Considering Chief Architect

[ragetoca]

Hello CA users,

My name is Raul, I am a residential designer who manages an architectural department for a semi-custom builder (140 homes a year). We use Autocad Architecture for our house plans (I have been a long time Autodesk user). We are paying $5100 a year for 3 licenses, my frustration is they they have not done any major upgrades or new features in like 12 years, we are definitely moving away because it lacks the tools we need for residential design/ drawing production.

Over the past 2 months, I downloaded demo/ trials of other software platforms: Revit, Archicad, Softplan, vertex, Envisioneer, Vectorworks, and Chief Architect. Out or all of these I liked archicad and CA but heavely leaning towards CA because of the purchase price and the yearly subscription cost, CA seems to be the best option for us.

Now my question is this: Will CA be a good fit for a production builder like us? We build 3 tiers of homes: 1) production/cookie cutter homes in the $200-400's 2) semi-custom homes in the $400-600's and our high end product $600's to over a million dls. We make A LOT OF CHANGES to our houses, we work from a "baseplan" file system and then we create lot specific plans.

The only thing that concerns me a bit is the whole layout / printing process. I wish it was as easy as archicad where the program is building the sheets automatically etc.

Anyways, I would like to hear comments from users who might be in a similar situation as me. Thank you for your time.

Raul T

[Nicinus]

Others will undoubtedly chime in, and I'm honestly a relative new user, but having said that I think you will be very happy with Chief. I've used both Revit and Archicad and although they are both very fine programs, the way Chief is tailored towards the residential market is hard to beat. The historical user profile seems to be builders and building designers so there is ton of tools tailored for all sorts of practical construction intricacies. My hope is that they more directly start to address the one man architect firms, and pinpoint their needs more in the future, which to me seems like a natural market segment to grow into especially now that there is a Mac version. Many like you are looking for the next step from Autocad and if they find Revit to expensive or lacking in residential focus, Chief would in my mind be their best bet.

 

It is probably fair to say that the construction documentation and detailing process is lagging compared to some of the other areas of the program, and since the trend in the industry right now is to offer as photorealistic output as possible, that deficiency may continue for a while before they hopefully put more focus on the quality of printouts. That is not to say that it is bad, but you certainly don't have the amount of control of line weight and hatch patterns, sheet administration, etc as in Revit and Archicad. Well worth some workarounds in my mind though if your focus is residential. Super friendly and helpful forum as well to help you out.

[DavidJPotter]

I have used this software since the mid nineties and taught it to others since 2000. I do remodeling and custom homes. Back in 2005 I had several large home builders as clients which made up over half of my business per year who have since gone on to sell insurance or cars. I remain because of my skill with and love for this software and what it enables me to create and do.

 

Your own love of what you do is more important than what you use to do it with but Chief Architect, its creators and those that use it on a daily basis are a positive, creative group dedicated to helping others to see their dreams come to reality and that is a good group to be associated with.

 

DJP

[chief58]

Raul a simple answer is yes this group is great for getting answers to your questions and the support you get with the SSA not that I use it that much but is great when you need it, then there is chiefexperts site which is very helpful and you get to go on there and review his recorded classes and be a part of his webnairs, I have been using Chief since version 2 doing design build and know in my later years lol I build house on the computer for the younger guys out there building house, in 2000 I worked for a builder doing his plans and as you they did 120-130 house a year and like you cookie cutters with revisions by the client, since 2002 I have been just doing design for builders and customers in my area Pa. and have done work for customers as far away as Florida and California using the network which is a great tool, so the bottom line is go for it I don't you will be sorry

 

JUST MY OPINION

[Gawdzira]

I am a fan of CA and find it an amazing tool for residential. Where you need to evaluate is on your interactivity between users. This software is geared more to a solo operator. I know there are offices that use is for production with multiple seats but it is lacking any file referencing. If your projects tend to be done by individiuals, then it will work great. If you are thinking about having two people interact on the same plan, it could be messy.

 

My Layout sheets are fed by several plan files, existing, proposed, details and sometimes another in rare instances or the end of the project and I need to crank something out fast for a deadline. With this in mind, in a pinch, you could have multiple people working simultaneously once the plan is locked down but would not be a great practice.

[tommy1]

We do remodels and we have 2 to 3 people working on the same plan. We play different roles in the plan. I do the as-built, as in I field measure the job and produce an existing plan. Katy or her sister do the remodel plan. It comes back to me for a layout to the builder for bidding. It comes back to me again for construction drawings. Depending on the Engineer, sometimes I make dwgs of the plans, elevations, sections, etc., and will send them to the Engineer if the Engineer is supplying their own plans and details. We can not be working in the same plan at the same time so we have to communicate with each other when we are working in a plan. It's not a problem because we are used to it. Katy likes to use drop box.

[ragetoca]

Thank you all for the comments, very helpful. We will not have the need to be working on the same plan at the same time. Our goal is to build 200-250 homes starting next year and eventually get to 300 homes a year.

I would like to ask a few more questions:

*What do you think it will be biggest challenge for us? Will it be learning CA or Unlearning Autocad? What/where would be the best place to learn and master CA? (I know it will take time, but I want to start "running" on the right foot).

*Periodically I need to outsource some work (right now I have a hard time finding people who use/own ACA2015, 95% of subs use Vanilla Autocad - not to mention that Autodesk makes it impossible for AEC objects to be compatible with older versions of ACA) - Will CA solve that? Can files be opened in older versions?

*What is the history of CA listening to user's needs and requests? Are their updates significant and helpful?

*Is CA customizable? Can one write our own macros/commands?

Thank you all,

 

Raul T

[Gawdzira]

*What do you think it will be biggest challenge for us? Will it be learning CA or Unlearning Autocad? What/where would be the best place to learn and master CA? (I know it will take time, but I want to start "running" on the right foot).

Both learning and unlearning. Learning will probably be easier. It is very fast to get to a solid intermediate level. I would get private training in the first few weeks. What I did was to work for a day and get then have an hour scheduled to get the questions answered that came up that day. This forum is an exceptional resource. When you ask a question please attach a plan file and any images to clarify. With those at the start of the thread you can generally expect a solution to appear within one hour. Where are you located? If there is someone local who can come in a few times for on site training that would probably be ideal.

*Periodically I need to outsource some work (right now I have a hard time finding people who use/own ACA2015, 95% of subs use Vanilla Autocad - not to mention that Autodesk makes it impossible for AEC objects to be compatible with older versions of ACA) - Will CA solve that? Can files be opened in older versions?

There is no backwards compatibility. But, if there is someone that you are thinking of hiring that does not have the latest version then you might not be hiring the right person.

*What is the history of CA listening to user's needs and requests? Are their updates significant and helpful?

The updates come about once a year (a little less but getting better). There are a constant glut of requests on this forum. Few are answered but some major items do get addressed.

*Is CA customizable? Can one write our own macros/commands?

Very little. The macro capability is very limited right now.

[rlackore]

Learning CA will be your biggest challenge. I had twenty years invested in all flavors of AutoDesk products before being forced to switch to CA, and it was an extremely painful and frustrating transition. AutoCAD Architecture was a horrible Frankenstein monster that didn't fulfill its promise; but even the Architecture product had, at it's core, an extremely powerful, polished, and flexible CAD engine. CA treats CAD like an afterthought; but to be fair, you can't evaluate CA against a dedicated CAD program - it's a completely different animal. REVIT certainly has much better CAD capabilities, but it's not a perfect product either. I think the overwhelming benefit you would receive with REVIT is that it will seem much more familiar to your CAD operators, and it will fit into your established workflow much better.

 

Have you clearly defined what you expect the software to do? Before CA, my office treated 3D as an "additional service" - we charged big money for it: we modeled with SketchUp and rendered with Artlantis. All of our production documents were created with AutoCAD Architectural Suite. As we began transitioning to REVIT, my boss abruptly made the switch to Chief Architect. Everyone rebelled. Most of us still aren't happy. Now, we "give away" the 3D - it's included in our basic contract, with no additional fee, under the pretext that CA does it automatically, so why should we charge extra. You can probably tell that I'm not completely on board with this approach.

 

If you have the budget, and you're used to AutoCAD, I'd stick with REVIT. It's much more prevalent within the industry, and the Tech School grads are all learning it (no one learns Chief in school). If you have young CAD operators and you care about their professional development (and future employment), stick with REVIT. If you want the greatest flexibility in collaborating with other firms and government, go with REVIT. If you use AutoLISP and like it, don't expect similar functionality with CA - it simply isn't possible.

[HumbleChief]

I had an assistant who came from an ACAD world and he had a very difficult time learning Chief's way of doing things. The paradigm is just so different. Not better or worse but very different. It's my personal belief that certain brains get one paradigm over the other as a natural function of that individual's tendency toward a more visual or more literal interpretation of design parameters.

 

For me I lean toward the Sketch Up way of creating, maybe more visual, and Chief can make me nuts at times but nothing near as crazy making as ACAD - again for me and how I learn and create. Even though I might like Sketch Up's way of doing things it is not useful for residential design in my office but Chief is and ACAD simply does not fit my way of thinking.

 

All this is to get around to saying how easy it is to learn Chief and unlearn ACAD - it depends. But one thing I noticed while teaching my assistant was how happy he was when he discovered that Chief was actually better than ACAD at many things relating to residential design. It took a while to learn which direction to approach Chief from but once he got the hang of it he could produce some pretty fine drawings pretty quickly.

 

One more thing, if you do decide to jump, Chief is all about building the 'model' correctly and that's where the skill (and frustration) come in. There's no short cuts and you must pay your dues to get those skills down. Once you do, and you understand the paradigm that is Chief, you're off to the races but plan on being humbled and plan on spending some time here asking for help.

 

That last part about asking for help here on the forum, I think, you will find to be the best 'feature' in all of Chief's tool box.

[HumbleChief]

Interesting perspective Robert. Not sure what I would do if I ran a large firm and had to make the software call. Not the easiest of decisions.

 

Another approach might be to get a copy, with the 30 day money back guarantee and use it for a month. See if it fits. Very interested in your decision.

[DRAWZILLA]

Your just wrong about Chief having no upgrades for many years. If you used Chief you will see that. Every year Chief has added features that simply save drawing time.  Enough said. That alone plus many other improvements is why I stay here and today , you couldn't pay me to change. I think its a case of you just not knowing what they do. Take the time to see for yourself, and learn about all Chief's tools, in depth. You will see.

[ACADuser]

Too bad they don't fix the CAD environment.

There are a lot of little things that bug me too and I'll list them tomorrow. Too busy today.

[ebdesign]

Once you get past the different way Chief does the 2D CAD stuff , your biggest issue will be file management & coordinating details, notes, & schedules that get used repeatedly. The best advice I can offer is to find somebody who uses Chief in a similar environment as yours &/or has set it up in the past & lean on them heavily until not needed. It's important to get this aspect off to a good start, 'cuz changes in file management down the road can get pretty "dizzying" as you add chief models to your collection.

JMO

[ragetoca]

Thanks for the comments - We are going away from Autodesk products, not really interested in Revit, if I ever change to a job that requires Revit I will learn it - my goal is to be productive where I am now but I need real tools that were designed for residential designers. Even if the company I work for chooses not to buy CA I am considering it buying it for my own use, I do side jobs for other builders who are not in direct competition with us.

[lbuttery]

Your just wrong about Chief having no upgrades for many years

 

Perry:

 

who said this ???

 

I know I still have eye issues after my cataract surgery

I've re-read all the posts and don't see anyone saying this about Chief ?

 

Please clarify

 

Lew

[DRAWZILLA]

I read it wrong the first time, sorry Guys.

[DRAWZILLA]

Too bad they don't fix the CAD environment.

There are a lot of little things that bug me too and I'll list them tomorrow. Too busy today.

If I understand you correctly and you are talking about Chief.

Chief is not trying, and doesn't want  to be Acad.  Chief is a 3d program, the only reason for 2d is for details. You don't really need to draw lines anymore, and that's good and getting better all the time. I think the 2 d tools are just fine for what you need them to do unless you are drawing in Chief, lines for everything, which is just wrong for this software. It's a different way of drawing. Can Acad let you draw a complete house in 1 day including sections, elevations, foundation, I don't think so.

[Nicinus]

the only reason for 2d is for details. You don't really need to draw lines anymore

 

I don't find that entirely true though. Many 3D objects starts as a polyline and then get extruded or lofted.

 

The other issue is your statement on details. Don't you ever have to create details, or are you not personally creating the construction docs?

[DRAWZILLA]

I don't find that entirely true though. Many 3D objects starts as a polyline and then get extruded or lofted.

 

I never do that except for a few things, but that's just drawing a line and converting to molding p-line. Don't we already have tools for that?

 

The other issue is your statement on details. Don't you ever have to create details, or are you not personally creating the construction docs?

 

I have thousands of details, I hardly never have to draw any new ones, just modify one I already have. I always create the complete const. and structural  docs, and have been for 40 years.

[ebdesign]

Chief 2DCAD is the ACAD fan's favorite whipping boy. Chief 2DCAD does not work like ACAD for a few things, but everything you need to do in Chief w/ 2DCAD CAN be done &, more often than not, just as efficiently as ACAD. it's just a "different" methodology or sometimes merely a different name/title for the same exact operation that sends the ACAD fan into convulsions.

Chief Architect is a 3D modeling software that uses 2DCAD when necessary. It imports/exports dwgs pretty effortlessly, so you can do what you want in whatever app you prefer.

[rlackore]

 

 

I have thousands of details, I hardly never have to draw any new ones, just modify one I already have. I always create the complete const. and structural  docs, and have been for 40 years.

 

 

Where did those thousands of CAD details come from? Did you create them in Chief? I assert, now having experience in both programs, that if you have to create numerous CAD details you are best served with a dedicated CAD program. I'm not bashing Chief, but I don't see any reason that a program like Chief can't also include better, more robust CAD tools.

[rlackore]

Chief 2DCAD is the ACAD fan's favorite whipping boy.

 

 Yes, I agree. I've done plenty of whipping myself.

 

 

Chief 2DCAD does not work like ACAD...

 

 Again, true - Chief isn't nearly as robust or efficient as ACAD when it comes to 2D CAD.

 

 

everything you need to do in Chief w/ 2DCAD CAN be done &, more often than not, just as efficiently as ACAD. it's just a "different" methodology or sometimes merely a different name/title for the same exact operation that sends the ACAD fan into convulsions.

 

No. I absolutely disagree with this statement. Sure, eventually you can create anything with just a Line Tool, whether you're using Chief or ACAD. But to assert that you can create 2D CAD more efficiently with Chief is absurd. Please don't take this as a personal attack, Jim - it's not - it's just a profound disagreement with your assertion.

[DRAWZILLA]

Where did those thousands of CAD details come from? Did you create them in Chief? I assert, now having experience in both programs, that if you have to create numerous CAD details you are best served with a dedicated CAD program. I'm not bashing Chief, but I don't see any reason that a program like Chief can't also include better, more robust CAD tools.

A lot of them were drawn in cad programs before Chief was invented and just imported into Chief with a little fix-up. I just wish I had chief when I created them, back in the 80's and 90's cad wasn't so good, I consider Chief much better now than the old cad programs. I guess it matters from where you came.

[Nicinus]

Chief 2DCAD is the ACAD fan's favorite whipping boy. Chief 2DCAD does not work like ACAD for a few things, but everything you need to do in Chief w/ 2DCAD CAN be done &, more often than not, just as efficiently as ACAD. it's just a "different" methodology or sometimes merely a different name/title for the same exact operation that sends the ACAD fan into convulsions.

 

Jim, I don't want to escalate the debate and with the risk of sounding arrogant, but the only reason for a statement like this is that you have to have a lack of experience with the alternatives. The way one edit polylines in Chief is very rudimentary and I can't see why we can't ask for improvements without being seen as, for lack of a better word, unpatriotic to Chief. This is not about Autocad, it is about the way splines and lines are edited in almost all other software products.