johnny

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).

I think for residential work CA is hands down better than Revit. However, the other main stream apps provide a direct level of control that CA doesn't provide much of. Sure, if you setup the automation just right CA is lightening fast. If you end up trying to constantly sort things out by inputting data fields for CA to interpolate your need, getting one hang-up that process makes you lose all the speed and benefit gained. Here is an example of terrain inside Vectorworks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhPGRMPafuA

Can I ask - did you draw that? So you know, Vectorworks is phenomenal at this type of drawing concept work, and i've found 100x faster - especially when you start saving your 2d blocks of specialty items with custom hand rendering effects. Also, the ability to then colorize quickly with a Wacom makes the whole process very appealing.

The neighborhood wants an architectural stamp??? If the CC&R's dont specifically state that then I am not sure how they can require such a thing....but I do recognize that many owners dont want to start a relationship off poorly with their future neighbors. I've seen neighborhoods which make the architect (or designer) become "pre-approved" to do work inside their community, but i've not seen a HOA require drawings be stamped as a matter of legitimacy.

The main point isn't so much the lines, but when you combine all the aspects of CA that are unique/proprietary, it makes this app a challenge to transition to from other CAD packages. I also use a lot of desktop vector based drawing apps, and I can tell you that between Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw, Vectorworks, AutoCad, etc etc the line creation methods (and overall manipulation) are much more similar to each other than CA is to those main-stream apps. Personally, I dont think the way Chief draws lines is nearly as efficient or easy as "main stream" apps....but that is a personal opinion, and so I can't speak to everyone's opinion. My point would be why make it different unless there is a clear advantage? I've noticed when one app does make some breakthrough (even small) the other apps follow suit. "Push/Pull" was fist introduced to me with Sketchup, and now it seems like all the apps have very similar functionality (or in Vectorworks case they even used the same naming convention). CA could bring a lot of familiarity in basic tool-sets which I think would help the perception it has as an unintuitive/complicated app.

Yeah, I was vague - sorry. I suggest making 2d shapes (meaning menus and input) more similar to other apps would make new users get up to speed a bit faster with basics. I also think that should carry over to simple (primitive) 3D modeling in a way similar to Sketchup. That way Chief can focus on their object oriented tools, and if someone gets stuck, they can always model or draw in a more familiar way to get a job done. If Chief could do 2d and basic 3d this way, people like me could let my draftsman and partner do what they can in 3d objects but know they have the ability to finish a project in CA using common tools etc. This is how I learned Vectorworks from Autocad. I didn't know everything about Vectorworks modeling, but I was able to rely on 2D and basic 3d tools to get jobs out the door ...and slowly I was able to learn how to use more complex toolsets. We were able to go from Autocad to Vectorworks in a couple days.

Very well put. You nail my personally feelings on it as well. I was schooled and trained in lines/angles/shapes/form/perspectives/scale etc to produce working drawings - lines and fills to denote objects and structure. Chief is objects/settings/menus/methods/sequence etc to make lines/angles/shapes/form/perspectives/scale etc. The way Chief does it is fine and probably a good way to design using BIM like process, and I am sure new designers/architects will be better trained for this transition in the future. However, I think there are many ways Chief can make this transition more friendly and intuitive. I fully get that once you get to a certain ability level in this app, it all makes sense. Its just the getting there that can be challenging when you are having to do this in a real work environment.

There isnt a way for me to defend or argue someone's preference - so I shouldn't even try. I would say my greater point is the fact Chief's method doesn't come naturally to people transitioning from other apps. There are some things which Chief does so well, its worthwhile to learn.....so I personally agree Chief should do what it does, how it does it, in those instances. However, there are things which probably make no, or little, difference to users - perhaps like lines (as an example we've come upon). If Chief simply used the common line making methods of most CAD apps, it would bring it just that much closer to being more user friendly for those transitioning from other apps. Another point to bring up (as it effected my office), we had 4 people who didn't know Chief well - but wanted to start to integrate this app for real production drawings. Our learning of CA would happen gradually, and sometimes to complete projects within deadlines, drawing lines was all we needed for our 2D building plan sets. We could use Chief modeling for a majority of the items, but if we needed to say place lines on the drawings to make them readable in their final form....until the time came we could properly model. Due to the uniqueness of nearly all the features in CA, it made things harder than they needed to be IMO....and I am the only one left in our small office working in CA. The others quit. We all know CA is the best app out there for modeling residential projects - yet its also one of the least used. There has to be reasons for this, and I feel one of them is this.

Chief is laced with mode entering or having to draw certain items in certain views or the functionality (even simple rotation) doesn't work. For me, I have to hire outside help for many of my projects, and those people are coming from main-stream apps which don't have this type of behavior. All these proprietary methods makes Chief very difficult to pickup for new users. Even my partner, who is an architect in his 70's was able to quickly learn and operate Vectorworks after spending most his life from graphite/vellum to AutoCad (+ Sketchup) - but to this day is completely lost trying to use CA, and now refuses. From a position of knowing CA inside and out, perhaps the "mode" method to lines/poly is as-good. However, I bet if you took 1000 architects/designers who use other apps and asked how they "thought" Chief would go about making a poly and editing lines, I bet 100% of them would NOT (assume) it would require entering a mode. If this was Chief's only particularity, it wouldn't be bad. Unfortunately, this is just one of many. Having used Chief Architect and Vectorworks/AutoCad/Sketchup I can tell you I feel drawing in Chief isn't even on the same scale to the other apps. As an example in this case, in Vectorworks I can have multiple free forming lines and then "lift" any poly I want from any section of those intersecting lines....leaving the lines in tact.

I agree with this. Chief is the most un-intuitive app i've ever spent money on. Taking the "lines" connecting issue that Doug mentions is actually a fairly good example. In most apps i've used, lines don't connect unless you want them to connect by operation or specific poly tool - or even if you start to create lines that turn into poly shapes (like in Autocad) you have instant control over individual lines or ploy creation. In Chief, they have a line tool that automatically connects (regardless if you are drawing contiguously or individually) unless you are in a "mode" so you can then draw or modify individual lines. Instead of having a line tool and poly tool, Chief seeks to place you in an overall mode where you have to track being in or out of said mode. Even if this was somehow logical to Chief (which I think its not), the fact most apps don't operate this way causes an unfamiliar orientation to occur - and yet Chief gains no real efficiency in their approach... you still have 2 buttons to do 2 different things. Pointless and illogical method IMO. ...but there are many examples like this.

Honestly, how hard it be to have those "stretch lines" displayed temporarily on the object so they graphically relate to what you are working on and trying to do? Those planes could get very confusing on certain items. Although, intelligent "smart" sections are starting to show up in CAD apps which will greatly move past "stretch-zones"..... I think this is a very interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN-V9IRJzRI

I was just going to point that out. Hard to imagine that Chief, being a 3d app, finds it easier to explain logic inside their own app using someone else program (and a simple box)..........irony.

I believe this is coming from users like myself, who have other apps to complete work in and see just how efficient and user friendly those apps are and wonder why Chief has to be so "quirky" and difficult in some areas. Dont get me wrong, Chief has a lot of features surrounding residential that makes it worthwhile....and I would say there are are key features in Chief which make this app the best of what it does at certain things. To me, Chief tackles many complex issues with ease, but often makes easy issues complex for little reason. Hopefully the complaints will bring some action - which is the only real reason I keep up my mantra. I've seen many "live" web-streams (or adlib sessions) of training for different apps. It always amazes me how quickly Chief pros get caught in some quirk they sometimes can't get themselves out of during their presentation. I watched one such video last year where a "chief pro" (I think Dan) couldn't properly rotate and place a simple poly-solid and had to simply move on without being able to fix - all the while saying over and over it worked fine before. That is exactly the kind of thing I run into time-and-time again, and it gets old quick. Its actually one of the reasons I like Scotts videos, since he may be tied up on something, but he will pause the recording - figure it out - and then come back to explain the fix.

I would place these 2 factors in as well: 1. I have to say, there are a ton of videos available by Chief, but I believe they've been poorly categorized, and the overall composition of training isn't done well. Chief should look at Lynda.com and try to modify their training videos and segments to resemble what I believe is a job well done by them. I actually have found it easier to find videos at Chieftutor.com than what Chief itself offers. Here is an example of Lynda.com (courses): http://www.lynda.com/Vectorworks-tutorials/Up-Running-Vectorworks/166507-2.html 2. Most drawing apps i've used have similarities between themselves in basic drawing and modeling tools. Chief unabashedly has gone in near complete opposite directions to where, I believe, they've ended up with an unintuitive application in many regards...especially basic tool-sets. Just the other day I went to create an otherwise easy blocked out version of a building shape (for a surrounding building to a project I was working on), and I simply couldn't do it. Further, there is limited support found on basic modeling shapes and manipulation (or that I could find). I believe this nature of this application tries to be "simple" but ends up being user-unfriendly.