HumbleChief

I'm also curious about ReVit and ACAD but not curious enough to try them so I'll remain ignorant and see what I can learn from those who actually use the software.

This thread has taken a bizarre turn (hey don't they all) with someone worried about telling someone else that they use Chief Architect and another poster claiming the user base is 'falling away'. Really don't understand why someone would not say they use Chief. My clients don't know anything about design software - nor do they care. They care about results of course, but don't care what I use. Is there really any risk to telling someone you use Chief? I mean real risk, like losing a client, or losing business because of it? Or is there only perceived risk that the fellas at the local AIA meeting will think lesser of you. Really? And NO ONE on this forum knows the extent of Chief's user base and whether or not it's 'falling off' or not - NO ONE. And builders are Chief's primary customer? And when they go who will be left? A supposition simply made up out of whole cloth. NO ONE on this forum knows the make up of Chief's users. Like I said a bizarre turn, in this case with absolutely no basis in fact. It looks very much like we are taking our beliefs and finding a way to bend the facts to match those beliefs instead of learning the facts and changing our beliefs to match the facts. I'm curious about all the above suppositions but until I learn differently I'll remain curious and not make any baseless claims..

Bob, Always smart to do a goggle search. I searched "build terrain icon in chief architect" - came up with this. If 'auto build terrains' is unchecked as soon as you modify a terrain that little icon shows up. And of course your response might be, "But I never changed it to begin with." Computer magic for sure. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/2153-my-build-terrain-icon-shows-up-next-to-my-arrow-cursor-after-building-terrain/

Those things make me nuts. I don't know either. I've seen it before but can't remember how to get rid of it.

Whatever works best for you Jeff. I would be hard pressed to spend $6000 on any software package and very very hesitant no matter the perceived upgrade.

I do a ton of different presentations and some landscape design as well and the plan presentations are not so good. 3D stuff is very good for my uses and clients are always wowed. For example just love those trees that VW can do. Making me hungry..Yeah we should meet for lunch and I play really bad golf too. Been to Twin Oaks quite a few times. Stupid busy right now and will work through the weekend to try and catch up but let's make some time.

I think Chief's terrain tools are probably pretty good but I much much prefer Vector Work's ability to create stunning presentations with trees symbols that look - er stunning. For my business presentations are everything and I work very hard with Chief's OOB tools to achieve nice looking results. Would be nice to have more VW type tools.

I agree it's the little things like the inconsistent behaviors that can make one crazy using Chief. Not sure if it's a bug or like you say a deal breaker, but it is a bother.

Does this help? It's how I do it. http://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-02208/

I set up my cabinets with a cherry finish and set it to default with the little plus icon thingy. I then set another cabinet with Oak finish off to the side of my plan. I select the oak cabinet and click the little plus thingy and nothing happens. I've seen a video (which I can't now find to save my life) and read the knowledge base where all the cabinets should change to the new Oak cabs after selecting them as the new default but nothing happens. Stumped. Any help appreciated.

Just a reminder. I get so used to closing Chief and just clicking the save box for every plan that's open but it DOESN'T always ask to save. I've had it happen 4 or 5 times since owning the program but Ctrl 'S' will always be your friend when you're feeling lazy.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.