johnny

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.

Id love to see this in action. I spent too many hrs yesterday trying to figure out how to do this in Chief (which I think would have been a much cooler presentation to the City Council), and so I had to revert back to simply preparing 2d drawings - but they got good reviews from people at the meeting. I still think a 3d presentation would have made a huge impact - but this is what I ended up going with... It did only take me about 30 min to draw this up, since I used elements of another project I did recently (yes, I cheated).

Using classes and/or layers (but in VW classes are used primarily for objects on a particular floor, and floors are setup on layers most often) you should be able to "turn off" everything but what text you need. Make sure you are doing this on the layer and not "sheets" (used for printing only). When you go to export from VW, you will have an option to export only what is visible. In Chief, Floor Levels are used as VW uses Layers. In Chief, Layers are used as VW uses Classes. In Chief, "Layout" is used as VW uses Sheets. In Chief, Layersets are used as VW uses Layers/Sheets/Classes in combination. ..and vice-versa

You should be able to export all the text call-outs simply using dwg format. Id personally import into a blank CA file the copy over into your project file from there. There is no question VW "plays with other" apps better than CA - but I do believe CA does a reasonable job.

I recently downloaded one of these fixtures from the Sketchup Warehouse. Keep in mind to make applying different textures (glass, metal, etc) you should separate out the layers in Sketchup before exporting. Many of the models in the warehouse have this done already, but i've found some dont.

It wouldn't be hard to quickly model that in Sketchup - otherwise, this company has their versions of collector heads in the warehouse... Company: http://www.saf.com/persys/?page_id=2409 Download: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=94959956fc9e6aadb04c428dda584601

I take model data from Vectorworks into Chief often - using 3ds format primarily, for "symbol" objects. If you are taking a plan that you intend to draw over in CA, then I would say simply exporting into PDF is your best bet. I know Vectorworks has filters that allow bringing in outside complex model data that it then assigns all those objects into walls/roofs etc - but CA has no such feature that I am aware of. Here is the example going "into" Vectorworks....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWep3flfQ0w (and that video was from 2010, they have really perfected this process since).

Honestly, I had to give up using Chief for this project. When you venture off the beaten path with CA it can be a very lonely place. I'm sure there is a work-around for everything, but I was sitting there trying to edit shapes for a block version (massing model) of the surrounding buildings, and I couldn't get it done with ease using Chief's primitive tools. Admittedly Chief doesn't promote their product for this type of work, but I just love their street and sidewalk tools I thought it might be worthwhile to try.

It doesn't seem like I can change the option for the default view - is there a way?

Is there anyway I can see in a 2d top view the image associated with a terrain area I brought in from Sketchup? Here is a screen image what I mean. This is what I see in the standard 2d top view: This is what I see in the "perspective overview": My issue is I want to draw a quick concept over the image, and I can clearly see the boundary lines (for rough concept) in the image, but can't seem to draw over that area in 2d mode with the image showing. Thanks.

Thanks - perfect.

I am trying to point to point resize an image to get the correct scale, but when I do the image only resizes the direction of the 2 points. Is there anyway to do a point to point resize but constrain the opposite coordinate by %?...so the result is a uniform scale of the image?

Glenn - your suggestion on the line break gave me a perfect idea and solution. Instead of having full wall height profiles like the other part of the house, I can have a single lap siding profile/section and then just add more (single siding) moldings (but same lap design) at customized elevations/intervals. This way I can also hit above the window/door through spacing of the single lap siding profile at the right elevation points. Works like a charm. I will do a video on this, since doing this is amazingly easy. In fact, Chief is better at this by far than Archicad or Vectorworks..... this is beyond cool, and i've experimented with brick edge details and rock edge details combined with texture maps for the face....and the results are awesome. Thank you very much.