CAcygrymus Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 On 1/7/2020 at 8:38 AM, lbuttery said: I think $3,000 price scares off some customers I they can get software focused on the job they do they might go for a lower cost why would a landscaper buy Chief? if they don't do new construction or remodels etc break Chief into its 3 or 4 major components - yet continue to offer Premier for those who want it all Lew I tend to agree with this. It would be akin to Adobe's creative suite. If you could not obtain photoshop, or illustrator, without buying the whole bundle, a lot less people would be able to work in just the specific fields that go into publications. Of course Adobe lost me as an upgrader (past CS4) due to the subscription model. I am a fan of perpetual licensing, not so much as a sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAcygrymus Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 On 1/7/2020 at 10:46 AM, TheKitchenAbode said: Personally I would like to see CA offer a monthly subscription program. Forget the annual SSA fee, just charge say $40 per month and be done with it. I think they loose out on potential ongoing revenue as every time their SSA is due for renewal many users evaluate whether or not the new release features are worth the $550 cost. On a monthly subscription fee this yearly evaluation would be eliminated. For new potential users this would eliminate the possible price shock of $3,000, it's just say $95/month. Many software companies have realized that this is the best way to go and now focus their efforts on promoting subscription based services. But isn't that what the "rental" cost (rent to own) is already offering? Perpetual renting has been realized as a better revenue stream, not necessarily what is best for the customers. I feel the rent to own of CA is as things should be. After the program is paid off, one can decide to continue with monthly SSA, which covers those who prefer a sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAcygrymus Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 On 1/12/2020 at 8:39 AM, Richard_Z said: Besides general construction I build custom stairs, custom cabinets and Chief is getting close to let me present my job. At last I'll be able to show cabinet interior without workarounds. But I have hard time to accept new feature as "break stairs" when it can not present it right. All it needs is to be able to move center of rail/baluster to the center of wall it pointing. To make it code compliant without rail on the other side, there is S connector required to upper rail to get it continuous. The video about new features clearly shows the issue and I'm surprised CA let it go. Isn't it all about presentation we are after. To draw construction plans Chief 10 (not X10) was ok. I am glad it is not just me who is frustrated trying to center a stair rail on a wall end. I wonder how hard it would be to simply be able to select a section of rail and be able to numerically shift it in or out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleChief Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, CAcygrymus said: I am glad it is not just me who is frustrated trying to center a stair rail on a wall end. I wonder how hard it would be to simply be able to select a section of rail and be able to numerically shift it in or out? Yeah a railing offset setting would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAcygrymus Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, HumbleChief said: Yeah a railing offset setting would be awesome. A similar issue is attempting to shift a window within a frame (so it can be flush with the exterior, "inset" does not work well). For the person trying to adjust such things it seems like it would be a no brainer to have such settings, and a good head scratcher as to why it is not in the program. But "break stairs" makes this a bit easier to work around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer100 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 On 1/16/2020 at 9:19 AM, CAcygrymus said: But isn't that what the "rental" cost (rent to own) is already offering? Perpetual renting has been realized as a better revenue stream, not necessarily what is best for the customers. I feel the rent to own of CA is as things should be. After the program is paid off, one can decide to continue with monthly SSA, which covers those who prefer a sub. Chief can draft $52.00 month veres paying the $500.00 subscription in one lump sum. That is what I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitchenAbode Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 35 minutes ago, Designer100 said: Chief can draft $52.00 month veres paying the $500.00 subscription in one lump sum. That is what I do. That's something I would be interested in. Did you have to talk with CA directly to make that arrangement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbird1 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 21 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said: That's something I would be interested in. Did you have to talk with CA directly to make that arrangement? They've had the option a while now but I decided to save the 20-22% extra CA charges for "monthly payments" ..... might as well put it on the CC at those rates. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitchenAbode Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, Kbird1 said: They've had the option a while now but I decided to save the 20-22% extra CA charges for "monthly payments" ..... might as well put it on the CC at those rates. M. Thanks Mick, 20% is a lot, could understand them wishing to recover the credit card processing fee but that's a bit steep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbird1 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 58 minutes ago, CAcygrymus said: Yes, that is what I have been fiddling with. Unfortunately when you adjust the frame width you get to a point where there is no more frame on the inside, and excess on the outside. The "frames" (the actual hardware that the window slides up and down in) on the existing windows of my house are about 1/4 inch beyond the actual window sections. However you cannot get the outer "frame" edge down to 1/4" without losing the entire inner part of the frame, leaving the window sections with a visible gap all around. As Eric mentioned start another Thread with a few Pics and either He , I or someone will have a look , as I am not sure why you "lose the frame on the inside? you do need to make it wider if changing the inset to. You can delete your posts above about this and I will too , to clean up the thread. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renerabbitt Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/16/2020 at 7:27 AM, CAcygrymus said: I wonder how hard it would be to simply be able to select a section of rail and be able to numerically shift it in or out? Per typical CA function, you can simply select a rail section, drag while holding tab to key in a coordinate shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Morrison Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/3/2020 at 11:37 AM, Alaskan_Son said: Totally agree. I’ve heard people argue to the contrary that it’s a regional thing, but it’s not. It’s incorrect. It’s just become normalized in some areas. It’s the slow but certain degradation of the language. It started as Tray, it turned into Trey, and now I’m even seeing Trace in some places. Even worse is when people correct you when you are already correct, such as when you correctly pronounce the French word "forte" (meaning one's strength) as "FORT" and someone says, "don't you mean FOR-tay?" (Forte -- pronounced FOR-tay -- is an Italian word, used primarily in music to mean "loud") No, I don't, and neither do you. They are two separate and distinct words from different languages with different meanings. This is a no-win word. Pronounce it correctly, and some think you are incorrect. Try to be colloquial, and the people who know better think you are poorly educated. So usually I just avoid the word altogether. I'm still not happy with "ray-casted", but at least "casted" was used many centuries ago as a past participle. But it is (or should be) archaic now. Sic transit gloria mundi. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Gia Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 3 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said: Even worse is when people correct you when you are already correct, such as when you correctly pronounce the French word "forte" (meaning one's strength) as "FORT" and someone says, "don't you mean FOR-tay?" (Forte -- pronounced FOR-tay -- is an Italian word, used primarily in music to mean "loud") No, I don't, and neither do you. They are two separate and distinct words from different languages with different meanings. This is a no-win word. Pronounce it correctly, and some think you are incorrect. Try to be colloquial, and the people who know better think you are poorly educated. So usually I just avoid the word altogether. I'm still not happy with "ray-casted", but at least "casted" was used many centuries ago as a past participle. But it is (or should be) archaic now. Sic transit gloria mundi. Born and raised in Montreal I fully endorse this comment. I also get wrongly corrected by fellow Canadians from primarily English speaking regions on how to pronounce French words on a regular basis. Very frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitchenAbode Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Michael_Gia said: Born and raised in Montreal I fully endorse this comment. I also get wrongly corrected by fellow Canadians from primarily English speaking regions on how to pronounce French words on a regular basis. Very frustrating. I bet however you can embarrass them when it comes time to order the wine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Morrison Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 hour ago, dshall said: My point exactly. Try a better dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/forte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbird1 Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 18 minutes ago, Richard_Morrison said: My point exactly. Try a better dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/forte And here I was thinking it was some kind of Kia Vehicle ....... .....just joking..... But I do agree about Ray-Casted ...never thought that was right.... M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now