larry,

 

There's some logic to the "Top Down" approach, but the implementation is flawed.

Agreed Joe. I just think it's awkward and very unintuitive. Still stumps me after 15 years and that's not really an easy thing to admit, but it's true.

Doug

With VCAD I have "construct extend" which will connect tow lines, "Construct break" , "Construct divide" which will divide a line into user dertermined no of segments, Weld which will weld two or more lines, It is quick and easy to use.

Ron.  

I would suggest that it is "quick and easy to use" because you have learned the skills required. Chief is quick and easy to use for me because I learned to use the skills required. I'm not saying Chief shouldn't change/improve I'm just saying that the skills a user has learned in one program doesn't automatically make it "quick and easy to use". As a matter of fact, for this user, having control like you described in VCAD would be very off putting and way way over-complicated, only for this user. But that's why there's an ass for every seat.

Another CRAZY making paradigm. Terrains. I change the building pad height from 4" to 12" and the Terrain gets LOWER. Of course it should and I understand there's some engineering logic to this but I want to click the terrain and make it higher or lower the same way everything else works in Chief.

When I enter 12" in the dbx I want it 12" high and when I type in 4" I want it 8" lower - like every single other parameter in Chief. My floor is at 0". I want my terrain -8" lower - to do so I enter +8" - really?

So I have to change my way of thinking for this one item in Chief and begin thinking a larger number lowers the terrain and smaller number raises it. NOTHING like the structure tab where a higher number raises the room and a lower number lowers the floor (and every other item in Chief).

There could be no better example than that simple terrain dbx to illustrate the 'programming' that goes into Chief versus the user and their experience with Chief. I work all day raising and lowering items in Chief using + to raise and - to lower but when I get to the Terrain dbx I have to think differently. Why?

Doug,

 

There are pros and cons about Chief's Room/Floor approach:

 

1.  We normally think of building from the bottom up.  Chief violates this thought pattern by making the room/floor elevations work from the top down (floor elevations below are governed by the rooms above.

2.  When dealing with split levels Chief's approach can mean that overlapping rooms can sometimes result in confusing ceiling heights, etc.

3.  The Foundation Level continues Chief's "Room" concept which is weird, especially for Slab Foundations.

 

I also don't like the "Platform" approach that some other software Apps use because it tends to fix the platforms somewhat independently of the rooms.

 

IMO, the ideal would be a "Bottom-Up" approach controlled by individual Rooms (beginning of course with the 1st Floor) and forcing rooms above to be high enough so that they are above any lower floor room that they overlap plus of course the floor structure (as defined in the Room dbx).  This approach allows for the design of spaces (rooms) in 3D as a volumetric method.  This would be a very drastic revision to Chief's spacial concept but if properly implemented would work much better for most users.

 

The details of this concept would require a lot of careful study - but basically it would be like placing 3D Rooms (including Floor, Wall & Ceiling enclosures) in 3D Space where they normally could not intrude upon each other.  Forcing one to intrude on another would require an adjustment to one space or the other.

 

It's really a totally different way of thinking but it's what most designers do.

Joe, good job stating some of the problems with the structure dbx more clearly. It seems like you 'get it' and I so much respect that and your skills but my brain really hates to work within dbx's that go against my nature or logic defying paradigms like working from the top down. I adapt but I'm not alone in my confusion and Chief needs to take a real hard look at some of its long held beliefs and working structure.

It must be true that someone thought that working from the top down was a good idea because it fit the software programming methodology, but what about the user's methodology? Where was the engineer who said, "But wait, in real life we don't build from the top down why would we insist the program build from the top down?" If that question wasn't asked then why not? And if that question was asked, what was the answer?

The answer to that question IMO is at the heart of some of Chief's biggest disconnects between its programmers and its users. All I can figure is that the programmers simply do not use the software for home design. What other possible explanation could there be? Let's build from the top down should NEVER have been an option in the minds of the programmers IMO. But here we sit. I've adapted as best as I can but still struggle with similar approaches to home design.

Funny you should post that Ed and I was heading over here to remind Chief users that you build a house and set room heights from the top down - really. I've had that sage advice from many who might also 'get it' but I'm very much like you - I simply don't get it. I build a house from the ground up but the software engineers have decided we can/should adapt to something that is fundamentally backwards instead of hiding that arcane coding and presenting a formula that fits real world building practices.

"OK Chief it's time to take notice. We don't get it. I don't get it. I live with it. I just don't get it. There are many that just don't get it."

Very very true. So what's missing? I think we're missing some true interactions between the devs and the users. There's some light over at the X7 forum about stairs and someone actually asking about what the users might want but this is 2015 and that's the first time I've seen a request like that - other than a request from a programmer asking about how slabs are built - obviously having absolutely NO building experience but I digress.

So I also live with it. Wonder every day where the approach came from, but I live with it.

I think the software just doesn't think how I think, it's really not intuitive for me. Right now I am swimming in mud trying to understand floor heights/defaults/basements/foundations. This might be because I'm in the UK and we build slightly differently and call some things by different names, but you know, a picture would sometimes save 1000 words...

 

The documentation is very poor. I always look at the manual first but it's so basic it rarely helps. I simply don't know what CA means in its dialogue boxes, for example, "floor under this room". Floor could mean another storey or it could mean a built floor? "Floor" has more than one meaning, so it's confusing.

 

There's no live help. I would pay for the ability to instantly have some guru take over my screen and he could just click away as he talked me through it. Probably only take 10 minutes, job done. But when I need help NOW, I simply can't wait for a group online tutorial in two weeks or wade through countless videos hoping my precise problem might be covered.

 

Time is money and searching, reading watching, trying - often fruitlessly - costs me a tonne.

 

Also, the old forum seemed to have a lot more useful history, I rarely find anything useful in the new one and then end up going to the older one - more time wasted.

 

It's not like I'm completely stupid. I'm educated to post-graduate level and measured as top 1% of graduates in verbal critical reasoning (i.e. understanding stuff).

 

Once you know how with CA it's OK, but stepping out of your/CA's comfort zone is frequently a costly nightmare.

 

Sorry if this sounds negative, but this should be a mature product by now and I'm having a bad CA day today and have projects piling up!

Haven't posted to this thread but have read it and find myself agreeing with the above post as well. I've said many times that my brain doesn't work the way Chief is designed and I know there's nothing I can do about it. I don't think of myself as a stupid person or slow minded but when I use Chief I feel really really dumb. I find myself in the same predicament as the poster above when I need to solve something. I search and search and the forum helps a lot but it seems I shouldn't have to 'ask so many questions' of a software.

That blasted 'structure' tab with that stupid little picture and 9 fields to fill with numbers representing something to a software engineer but absolutely nothing to me and the way I think. I've been using Chief for 15 years and still don't understand that structure hell box. Really, when is there a floor under this freaking room? A slab? No wait it's supplied by the room below? Cryptic and arcane and yet it remains unchanged for years and years and years.

If someone feels like I should just learn the program or post a specific problem then you are missing the point. Why should any user not be able to understand the most basic room building tool in Chief? After 15 years? There's something wrong with that picture. I'll take my share of any problem I face but I've been using software for over 30 years and have NEVER been stumped about basic techniques like I have been with Chief. It's simply built around a software paradigm that does not fit with my way of thinking so I've adjusted my way of thinking to fit Chief.

It's been hard but I get most of the techniques at this stage and understand that software engineers think like software engineers and not like builders or Architects or Designers or Construction Document preparers. 

None of this means I'm looking for other software but I have really quit with the 'suggestions' merry go round and have resigned myself to understanding Chief will evolve the way its designers decide and I will adapt to those design decisions. Until Chief truly understands how people really use its software we will be wed to all the questions that this forum generates.

I draw all my roofs manually... far less problems. 

Same same

You could also use two stacked cabinets.

+1

Way to go Bob. Which technique did you use?

You could start here - https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=timber+frame+chief+architect

I'm suggesting it did matter on my system, and it's just a suggestion, do what you will with it.

Larry, with your Xeon 6 core it should be faster than mine, we also have the same video card. I still say there is something wrong in River City.

I was timing your video, not my system, and it seemed you may have counted a little more quickly in the X7 version of the camera shot - but the rest of the slow downs? Not cool for the users or the programmers. But either way I'm with you, there's trouble in River city, and those little delays really add up and X7 just feels 'sluggish' overall compared to X6.

Did you try emptying the temp cache folder? (type %temp% in the windows search bar and delete everything that's not being used 'skip' the stuff that is) Made a difference in my system - until CA then created huge temp files and the slow downs returned. Tech is on it I'm sure and I hope X7 returned with X6's speed.

Ok here is a short video showing the difference between X6 and X7 for me. All plans are the same so I don't think it's anything in the plan.

http://screencast.com/t/S1TJHBBgh

I got between 4.9 and 5.1 seconds with X6 in your first camera view example and about 5.1 - 5.3 seconds in X7. Couldn't find an appreciable difference when I was using a stop watch - just sayin'. The save delay and camera view delete delay are a niggling pain that I feel with every plan. Ugh. ..and I agree that the difference is noticeable and just drags on the creative juices when using X7.

What is a 'Kudo'? and why would I want one or give one out?

I didn't try Doug's suggestion - here's what I got.

http://screencast.com/t/1hZ1v1laaDBa

Got the same results as Doug. Fast again with All On then back to floor plan set.

I'm not sure what problem the solution is chasing? Can someone explain the problem?