johnny

Interesting... i would have pushed for just rebuilding the existing wall, or furring the inside instead - but hey, good luck with it.

I just have to ask - is that detail suggesting that the newly framed (furred) wall to contain the pocket actual abruptly ends to the right? When I looked at that detail I couldn't understand why someone would do that. how would that edge be finished?

I have a home I'm working on - modern design - and I'm wanting to use CA. Is there a reason why I couldn't make a wall that was glass and then manually place the frame pieces in where i want/need support etc? I see this as a superior way than trying to mess with windows.

I think the reason they are suggesting this is so the schedule doesn't update automatically (breaking the link). Also, I think they are saying you need to hand input this data...there isn't an automatic feature in getting this done. Im curious why the GC wants it like this....

I swear i've seen a video by someone in making a dome ceiling in CA. I just dont remember by who - maybe even in CA library. FYI - in projects i've had domed ceilings, i've found it more practical to spec out a pre-manufactured system (you can custom size). http://www.archwaysandceilings.com/dome-ceiling/

For $33 its probably worth it to try one and see if it helps you. Although I will say i somewhat agree that SSA should include more services/etc. Right now I can't imagine what someone that already knows CA in-and-out would find useful about SSA.

There is a new "CAD Mouse" coming from 3DConnexion - i'm going to try it cause I do like their other products, but I thought I would share. http://www.3dconnexion.com/

What else would you have other than a jamb with casing? What you have shown is a site built bay window - which would involve installing 3 windows in framed openings. As Alaska mentioned, there are such things as pre-built bay and box windows that are, in themselves, a "window" of sorts. Is that what you want? Such as this from Pella: http://www.pella.com/windows/explore-window-styles/bay-bow.aspx

How about: 1. Make primitive boxes for batts 2. Make trim version primitive to match eave angle 3. Rotate trim primitive to angle desired (eave) 4. copy 5. Trim batts while pasting (hold position) to bring back the trim primitive I just tried it and works fast.

Looking back at your post #42, that looks pretty good - but yes, Vectorworks does all this very well. What doesn't make sense to me is that Chief seems to have the ability to do all this fine, but it just doesnt.

Is that supposed to represent grass or vegetation? I'm all for better drawing tools for CA, but in this case Id say you'd be way better just grabbing some vector art of simple grass that you can import as line work. https://www.google.com/search?q=vector+grass+drawing&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TVdmVa77I9j7oQSp9YLYCw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1995&bih=1369#imgrc=_ I used this type of vector in a recent drawing I did for a detail of grass -

One of the elements of that "look" is typically the windows/doors align to the reveal lines - just FYI.

OK - got it, thanks. I think having that on was messing me up.

I think the OP is looking for something like this - and I dont think CA has it.

I am curious how you guys handles major revisions to plans that have been complete, when as you try to majorly modify plans there are automation processes that interfere with this work. I can go in and delete the foundation/framing/roof etc, but it would be a lot more simple if those items simply stayed put and didn't influence say the floor plan changes. Thanks in advance for the help.

Thanks mthd97 - in fact, I did submit my application with background/references....so I guess we'll see. I realize i've been an out-spoken critic of CA in certain areas, but I also acknowledge is superiority in many ways. Regardless of who they pick, it will be great to have users talking directly with the programers and directors etc in that capacity.

I think Chief needs to get larger to survive personally....since their revenue directly relates to their spending/development budgets - and now that all that apps are so focused on 3D things will become more competitive. I think there is no good reason why CA doesn't tweak itself slightly to encompass better support for light commercial projects. I have a 5 story condo project I am working on right now and I started my massing models in VW, but am debating to try Chief or just stay in VW. I honestly feel a personal demonstration of Chief to a residential architect/designer would net a 50%+ purchase rate. Chief should be using a 3rd party sales team to get their product into more hands.

You're probably been using Vectorworks mostly in 2d - is that correct? Vectorworks is growing rapidly in the 3D world which then makes its overall package very appealing since its 2D is so strong. That said, if your focus is residential then nothing i've found for 3D modeling as strong as Chief. Though I might be its harshest critic, I recognize this app as the best at what it does. It just brings some frustration that how good this app is in 3D can't be matched in what to me seems simpler 2D and even 3D shape modeling (ie Sketchup). Add to that an unintuitive method of approach for so many items and it can get frustrating.

If you got the impression I was presenting my opinion as if it should be relied upon face value as fact then my apologies - its not what I meant. Its just for causal conversation. When I look at Vectorworks and Revit marketing materials (including their forums) they strike me very differently than the marketing coming from CA. In fact, here are articles that makes the distinction I am referring to: http://www.cadalyst.com/aec/bim-goes-residential-aec-insight-column-3746 http://www.cadalyst.com/aec/chief-architect-95-fills-niche-2480 I do believe its safe to say with generalization that Chief has leaned more to builders and DIY markets in their past. However, like some have noted, in my area builders are doing less and less of their own "plan drawing" and are relying on Architects/Designers for this work. In fact, I'll go one step further and say that there are apps for less than $10 (tablet based) that do as much as a DIY-ers want to do considering how much more difficult permitting is getting in most areas. I believe this is in stark contrast to when Chief was focusing on these apps in the late 90's into 2000's.

How is relating a personal experience or thoughts something that needs to be backed-up by proof? That seems like an odd thing to be asked to prove. I think we've established in previous threads that is seems Chief's primary customers are (1) DIY and (2) Builders...as seen in CA marketing programs. Unless Chief were to release documents or other things we aren't asking for, I am not sure how to "prove" this as a fact but this made up a very small portion of my comments. If you re-read my comment on the AIA meeting, it was that I did mention Chief and the reception of that comment was one of bewilderment. How you are getting to a point of suggesting they would feel lesser of me is a bit odd. Of course the value of that statement is in how (in a generalized way) architects don't view CA as a professional tool - and that should be well known by everyone here. I dont have "proof" of this statement, but Id be surprised if its questioned. Further, are you suggesting that you are never asked what software you use by your clients? I am constantly asked this question for some reason.

Nicinus pinpoints a whole different problem Chief has and that is perception. In all honesty, even when clients ask what software I use I dont say Chief Architect since I dont want them to think I'm using an app designed for DIY. One time at a AIA meeting the discussion of software came up and I mentioned CA and those architects looked at me like I was talking about MS paint. I knew about CA for years but myself dismissed it until I ran into Scotts video's on youtube when i was looking for information dealing with Sketchup. We've had other thread discussions on this, and if I was Chief I would look at rebranding their professional app....since I dont see how they can shake that perception now. I tend to agree about your other point, permitting is getting to a complexity where builders are wisely handing more and more off to professionals. This being Chiefs primary customer, that can't be good news - but I see in Doug's comments that Chief is starting to at least look outside their own box now. Doug wasn't making comments like he is now a couple years ago ... so that is very nice to see.

Curious you think Revit is harder to learn. I have a copy of Revit in my office and i've only lightly played with it. I've found Chief the hardest app i've come across to learn. Again, not in simple things, but in more complex modeling instances.

The million dollar question for Chief is will it get better at these things before other apps start to improve in residential design and impede on Chief's claim to fame..?

Another thing is the line edges. CA has rounded edges and Vectorworks has square line edges.

I think thats done this way since the points are really how topos are made from the surveyor (as I know you know)....or this is how you would go get data on the topo if you shot point in yourself. The fact CA doesn't have points (its fine to have both) is the disconnect between how its really done vs CA automation. I suppose you could do both. I think if you scan in a topo drawing the points are easier as well (IMO).