Things we take for granted in Chief Architect.

[Michael_Gia]

 

The above is a Revit tutorial on placing garage doors. It would be the same process in Archicad. 

Keep in mind that even after you go through these extra steps you would have quite a bit of adjusting if you were to change the size or placement of your garage door. 

Chief automates this stuff for us. 

Although in Archicad and Revit you have far more precise control over every little detail, in general Chief gets it right for standard residential construction here.  

 

I was curious if any Revit or Archicad users would agree or if you would say that giving up total control over elements outweigh Chief’s automated features?  

 

This is only one example of where Chief is much quicker, intuitive and elegant than these other more powerful softwares. 

[HetrickDesign]

Hi Michael. I'm a current Revit expert user that has taken the time to learn Chief for better efficiency. I totally agree that Revit does give great control over almost everything, but it's much better suited for commercial projects where you are an employee not worried as much about how long your tasks take. When you are self-employed doing residential, efficiency is key if you want to be successful in your business.

 

There were a few large high-end flat-rate projects I worked on last year that had me seriously annoyed with how slow Revit is for residential. First of all, I have spent a TON of time creating my own content (doors, windows, lights, materials, fixtures, ect.) because OOTB there is a tiny selection available. Whatever is available OOTB is crap and more for commercial use. There's a few websites with Revit families online, but it's almost all commercial manufacturers that over-complicate things, or crappy families uploaded from other Revit users that require more work to make correct. Simply put, Revit is just not geared towards residential, especially small business users like us.

 

When I discovered Chief, I realized I could have made so much money instead of spending my time creating residential content because Revit didn't have it already available. I recently completed 2 simple duplex projects in Chief, and I was very excited working in Chief the entire time! Everything is geared towards residential and so much is made to be very efficient.

 

For a simple (Revit) recessed light fixture placed on a sloped ceiling, the 2D symbol wouldn't even show properly on the plans. I had to spend HALF A DAY working on my complex light family so it showed properly when sloped. Don't even bother searching for help online from others because the only responses you get are from users that only know how to do commercial projects, and most likely work for a large corporation that allows them extra time to figure things out. Most responses are like you are talking to a robot, and not helpful at all. With Revit, it feels you are mostly on your own if you work for yourself. ChiefTalk is amazing, and it's full of others like us that help each other out!

 

Now there are plenty of things I love about Revit that I wish Chief would add, such as coordinated detail bubbles, callout details, better keynotes, better graphic overrides, better 3D section boxes, ect. But the speed of Chief makes it so much more worth it for residential projects! I appreciate all of the Chief users on this site sharing their knowledge. The only work I'm doing now that I continue to use Revit with are for my clients that I collaborate with that pay me hourly. Every other project I get from other clients are going to be done in Chief Architect.

[Michael_Gia]

Wow, thanks for the detailed and unbiased response. 

I was hoping I’d hear something along those lines. 

It’s hard to get good answers from users of other software, mainly because they don’t use or know Chief enough to compare. 

I’m always looking over my shoulder to see what others are doing in Revit and Archicad because they do have a lot of great features and functionality that I wish Chief had.  They obviously are not suited for residential, North American style construction and especially for solo practitioners like myself. 

I do learn a lot watching seasoned Revit and Archicad architects draw plans as they are pros and I, as a builder, have a lot to learn from them. 

(I’m not an architect or draftsman)

 

thanks again!

[HumbleChief]

I remember watching this video a couple years ago and hearing the presenter claim just how fast one can get a simple building done in Revit.

 

I never tried to duplicate the feat in Chief but know it would take far less time, by orders of magnitude. There was more than one cool feature but getting the job done was way too complicated for me. That's when my software envy wore off in a big way.

 

 

[HetrickDesign]

40 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

Wow, thanks for the detailed and unbiased response. 

You're welcome!

 

I also tried ArchiCAD as a trial before deciding on Chief. It seemed like a much better version of Revit, but unfortunately not many people in the US use it compared to Revit. It would make it harder for me to find work opportunities when the software selection is a requirement. 

 

Most of my work I consider, and others already have, as being very high quality plans and 3D modeling. I see a ton of very sloppy modeling in Revit from other users, which I blame a little on having to custom model so much instead of having the residential content already available. Most Revit users continue to act like they have "THE BEST" architectural software available, when they have yet to try another. Another thing to consider is the annual updates in Revit are always like 2-3 features that have been years behind the competition, and the other handful are all engineering specific features. What I like about Chief so far is that their annual updates have a good list of new features, because they listen more to their users. Autodesk is such a huge corporation that doesn't care about it's users as much as they do about gobbling up other corporations to take over their competition.

[Richard_Morrison]

13 hours ago, Michael_Gia said:

 

I was curious if any Revit or Archicad users would agree or if you would say that giving up total control over elements outweigh Chief’s automated features?  

 

FWIW, I think it is highly dependent on the specific project. Chief's automation can be a great timesaver, or it can be a major annoyance and a roadblock. For standard residential projects where you don't have split levels or unusual conditions, Chief is going to be much faster. When you get out of the mainstream, then the extra time that I seem to need to get every room to behave correctly in Chief would be better spent just doing the project in ArchiCAD without workarounds. There is much more that can be done with an ArchiCAD model in terms of extracting information, and the layouts are far more flexible. (Not to mention automatically coordinated annotation, renovation filters, etc.) As much as I like the many features of Chief, it irks me no end that after using Chief for twenty years, I still occasionally need to ask for help on getting models to behave. I have never needed to do that in ArchiCAD, even with very complicated and detailed models.

[DavidJPotter]

I looked at a trial version of Revit back when it first came out in 1999. I thought to myself "nice try but no thanks".(I had been using Chief for five years then. I never looked back.

 

DJP

[basketballman]

And possibly the most overlooked Chief feature is the material list that is compiled automatically

 

Chief now gives us the capability of having a cost generated for most all of the building components 

 

Set it up with your own pricing and viola .. !

[Michael_Gia]

5 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

FWIW, I think it is highly dependent on the specific project. Chief's automation can be a great timesaver, or it can be a major annoyance and a roadblock. For standard residential projects where you don't have split levels or unusual conditions, Chief is going to be much faster. When you get out of the mainstream, then the extra time that I seem to need to get every room to behave correctly in Chief would be better spent just doing the project in ArchiCAD without workarounds. There is much more that can be done with an ArchiCAD model in terms of extracting information, and the layouts are far more flexible. (Not to mention automatically coordinated annotation, renovation filters, etc.) As much as I like the many features of Chief, it irks me no end that after using Chief for twenty years, I still occasionally need to ask for help on getting models to behave. I have never needed to do that in ArchiCAD, even with very complicated and detailed models.

Now you have me questioning myself again, Richard. 

I have used Archicad and rent it from time to time. I’ve yet to complete a project in it but have used it to view and dimension large landscaping drawings created by our landscape architect. I build homes, and although I do my own plans for the homes I build, project wide landscaping and structural plans are contracted out. Chief can’t handle those files very well. 

I’ve attempted to build a full model in Archicad and although the model always comes out wonky and missing the detail I can get in Chief, like millwork, room finishing and cabinets, the construction documents in AC are on autopilot, it seems, they’re a breeze. Labeling and dimensioning in AC is also so much easier than in Chief.  The way AC handles floor levels/stories is also very intuitive and when you place something on a given floor it stays there regardless until the end of the project. 

I wish I could build and “decorate” the model in Chief and then send it over to AC for condocs and annotation. 

 

On other hand, I just watched the new X11 bathroom demonstration from Chief and I just know that designing that bathroom in either Archicad or Revit would be an exercise in hair-pulling frustration and the end result would not encourage my clients to sign a contract. And that is the other big reason I use Chief. I don’t use a model home, so I rely on the visualization features of Chief to win contracts. I don’t think there’s a software better suited than Chief for this purpose. 

[Richard_Morrison]

43 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

I wish I could build and “decorate” the model in Chief and then send it over to AC for condocs and annotation. 

You can, and this is often what I do. You generally will have to recreate the model in AC, but tracing over a Chief-generated DWG is pretty fast.

[HumbleChief]

Kinda curious about the first video example. Would it really be that easy to replicate that exact garage condition in Chief? Zero experience in AC or Revit so hard to knock them but for residential homes it seems Chief is aimed squarely at that market and thankfully remain focused on same.

[Michael_Gia]

56 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Kinda curious about the first video example. Would it really be that easy to replicate that exact garage condition in Chief? Zero experience in AC or Revit so hard to knock them but for residential homes it seems Chief is aimed squarely at that market and thankfully remain focused on same.

I think Chief doesn’t build the garage slab out to the exterior of the wall but at least in 3D it seamlessly connects to the foundation wall.  Unless there’s a way to make the garage floor extend out under the garage door for the apron? Unless you have monolithic slab checked. 

[builtright3]

2 hours ago, basketballman said:

And possibly the most overlooked Chief feature is the material list that is compiled automatically

 

Chief now gives us the capability of having a cost generated for most all of the building components 

 

Set it up with your own pricing and viola .. !

Thank you for sharing this! I haven't tried to calculate cost yet using the materials list. Good example!

[TheKitchenAbode]

9 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

for residential homes it seems Chief is aimed squarely at that market and thankfully remain focused on same

 

I really wish to believe this to be true but there are many times when I question this, not from the standpoint of being residentially focused but being focused on being the best one can be. I've been using CA since X1 and it constantly baffles me as to why CA has failed to address so many basic functional issues. It seems to me that they get all excited about some new feature, get it maybe 80% or 90% of the way there and then drop the ball on the last 20%-10%. For some unknown reason they do not seem to realize that it's the last final finishing touches that elevates a program from being good to exceptional. Why in over 10 years can one still not specify the thickness of a basic cabinet box's material? Why can't the cabinets interior finish be defined? Why can't we define a cabinet frame profile for inset cabinets? Why is the soffit tool still no more than a simple box that can't be shaped to conform to anything other than something square? The list goes on and on. The concern is that so many of these annoyances are very basic and fundamental yet these never seem to be addressed. It's an ever more competitive world out there and just being good is not the best place to be.

[Michael_Gia]

14 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

I really wish to believe this to be true but there are many times when I question this, not from the standpoint of being residentially focused but being focused on being the best one can be. I've been using CA since X1 and it constantly baffles me as to why CA has failed to address so many basic functional issues. It seems to me that they get all excited about some new feature, get it maybe 80% or 90% of the way there and then drop the ball on the last 20%-10%. For some unknown reason they do not seem to realize that it's the last final finishing touches that elevates a program from being good to exceptional. Why in over 10 years can one still not specify the thickness of a basic cabinet box's material? Why can't the cabinets interior finish be defined? Why can't we define a cabinet frame profile for inset cabinets? Why is the soffit tool still no more than a simple box that can't be shaped to conform to anything other than something square? The list goes on and on. The concern is that so many of these annoyances are very basic and fundamental yet these never seem to be addressed. It's an ever more competitive world out there and just being good is not the best place to be.

You can do all of that in Chief but you’d have to build your cabinets entirely out of p-solids, soffits and moulding polylines.  Before you laugh, this is pretty much the required energy to achieve the same in Revit or Archicad. 

Thankfully the basic stuff is automated, but like I said, you trade automated features for precision and control over display. 

[builtright3]

59 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

I really wish to believe this to be true but there are many times when I question this, not from the standpoint of being residentially focused but being focused on being the best one can be. I've been using CA since X1 and it constantly baffles me as to why CA has failed to address so many basic functional issues. It seems to me that they get all excited about some new feature, get it maybe 80% or 90% of the way there and then drop the ball on the last 20%-10%. For some unknown reason they do not seem to realize that it's the last final finishing touches that elevates a program from being good to exceptional. Why in over 10 years can one still not specify the thickness of a basic cabinet box's material? Why can't the cabinets interior finish be defined? Why can't we define a cabinet frame profile for inset cabinets? Why is the soffit tool still no more than a simple box that can't be shaped to conform to anything other than something square? The list goes on and on. The concern is that so many of these annoyances are very basic and fundamental yet these never seem to be addressed. It's an ever more competitive world out there and just being good is not the best place to be.

My opinion for what it is worth:

I look at Chief as being the "Jack of all trades and master of none" for this specific reason that you laid out.

You can get very close and generate some beautiful drawings but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of the cabinets for example I have to depend on my cabinet guy to generate the final drawing using a cabinet specific program that you can use to build the cabinets from. Its much easier to do that then to take the time with work arounds in Chief to get exactly what I want.

But this is quite ok with me. With the price point of CA and what it can do is definitely worth it. This is software for a designer not a cabinet builders and it's the concept/design that I'm selling and then to be able to generate the drawings for the city for approval.

At the same time I also agree that it seems as if CA misses some very basic stuff but I'm not a programmer so I don't know what it take to do what they do but I'm happy with the program over all. 

 

I take it back about the master of none statement. I think that was an unfair thing to say because for what the program is designed to do it does it very well! Worth every penny for me.

Edited April 15, 2019 by builtright3
Clarification

[HumbleChief]

6 hours ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

I really wish to believe this to be true but there are many times when I question this, not from the standpoint of being residentially focused but being focused on being the best one can be. I've been using CA since X1 and it constantly baffles me as to why CA has failed to address so many basic functional issues. It seems to me that they get all excited about some new feature, get it maybe 80% or 90% of the way there and then drop the ball on the last 20%-10%. For some unknown reason they do not seem to realize that it's the last final finishing touches that elevates a program from being good to exceptional. Why in over 10 years can one still not specify the thickness of a basic cabinet box's material? Why can't the cabinets interior finish be defined? Why can't we define a cabinet frame profile for inset cabinets? Why is the soffit tool still no more than a simple box that can't be shaped to conform to anything other than something square? The list goes on and on. The concern is that so many of these annoyances are very basic and fundamental yet these never seem to be addressed. It's an ever more competitive world out there and just being good is not the best place to be.

My post was only meant to imply that Chief is aimed at the residential market, and being residentially focused, not that they did a good or bad job with that focus.

 

I've been arguing the points you are making for at least 15 years and think there is simply no good business reason for Chief to become the program we think it should become. "The list goes on and on."

 

Where's the motivation? Where's the ROI? A few users (among thousands that we can't know or perceive of their needs and expertise) moaning on a forum? I TOTALLY get it, don't exactly like it but totally get it.

 

Am still happy they do not seem susceptible to some of the older hews and cries for them to expand in to more commercial building types and that was the intent and reason for the original post.

[AvoyeDesign]

Now I understand why designers I know who use Revit for residential projects charge half my hourly rate and put in twice as many hours on average per project.

 

No thanks.

[TheKitchenAbode]

5 hours ago, Michael_Gia said:

You can do all of that in Chief but you’d have to build your cabinets entirely out of p-solids, soffits and moulding polylines.  Before you laugh, this is pretty much the required energy to achieve the same in Revit or Archicad. 

Thankfully the basic stuff is automated, but like I said, you trade automated features for precision and control over display. 

 

I don't find the fact that some other program can't do it as an excuse for CA not to be able to do it. Competitor weaknesses should be viewed as an opportunity not your baseline. One should not need to utilize p-solids work arounds to compensate for very basic functionality, they should be reserved for one-off situations. I used cabinets as an example but these types of issue are prevalent throughout CA. I use CA for all of my work and will continue to do so, but I do find it disappointing that CA can't figure out a way to clean things up, with a little effort CA could be much more than it currently is.

[jorgearaya]

Quote

On 4/14/2019 at 10:17 AM, Michael_Gia said:

I was curious if any Revit or Archicad users would agree or if you would say that giving up total control over elements outweigh Chief’s automated features?  

 

 

This has been floating around on the web "control over elements" and how some people dislike the fact that in ArchiCAD most elements have a lot of settings that they find cumbersome.

I think it is more because they are lazy and haven't taken the time to "learn" the program, read the manuals, etc. 

When creating company standards, these features are a real plus to any program, where different builders have similar products but not exactly the same, having the ability to control elements, objects and create libraries for each builder is an advantage (favorites in ArchiCAD).

Now, it all depends of what type of work one does, and if you really need to model every bolt and nail to the nearest 100th... If you know what I mean.

For Construction Documents and production work many times it is not required, if you want to design and draw like you build, perhaps going into detail is better

I repeat again, take the time to learn "in depth" what the possibilities are in any platform, you will see that the similarities among them are there and annoying enough to think that they all have the same underlying "engine". 

There's no best (at least imo), which is better? We have seen that debate over the years and it leads nowhere

I think about what is efficient for the type of work presented and choose accordingly. ArchiCAD, Chief Architect, Softplan.

(Revit is not made for residential, even though some are pushing that concept). 

[HetrickDesign]

23 minutes ago, jorgearaya said:

(Revit is not made for residential, even though some are pushing that concept). 

I completely agree with this statement. It really annoys me having to go through all of the "commercial" content clutter trying to find residential stuff. Online Revit forums are almost all commercial users that can't help you out. You have a lot of control over elements, but dang, there's so many clicks involved that makes everything takes a long time. I took the time almost a year ago to learn Chief so I can do some simpler projects (or maybe eventually large complex projects too), and like a lot of the speed it offers. Now I just wish I could combine software features. Maybe someday in the future software will be something you can easily build yourself  Until then, we have to keep pushing our requests to the software developers to keep improving.

[HumbleChief]

16 hours ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

I don't find the fact that some other program can't do it as an excuse for CA not to be able to do it. Competitor weaknesses should be viewed as an opportunity not your baseline. One should not need to utilize p-solids work arounds to compensate for very basic functionality, they should be reserved for one-off situations. I used cabinets as an example but these types of issue are prevalent throughout CA. I use CA for all of my work and will continue to do so, but I do find it disappointing that CA can't figure out a way to clean things up, with a little effort CA could be much more than it currently is.

I usually go back to the proposition that the good people at Chief are making business decisions that sometimes look like lazy programming or the lack of desire to "clean things up." Each user has a personal issue with some aspect of Chief, either the interface, in my case, or the lack of a specific feature for a specific task, or even some lack of functionality that seems like an obvious problem that should be fixed yesterday.

 

But, I'll ask again, why would they fix such things? I think the structure dbx blows but why would they 'fix' or change it? That change most likely represents many 10's of thousands of dollars, likely low to mid six figures, and where's the impetus and/or the ROI to do so? They will sell exactly zero more copies of Chief to new users, will distract from new features that many users may not even use but WILL sell copies of Chief to new users, and satisfy a very few current users who aren't going to change software any way. So why change it? Why change or complete anything? 

 

The software has to function of course but it's the shiny new features that sell new users, not the silly unfinished features that cause current users to flee. Causes us to complain but won't cause us to leave, so there's no real motivation to make changes and "clean things up."

 

If I'm correct about the motivation then it might be reasonable to assume Chief is making good, sound, business decisions, at the cost of creating great software (great in whose eye of course) by "cleaning things up" the little things. 

 

I wish they would, and your point above Graham, is well taken but I just don't see it, again strictly from a business standpoint.

 

X11 was an amazing upgrade but a couple of improvements were worse (in my eyes) and a couple of things seemed unfinished as new features. Will Chief suddenly become a software company that responds to all the little things that need to be cleaned up? Or will they remain focused on new features that sell new seats, keeps them in business, and allows us to keep our selves in business?

[AvoyeDesign]

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

They will sell exactly zero more copies of Chief to new users, will distract from new features that many users may not even use but WILL sell copies of Chief to new users, and satisfy a very few current users who aren't going to change software any way. So why change it? Why change or complete anything? 

The old addage in client relations is that it is easier to retain an existing client than to secure a new one.  This is a delecate balance.  You don't want to sit and do nothing but serve your existing client base, because you may miss new opportunities to expand.  But you don't want to neglect your existing client base to the point they leave in droves.  I think X11 has done just enough to keep people interested for a while...

[BryceEngstrom]

17 hours ago, nVisionTEKBIM said:

I took the time almost a year ago to learn Chief so I can do some simpler projects (or maybe eventually large complex projects too)

 

Chief can absolutely do large, complex, even commercial projects.  I am working on a 23,000 sq.ft. performing arts theatre complex and we are moving into design development and even coordinating heavily with an adjacent parking structure being done in Revit.  I have only ever briefly tried demo versions of Revit and Archicad and was never even remotely enticed to change.  When I sent my first set of design development PDF's over to this other firm for coordination, they looked at them and just assumed they were done in Revit.  We have swapped a few 3d DWG models back and forth, and that's been working fine for coordinatiion.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19SrxsP1iHe4Me6I8OdcrH31Yldq6U1EH/view?usp=sharing

[Jonnoxx]

2 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

I usually go back to the proposition that the good people at Chief are making business decisions that sometimes look like lazy programming or the lack of desire to "clean things up." Each user has a personal issue with some aspect of Chief, either the interface, in my case, or the lack of a specific feature for a specific task, or even some lack of functionality that seems like an obvious problem that should be fixed yesterday. 

...

X11 was an amazing upgrade but a couple of improvements were worse (in my eyes) and a couple of things seemed unfinished as new features.

 

Could not agree more!  My feelings EXACTLY !

 

Building software has a lot in common with "modifying buildings"  The better and more robust the original design conception, the more you can continually modify and adapt it later.  But eventually there comes a stage in EVERY building's life where the design and subsequent modifications - however brilliant they were in the beginning - have outlived their good stuff, and instead become so outdated and "difficult to change" that its a hindrance to future development.

 

At that point, the best option is to bring in the bulldozers. and erase the whole lot.  And start afresh with new ideas from a clean sheet and a fresh plot.  And so the cycle begins again.  By this time you can often do better with a new team of designers, who do not have to be defensive of the past, and can think afresh.  The "old team" too often have run out of steam (fresh ideas and the energy and will to implement them!) and will will too often tend to merely reproduce the "same old, same old" but with a different coat of paint.  It's human nature - nothing wrong with the team per se.  Complacency slips in on every project .  The more successful a project, the more insidiously it creeps in on the future.

 

The solution to product complacency is to anticipate this eventuality and FORCEFULLY plan for REGULAR renewal as a matter of routine.

 

Not too many companies do this.  Or do it properly or aggressively enough.  Or even want to do it.  And the history books are littered with the procrastinators who left it too late.  Both Autocad and ProEngineer were handed their backside by the upstart SOLIDWORKS, and are now fighting a rearguard action to convince the market they still have relevance in the Mechanical CAD field.

 

But there are shining examples of those that get this process right. 

 

Number one in my book is Microsoft, whose continual reinvention of Windows from MS-DOS through Windows, then Windows NT through WIN 7, and now to WIN 10 is the stuff of corporate legend - enduring courage, vision and grit, in the face of huge risks and disastrous execution errors.  But just imagine if Bill Gates had said ...."we made our success on the back of MS-DOS ... no good reason to change now ... that's the platform we're going to stick with.  Microsoft would have become just a footnote in the history books!

 

Other industries where "renewal is a constant that must be embraced" is the defense industry.  There are no 2nd or 3rd prizes for the procrastinators in this field!

 

But I digress ...

 

I think CA is on the right track, but it does seem they're none too keen on contemplating a major UI overhaul.  They need to plan for a major re-write of the software on a regular 10 year-basis.  There STILL needs a LOT more energy put into the UI - especially when it comes to easily and visibly setting out floor and terrain levels.

 

I think it would be helpful to see CA run a constantly visible and publicly updated list on this forum of the following (that any and everybody can contribute to):

1.  The TOP 10 New Features users would like to see (and yes, if some competitor has a better idea or way of doing stuff, then implement that too)

2.  The TOP10 Irritations that users would like fixed ASAP (these are not bugs - but design or ease-of-use flaws that annoy on a regular basis)

3.  The TOP 10 Bugs that need fixing like yesterday.

 

Every year's new release of CA should be based DIRECTLY on the above list.

 

Ahh!  One can but dream of this Nirvana the next time one suffers desk-pounding frustration at the hands of programmers who are far removed from the daily struggles of the actual users!