johnny

Im suggesting the two are integrated. A modern GUI should also fix a lot of the work-arounds. If i was talking about only a visual issue only I would cry BS on myself. Here is a link for "good design" elements - https://www.vitsoe.com/rw/about/good-design

Vectorworks is about 3k for the Architect version. However, if you buy SSA you can buy most the apps we are talking about for roughly the same price on a yearly basis. Not to mention there are many other aspects to advertising and overhead which are different. Efficiency should always be weight against costs. It cheaper for me to buy software for 6k if it makes up for that differential in efficiency. Modern usable GUI doesn't cost a lot to implement - but I agree with Doug that its a resource decision on a future release. CA's UI (functionality) has gotten so old I believe its become an impediment which should be addressed. It would also motivate those with older versions of CA to upgrade to current version. Right now unless these minor improvement features in cabinet etc are worth it, who needs to upgrade or buy SSA?

I dont know how hard it would be to get in CA, but here is a video showing Vectorworks "object properties" pallet and how it works - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrS7cWHhikg&list=PLiLCoe7DU1HYNYeFLC3R1C-C7JshE_a0G&index=9 I think one of the most powerful features of that tool is the ability to select more than one object and the pallet displays only the "common" modifiable elements. In Vectorworks there is a powerful "select only" tool that allows very customized selections across layers/classes and then to be able to edit their properties with this pallet is truly a time saver.

Id be careful to "plug-n-play" details into a drawing set. If I were you Id look at code requirements and compare with your actual conditions. I've worked on some projects where I called for metal flashing across the entire side of a home that had extreme exposure (waterfront). Flip side you dont want to add details that could cost your clients extra and have the builder say "if your designer/architect didn't unnecessarily call for xyz it would be cheaper".... Just advice....

I agree....thankfully that does work. However, why the heck can't those simply tools be incorporated in CA??? There are free to use 3D tools that are browser based 100x better than what CA has for generic modeling of objects. https://clara.io/ CA could actually buy these tools and plug them into their app if they don't have the time to develop. http://www.spatial.com/

A. My "dumping" on CA is my passion to see them improve an otherwise could-be spectacular program. B. Autodesk is the industry leader by focusing on GUI first....you nearly prove my point. I honestly believe my critique of CA is what is truly holding this app back. Like it or not, CA is an app selling to persons of STRONG DESIGN background who want their tools to be designed well - look and function. The last thing you should be doing as a company selling to such design professionals is making them work in an antiquated environment. I even want to "feel" cool when I am designing a home or building..... (maybe too far, but still) Why do you think people spend more money on an Apple phone/tablet/computer? Design and function...

So as not to come off ultra-negative, there are a lot of things CA does very well and better than anyone else. Its just hard to fully appreciate this thru the antiquated approach to get there. I would bet money that if you took 10 architects (with residential specialty) who never used CA, and gave them a personalized demo of CA 7+ would purchase. I would then bet that in less than 1 month 80% of those architects would give negative feedback on the use of CA and the methods to operate this app. Obviously I can't prove this, but I do make this comment anecdotally.

Yeah, it wasn't to say some out there dont use these features at the fore-front of their work. In an ideal app I suppose the ability to do it all would be great. What I am trying to point out is CA seems to be foregoing major work on fundamentals in speeding up and simplifying processes for more eye candy. I think Doug's comment speaks to the issue of resources. Perhaps CA doesn't think they will sell an upgrade that only deals with GUI. Personally speaking I can say this would be more important to me than much of their improvements. Is - Framing/Stairs/Layout Updates more or less important than GUI?? To me, GUI should be fixed before adding more features....otherwise you will make work harder down the road. CA needs to be revamped into a modern app. Next, I would say revamping modeling basic shapes should come before specific tools. CA's general modeling abilities are ABHORRENTLY BAD.

Here is the problem with CA - you guys are getting too wrapped up with minutia that translates into a pretty picture....and not spending enough time on what matters most. Virtually nothing you guys do in cabinets is "real"....in that all you are doing is making a client concept that can be sent over to the cabinet guys and then the process starts again when they design working drawings based on the concepts. Seriously, unless some of you (can't be many) are making your own cabinets onsite, many of the features related to cabinets can't be as important as streamlining the GUI or other important issues. These videos CA puts out are nice, but 1 in 20 clients (maybe) do I have to put forth this type of interior concept....and even then they aren't actually asking for it. CA, you guys creating a product that specializes in something that blows the socks off of would-be CAD buyers, but in truth isn't actually needed most the time in the practice of architecture or home design. What CA is getting really good at is more interior design in nature. Oddly, what CA specializing in would probably have more use in commercial work where this type of interior design/detail is packaged with the architecture.

Does anyone know the cost of just a straight upgrade? I let my SSA expire too, but unless CA comes out with an update every year, I dont find much value in SSA beyond that.

My focus wasn't necessarily the ribbon - but eliminating so much the need to enter a dialog box to change nearly any data for an object. I can't think of an app I used regularly post Y2K that requires dialogs to pop-up for nearly all aspects of its function. CA doesn't even allow changing line thickness/color without entering into a dialog box and tabbing to another section of the dialog box to then enter the data. If that isn't archaic I dont know what is. CA operation to change line thickness: 1. Double Click Line. 2. Enter Dialog Box. 3. Click Tab Below for line properties. 4. Select Line Thickness text.* 5. Change Text to new line thickness. 6. Click "OK" (enter). Vectorworks operation to change line thickness: 1. Select line options on menu. (click hold) 2. Scroll to line thickness desired. (release same mouse click above) *Note: I know many people have layers setup so they select the layer properties in place - still an operation, and may even need scrolling. Vectorworks doesn't have a "ribbon" but it does contain some data fields in the upper section as well.

So to be clear, you can't pre-select a layer and "draw" CAD lines on that layer using its attributes? I dont use CA enough to know this off hand, but I dont think i've realized that before. You guys are saying you have to (1) create a 2D shape, and then (2) change layer to = 2D object with custom defined attributes different than what is set for "Current CAD Layer". I thought there was a way to draw on a specific layer (with its attributes) using the "Layer Set" (or whatever it is) option. Maybe I am wrong.

Yeah, Revit and Autocad have it too - heck, MOST apps now have either/or both combination ribbon or floating or dock-able tool-pallets that take the place of dialog boxes. Typically the information changes real-time as you select an object. Here is a screen shot of Revit.

Here is a screenshot of VW. Notice the tool-pallets on the right...those change depending on my selection of objects. In fact, I can change nearly anything without entering a single dialog box. That saves a ton of time.

I agree that looks nice - but part of me was hoping for a new GUI overall. Most cad apps are getting away from entering dialog boxes and extra windows to speed-up processes. Its curious why CA seems to be embracing the old. I hate to be the negative-nancy here, but this app needs a GUI over-haul to bring it into the current century.

Check this site out for great videos on how to do this... http://www.chieftutor.com/ More specifically check this out... http://www.chieftutor.com/scotthall/

If you are adding a dormer to a barreled ceiling, the connection will be in a tear-drop shape - and yes, Chief does this just fine. Id give you more help but I can't understand your sketch.

Yes, there are different ways to physically design the roof over a bay - I really benefited from Jims video - but I am again left with the fact I am sure these sorts of methods exist for many things in CA....and realizing I dont know many. Here is the construction method for Jim's: Here is another way:

^^^^^ THIS! Rarely does a client fully know their specifications at the time of submitting for a permit. Its usually during the time waiting for a permit does a client end up using the plans to develop their interior design. I don't even typically work on interiors - since that work is best done by a good interior designer. The problem is most interior designers aren't using CA so the fact this app is great for furthering the process really means little to me. There are occasions where I am specifically hired to work on interiors - and CA is great. This is when a true BIM would be helpful...especially for reporting/schedules. For whipping out a permit ready plan set (2D) I've found CA to not be as fast as some other apps. I'll agree that if the house you are working on is simple, CA could be faster - but my homes are typically far from "simple", so my guys and I get hung-up in CA nomenclature very quickly.....frustration ensues and I give in to going back to Vectorworks. There is a trend to get BIM more standardized - but they have no real authority over the industry. http://www.nationalbimstandard.org/

Yeah, they have a "post" piece you can use from the header which would solve the issue too - http://www.crlaurence.com/crlapps/showline/default.aspx?GroupID=57389 Personally speaking I think I like the pivot hing option the best visually.

They do make a bottom hinge (pivot hinge) for that door that connects to the threshold, which supports the weight - but I agree its so far missing from any of the drawings. The cost of that piece is much greater than a standard jamb hinge that could be used on the (right) jamb simply reversing the opening direction.

Not to put too fine a point on the issue - but looking at your drawing it appears you have the opening cased in wood/mdf (same with jamb/frame). Did you really want it finished like that for shower ingress/egress? Sorry to divert from question...

Totally agree!! I am amazed that: 1. Chief makes certain residential 3d so simple I'm shocked other apps haven't looked to duplicate, and 2. Chief doesn't seem willing to add functionality in 2D and 3D shape modeling which could make this app truly sing. Both those items make no sense to me - so wife and mistress it is.

I wasn't implying someone couldn't get to that level - just that most won't.

Its not possible* IMO to have Chief be your entire backbone app. for production drawings in a mid/large firm. Its so incredibly weak in 2D and general 3D shape modeling - compared to current generation CAD/BIM apps - that if you can't use one of the object tool-sets CA provides to create something you will often end up using Sketchup or some other app for that component. I compare that to say Vectorworks which CAN be all a firm needs. Glenn and Scott are masters of this app - but most people aren't going to get to their level of knowledge. This app can be quirky, difficult to learn, and un-intuitive. It can also be totally awesome for some projects, and can produce 3d interior/exterior residential models better/faster than any other app. i've seen/used. Its a love-hate-love relationship. It is worth the buy, but I will say it was hard for me to get my other draftsmen to learn CA. You will do yourself a favor watching Scotts process for "fumbling" around to get answers (see his videos) - since learning what not to do is nearly as important as learning what to do. (fyi that is a compliment to Scott) * I obviously know if you kept the spectrum of design down to a point, CA would work for everything - its possible - but I can say that in what I do it would be impossible to have CA handle all our work....and I know many on this forum use other apps to complete work due to CA limitations.