Joe_Carrick

Why We Have So Many Questions On These Forums

Recommended Posts

.........and I am the only one left in our small office working in CA........

 

Congratulations,  I think you have decided to bite the bullet and make it work for you.  If you stick with it,  you will have no regrets.

 

And Johnny,  keep posting,   I love to listen to your insight in regards to the areas that CA can improve upon.  I think  CA is listening more now than in the past and your input is invaluable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny,

 

Your explanation is pretty vague, so it's almost impossible to know what problems you encountered and what you couldn't get modeled adequately.  Perhaps if you could be specific we could help.  I know that I use some techniques for details that make it possible for me to create a lot of a detail in a CAD window that is dimensionally accurate without actually drawing any lines at all.

 

Of course, I did at one time use Chief's CAD tools to create some CAD Blocks which I have in my Detail Template.  Those things make all the difference since my details are put together in 2D almost exactly as the 3D model is put together in 3D.  Using Chief, there's almost nothing that I need to do in CAD for Plan, Elevation & Section Views.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes new users don't know what terms to search for and therefore don't find it.  Other times they could find it by searching, but so what.  Long time users have the advantage of remembering a topic previously discussed.  New users and less frequent visitors don't have that advantage, so let's share with them and help them. I guess I don't see the big deal.  We all gotta start somewhere.

Maybe new users are just making contact: 

 

Be nice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points. At some point it probably makes sense to create some sort of compatibility mode for editing that mimics the more common methods established by CAD vendors prior to the advent of affordable personal computers. Although, for some coming from a non CAD world our input methods are likely to be more intuitive as they tend to follow techniques pioneered by Apple and other late comers to the interactive input of lines into a computer.

When I redid the editing engine for X1, I considered the ramifications of doing this. At the time it seemed like the design of our editing engine was amenable to supporting other editing techniques, although it would require a great deal of testing and tweaking to make sure that nothing is lost.

 

As we get more and more people using Chief that are coming from the OtherCAD world having a compatibility mode is becoming more important to ease the transition. At the same time we don't want to force this on anyone who is used to and likes our current editing methods.

Good point Doug and an interesting perspective.

 

Chief's appeal is broad.

 

My interest is narrow.

 

What I need is good documentation to get a building licence. (Our rent is paid by building not drawing)

 

I like the other features and I use then.

 

At the end of the day I need to get a building licence.

 

Sometimes if not more times the other features are what get sales over the line.

 

So therein lies the complication.

 

So just get on with it. 'Oh'. And don't get it wrong. (smile)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Scott & Perry.  I use very little CAD, even for details.  I do/did use it for Layout Templates and of course for Text Objects.  For me, Chief's CAD Tools work fine.  In fact I don't even remember how the older stuff worked and I don't care.

 

I can accomplish anything I want with Chief's CAD Tools and the only thing I really need is for CA to get Multi-line Labels & Ruby attributes for everything, Stairs, Railings, 3D editing improvements, and the 5000 other things on their list fixed by XX.  ;):P:rolleyes::wub:

I'm with you Joe. I want my plans to get a building licence. To get a building licence my plans need documentation. Labels, macros & ruby will take us to document heaven ( well maybe not document heaven -- but to a nice place!!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the software just doesn't think how I think, it's really not intuitive for me. Right now I am swimming in mud trying to understand floor heights/defaults/basements/foundations. This might be because I'm in the UK and we build slightly differently and call some things by different names, but you know, a picture would sometimes save 1000 words...

 

The documentation is very poor. I always look at the manual first but it's so basic it rarely helps. I simply don't know what CA means in its dialogue boxes, for example, "floor under this room". Floor could mean another storey or it could mean a built floor? "Floor" has more than one meaning, so it's confusing.

 

There's no live help. I would pay for the ability to instantly have some guru take over my screen and he could just click away as he talked me through it. Probably only take 10 minutes, job done. But when I need help NOW, I simply can't wait for a group online tutorial in two weeks or wade through countless videos hoping my precise problem might be covered.

 

Time is money and searching, reading watching, trying - often fruitlessly - costs me a tonne.

 

Also, the old forum seemed to have a lot more useful history, I rarely find anything useful in the new one and then end up going to the older one - more time wasted.

 

It's not like I'm completely stupid. I'm educated to post-graduate level and measured as top 1% of graduates in verbal critical reasoning (i.e. understanding stuff).

 

Once you know how with CA it's OK, but stepping out of your/CA's comfort zone is frequently a costly nightmare.

 

Sorry if this sounds negative, but this should be a mature product by now and I'm having a bad CA day today and have projects piling up!

Haven't posted to this thread but have read it and find myself agreeing with the above post as well. I've said many times that my brain doesn't work the way Chief is designed and I know there's nothing I can do about it. I don't think of myself as a stupid person or slow minded but when I use Chief I feel really really dumb. I find myself in the same predicament as the poster above when I need to solve something. I search and search and the forum helps a lot but it seems I shouldn't have to 'ask so many questions' of a software.

 

That blasted 'structure' tab with that stupid little picture and 9 fields to fill with numbers representing something to a software engineer but absolutely nothing to me and the way I think. I've been using Chief for 15 years and still don't understand that structure hell box. Really, when is there a floor under this freaking room? A slab? No wait it's supplied by the room below? Cryptic and arcane and yet it remains unchanged for years and years and years.

 

If someone feels like I should just learn the program or post a specific problem then you are missing the point. Why should any user not be able to understand the most basic room building tool in Chief? After 15 years? There's something wrong with that picture. I'll take my share of any problem I face but I've been using software for over 30 years and have NEVER been stumped about basic techniques like I have been with Chief. It's simply built around a software paradigm that does not fit with my way of thinking so I've adjusted my way of thinking to fit Chief.

 

It's been hard but I get most of the techniques at this stage and understand that software engineers think like software engineers and not like builders or Architects or Designers or Construction Document preparers. 

 

None of this means I'm looking for other software but I have really quit with the 'suggestions' merry go round and have resigned myself to understanding Chief will evolve the way its designers decide and I will adapt to those design decisions. Until Chief truly understands how people really use its software we will be wed to all the questions that this forum generates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the structure panel is confusing. I think this stems from the room centric way that Chief defines platform heights. Which is not the way many of us think about how a house is constructed. When I think of a house I think of the platform that supports a floor. Whether that be a slab or a framed platform.

 

The design of Chief derives the platform from information about the heights of each room. Which allows for a lot of control, but requires thinking about things differently.

 

This is complicated by the need to think 3 dimensionally about what is going on. Which is hard to do when the rules about how the dialog effect the model are not obvious.

 

I know that we can do a lot better and we should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't posted to this thread but have read it and find myself agreeing with the above post as well. I've said many times that my brain doesn't work the way Chief is designed and I know there's nothing I can do about it. I don't think of myself as a stupid person or slow minded but when I use Chief I feel really really dumb. I find myself in the same predicament as the poster above when I need to solve something. I search and search and the forum helps a lot but it seems I shouldn't have to 'ask so many questions' of a software.

 

That blasted 'structure' tab with that stupid little picture and 9 fields to fill with numbers representing something to a software engineer but absolutely nothing to me and the way I think. I've been using Chief for 15 years and still don't understand that structure hell box. Really, when is there a floor under this freaking room? A slab? No wait it's supplied by the room below? Cryptic and arcane and yet it remains unchanged for years and years and years.

 

If someone feels like I should just learn the program or post a specific problem then you are missing the point. Why should any user not be able to understand the most basic room building tool in Chief? After 15 years? There's something wrong with that picture. I'll take my share of any problem I face but I've been using software for over 30 years and have NEVER been stumped about basic techniques like I have been with Chief. It's simply built around a software paradigm that does not fit with my way of thinking so I've adjusted my way of thinking to fit Chief.

 

It's been hard but I get most of the techniques at this stage and understand that software engineers think like software engineers and not like builders or Architects or Designers or Construction Document preparers. 

 

None of this means I'm looking for other software but I have really quit with the 'suggestions' merry go round and have resigned myself to understanding Chief will evolve the way its designers decide and I will adapt to those design decisions. Until Chief truly understands how people really use its software we will be wed to all the questions that this forum generates.

Is there anyone out there?

 

Does anyone one understand?

 

Can someone explain the mysteries of 'floor platforms' (never built one in my life)

 

Slab under this room. 'Sounds useful until you try to use it.'. ( I build slabs all the time.)

 

OK Chief it's time to take notice. We don't get it. I don't get it. I live with it. I just don't get it.

 

There are many that just don't get it. 

 

There is one consistent in this and that is we are all (probably most) trying to prepare construction documents.

 

Please === It's about construction documents.  It's really quite simple but unfortunately made complicated.

 

There is no great mystery about what happens on site.

 

Here is my rant! 

  1. Construction start from the ground up.
  2. Footings.
  3. Floor - can be a slab or framed.
  4. Walls.
  5. Ceiling.
  6. Floor structure for floor above.
  7. Ceiling for this room.
  8. Roof.
  9. You do all this but it is not intuitive. Worse it seems like a conspiracy to complicate and confound.
  10. Ok this software has to consider other issues like a constructed room as opposed to a room being built..
  11. That is a software engineer issue not a designer issue.
  12. This software should respond to a designer and a designers intellect.
  13. The software is sound. it's solid' it's great. But not from a designers perspective.
  14. What is also required is an international perspective.
  15. There are many pressures that come to bear. New features. improved features. Probably the most basic feature is to make Chief attractive to a designers mindset. 
  16. The clue to dysfunction is the massive oversupply of work around. 
  17. Solution is to let me build my footings and slab. Construct my walls. Build a ceiling with framing. Put floor on top. Build a ceiling. Build a roof.
  18. I know we can already do that! ...Wrong! Yes   It's possible to do that. Quite different.
  19. Yes we can do these things now. But not easily and not intuitively. When the floor platform above is responsible for the ceiling below that is OK if you are familiar with (who can remember which) dbx and completely understand ( code for the last time you had to interact with the dbx). It is not intuitive and I fully support the views of the poster quoted and of the many view put forward by Chief users who struggle with this issue.
  20. By nature designers are image centric. The new feature with active layers is a fantastic example of what appeals to a designer. Instant feed back about choices that affect the model. (with this feature I immediately understood the relationship of wall main layer and eaves. (might be obvious to all you Chief Engineers.) All the words use in describing how eaves are generated from a relationship between roof and walls are almost meaningless compared to a visual..
  21. For example: A slab on ground. Masonry wall. Top Plate. (chief calls it a sill plate) It is not easy to get a sill plate where it needs to be. It does have to be there for the ceiling and roof framing and it affect the ridge height. Get this wrong and the materials list is wrong. (sorry Chief but your own words are - build the model correctly to have an accurate materials list.) We need more help here.
  22. Lets not forget the curb. What a mind twister that is along with stem walls and the myriad adjustment options available from multiple dbx's

 

End of rant.

 

I could easily draw this in cad. Draw in  parametric not so easy. The value of parametric is if a wall is moved all other building components are updated. What a wonderful promise. The way forward is parametric. there is no going back. The big promise of parametric was construction drawings. Nice to have ray-tracing etc but not at the expense of construction drawings.

 

 

end of second rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes will have to use the "Auto Detail" a lot of times to fix up those slabs in section view especially if they are combo raised to slab conditions. Anything other than very basic needs cleaning up but can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

There are pros and cons about Chief's Room/Floor approach:

 

1.  We normally think of building from the bottom up.  Chief violates this thought pattern by making the room/floor elevations work from the top down (floor elevations below are governed by the rooms above.

2.  When dealing with split levels Chief's approach can mean that overlapping rooms can sometimes result in confusing ceiling heights, etc.

3.  The Foundation Level continues Chief's "Room" concept which is weird, especially for Slab Foundations.

 

I also don't like the "Platform" approach that some other software Apps use because it tends to fix the platforms somewhat independently of the rooms.

 

IMO, the ideal would be a "Bottom-Up" approach controlled by individual Rooms (beginning of course with the 1st Floor) and forcing rooms above to be high enough so that they are above any lower floor room that they overlap plus of course the floor structure (as defined in the Room dbx).  This approach allows for the design of spaces (rooms) in 3D as a volumetric method.  This would be a very drastic revision to Chief's spacial concept but if properly implemented would work much better for most users.

 

The details of this concept would require a lot of careful study - but basically it would be like placing 3D Rooms (including Floor, Wall & Ceiling enclosures) in 3D Space where they normally could not intrude upon each other.  Forcing one to intrude on another would require an adjustment to one space or the other.

 

It's really a totally different way of thinking but it's what most designers do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should post that Ed and I was heading over here to remind Chief users that you build a house and set room heights from the top down - really. I've had that sage advice from many who might also 'get it' but I'm very much like you - I simply don't get it. I build a house from the ground up but the software engineers have decided we can/should adapt to something that is fundamentally backwards instead of hiding that arcane coding and presenting a formula that fits real world building practices.

 

"OK Chief it's time to take notice. We don't get it. I don't get it. I live with it. I just don't get it. There are many that just don't get it."

 

Very very true. So what's missing? I think we're missing some true interactions between the devs and the users. There's some light over at the X7 forum about stairs and someone actually asking about what the users might want but this is 2015 and that's the first time I've seen a request like that - other than a request from a programmer asking about how slabs are built - obviously having absolutely NO building experience but I digress.

 

So I also live with it. Wonder every day where the approach came from, but I live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

There are pros and cons about Chief's Room/Floor approach:

 

1.  We normally think of building from the bottom up.  Chief violates this thought pattern by making the room/floor elevations work from the top down (floor elevations below are governed by the rooms above.

2.  When dealing with split levels Chief's approach can mean that overlapping rooms can sometimes result in confusing ceiling heights, etc.

3.  The Foundation Level continues Chief's "Room" concept which is weird, especially for Slab Foundations.

 

I also don't like the "Platform" approach that some other software Apps use because it tends to fix the platforms somewhat independently of the rooms.

 

IMO, the ideal would be a "Bottom-Up" approach controlled by individual Rooms (beginning of course with the 1st Floor) and forcing rooms above to be high enough so that they are above any lower floor room that they overlap plus of course the floor structure (as defined in the Room dbx).  This approach allows for the design of spaces (rooms) in 3D as a volumetric method.  This would be a very drastic revision to Chief's spacial concept but if properly implemented would work much better for most users.

 

The details of this concept would require a lot of careful study - but basically it would be like placing 3D Rooms (including Floor, Wall & Ceiling enclosures) in 3D Space where they normally could not intrude upon each other.  Forcing one to intrude on another would require an adjustment to one space or the other.

 

It's really a totally different way of thinking but it's what most designers do.

Joe, good job stating some of the problems with the structure dbx more clearly. It seems like you 'get it' and I so much respect that and your skills but my brain really hates to work within dbx's that go against my nature or logic defying paradigms like working from the top down. I adapt but I'm not alone in my confusion and Chief needs to take a real hard look at some of its long held beliefs and working structure.

 

It must be true that someone thought that working from the top down was a good idea because it fit the software programming methodology, but what about the user's methodology? Where was the engineer who said, "But wait, in real life we don't build from the top down why would we insist the program build from the top down?" If that question wasn't asked then why not? And if that question was asked, what was the answer?

 

The answer to that question IMO is at the heart of some of Chief's biggest disconnects between its programmers and its users. All I can figure is that the programmers simply do not use the software for home design. What other possible explanation could there be? Let's build from the top down should NEVER have been an option in the minds of the programmers IMO. But here we sit. I've adapted as best as I can but still struggle with similar approaches to home design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another CRAZY making paradigm. Terrains. I change the building pad height from 4" to 12" and the Terrain gets LOWER. Of course it should and I understand there's some engineering logic to this but I want to click the terrain and make it higher or lower the same way everything else works in Chief.

 

When I enter 12" in the dbx I want it 12" high and when I type in 4" I want it 8" lower - like every single other parameter in Chief. My floor is at 0". I want my terrain -8" lower - to do so I enter +8" - really?

 

So I have to change my way of thinking for this one item in Chief and begin thinking a larger number lowers the terrain and smaller number raises it. NOTHING like the structure tab where a higher number raises the room and a lower number lowers the floor (and every other item in Chief).

 

There could be no better example than that simple terrain dbx to illustrate the 'programming' that goes into Chief versus the user and their experience with Chief. I work all day raising and lowering items in Chief using + to raise and - to lower but when I get to the Terrain dbx I have to think differently. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,

 

There's some logic to the "Top Down" approach, but the implementation is flawed.

 

Basically, if you start with 1 floor (10' ceiling height), arrange the rooms, etc and then add a second floor with a 12" floor structure everything stacks fine and the second floor is at +11'.

Then you start laying out walls on the second floor - everything is still fine.

Then you decide that one room on the second floor should be at +8'

 

  This is where the room pushes the room(s) below it down to only 8' ceiling height.  If this second floor room doesn't directly stack above a single room below then all of the rooms below that it overlaps will be totally lowered to an 8' ceiling height.  Ideally (IMO) only the area directly below the second floor room should be effected.  That would require Chief to add some "Room Divider" walls on the 1st Floor.  It's not something that couldn't be done - Chief already adds "Attic Walls" when it thinks they are needed.

 

Currently we have to add those "Room Divider Wall" ourselves in order to have more than one ceiling height in a Room.  I think that Chief's current Top-Down concept makes sense but it needs to be smarter - or at least provide a message about what is going to happen (ie:  The following rooms on the 1st Floor will be changed to a ceiling height of 96" as a result of the Floor Elevation in this Room:  Living Room, Hall & Powder Room.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for you feedback Johnny.

 

I do agree that how we draw lines is different than what is traditionally done in CAD programs.

 

I think that there is value in adding a tool that draws lines that won't connect with each other.

 

We continue to attempt to make Chief work better so any holes in the program that you see are things that we want to hear about.

 

Again thank you for your feedback. It is the interaction with and response to our customers to improve the program that has made Chief as good as it is and will continue to make it better in versions to come.

Doug

With VCAD I have "construct extend" which will connect tow lines, "Construct break" , "Construct divide" which will divide a line into user dertermined no of segments, Weld which will weld two or more lines, It is quick and easy to use.

Ron.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug

With VCAD I have "construct extend" which will connect tow lines, "Construct break" , "Construct divide" which will divide a line into user dertermined no of segments, Weld which will weld two or more lines, It is quick and easy to use.

Ron.  

I would suggest that it is "quick and easy to use" because you have learned the skills required. Chief is quick and easy to use for me because I learned to use the skills required. I'm not saying Chief shouldn't change/improve I'm just saying that the skills a user has learned in one program doesn't automatically make it "quick and easy to use". As a matter of fact, for this user, having control like you described in VCAD would be very off putting and way way over-complicated, only for this user. But that's why there's an ass for every seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,

 

There's some logic to the "Top Down" approach, but the implementation is flawed.

Agreed Joe. I just think it's awkward and very unintuitive. Still stumps me after 15 years and that's not really an easy thing to admit, but it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pretty new user and won't even pretend to understand the software the way some of you guys do, but I sometimes feel Chief seems to have a bit of an 'identity crisis' or growing up pains. The room concept, as opposed to basing levels on platforms like most other cad tools, seems based on an initial ambition of just creating interiors or very limited designs that then has been expanded to cope with all sorts of situations. The discussion on whether to start with footings or top down also seems very dependent on whether your history is that of a builder, architect or drafter. Some people think and design the way you physically construct a house, and others how the different spaces interact with each other and prefers to have a much looser design sequence.

 

Chief, which to me is a very particular tool just like perhaps Sketchup, seems to be driven by a few individuals' vision and I'm personally still trying to figure out what that vision is, as once you understand that you will also have a good pointer on where it will be in the future. I'm sure that just like the rest of us they develop and change their view on things, and I'm also sure they, just like we wonder about things, are now scratching their heads on how to implement some functionality that wasn't even on the radar when the skeleton of Chief was created. I don't know the history of Chief, and I don't know who's the driving force behind it, but many software tools need a reboot every decade or so, mostly because programming or gui paradigms change and the code just is too old to adapt or too inefficient to cope with new graphics advances, etc. A sign of this is probably when the software starts to become slow due to all stacked implementations of things.

 

Perhaps a great stair tools implementation and some other loose ends the next two years, and then a massive rehaul/optimization for X10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of my experience with the structure dbx. I know it's user error. I know I set something up incorrectly and will start over and will eventually get it right. Frustrating little picture with arcane letters and stuff and I should understand but I don't.

 

I don't want to post the plan. I don't want it fixed. I want to understand the crazy thing.

 

http://screencast.com/t/3vr5JViYnxu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult for me to say chief Engineers doesn’t know how chiefs tools work, And sometimes feel the contrary when I see people asking questions (can chief do….?) or suggesting a lot of things that they feel should be fixed or added as a new feature, and the ca staffer’s answer is mostly seen to be some open ended statements, clearly showing that they can not exactly tell how to do it. While the problem is easy pissy as scott would say directly using chief’s tools or needs a little tweak to solve it.

I can say it has been a long time that they realized they have produced software that is much smarter than its founder’s intended scope or the engineers themselves. That is why they took the apparently obvious procedures to answer the questions asked regarding the ability of ca. Which is first wait, if some user would solve it and if there couldn’t happen that some power chiefer comes up with an answer that satisfies the op, then after some defined waiting time is when they respond. Most likely telling us it will be done in the future developments…or it is a bit difficult to do it know, since it needs full cycle redone and blab la bla. It has been almost a couple of years I understood chief could be the most wanted software in the world and having some unseen powers that could boost the software, if given attention by Ca Company. I have been signaling this, expressing chief as mysterious software. That is even difficult for their engineers to comprehend. By saying this it doesn’t mean to offend, but rather a compliment that their product is extra ordinary power full program(if program basics reworked and full scale analysis made) compared to other cad applications.

I have no doubt they would be happy if the number of users abruptly increase. By providing many of the converts easy transitions, obviously we now most of us were using at least AUTOCAD before trying chief and would learn chief easily if there was similarity of its tools with known cad software interface. I am strong ca defender when it comes to the critics that are usually seen coming without knowing how to use it. Regarding chiefs cad tools I believe there is nothing that autocad does and chief cannot do, but it does it differently. And this part(CAD CONFIG) was the potential area at least chief should adopt the cad interface so that any one that uses autocad and just give a glance to chief would be easily convinced that it has the Autocad+++++ benefits to him.

The reason why chief is not went through dramatic changes in my thought is that probably there are strong parts of the chief program that are still not understood by the variety of personalities that are manipulating the core program scripts. I can dare to say chief was complete and much powerful in the ART(advanced relational technology) era to do the things we want. And much of the things we use now have firmly set foundations in earlier versions. For instance we use to draw stairs in the 10th version of chief and had internally(automatically) rails that follow stairs. Therefore making independently drawn railings to follow stairs is nice addition but not core change. We have seen a lot of things like the helli-coil type smooth curved railings were there in the art era, while it was being suggested for years to fix and ca couldn’t do that. i have been playing with the current capability of chief simply because I have seen a lot of things that raised my expectations from the software unseen powers, hopping it can do a lot more. At least it solved few problems that were not seen to be there. And other users used to do useful things and it continued for years by some long time users using some words like “what works, works” and “work-around”. I say chief needs independent researches to be done parallel to your process that I thing is functioning much lesser than it should. Sorry to say this but I see ca in a big magnifier and shows me it is the most wanted tool.

If someone posts some odd thing and says ‘ I did this in chief” and you can’t tell exactly how it is done or say yes or no, then accept what me and others comment about your team and its process. We sometimes get emotional and might have said things that you may not like about you, but you have to know our ultimate goal is to see ca on top of others.

No matter how hard it was to learn, for myself I can do what I want. But ca should think of the customers it would get if some of the tools have compatible interface with other cad systems. Finally the most important point is, that I suggest chief could be more powerful than its current status if some program parts redone.

 I like chief!!!

thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,

 

Check your Foundation Defaults.  How thick is the Footing?

Also, make sure you have a defined terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it figured out (as far as i'm willing to take it) but took more than an hour for me, on the simplest of plans. I usually don't continue past a certain point because time is running out and I need that section/elevation so I just finish by hand. I feel a bit embarrassed by my lack of skills but there you have it - and i just don'r get it.

 

BUT, I'm not going anywhere and I love Chief in so many ways it's just that Chief's way of thinking does not fit my brain so good and I'll leave it at that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,

 

Check your Foundation Defaults.  How thick is the Footing?

Also, make sure you have a defined terrain.

Joe, You are always so quick with help and you don't know how much I appreciate your help but in this case I'm not asking for help, I'm just trying to answer your original question about why there's so many questions posted here. For me it's the shear complicated nature of the software and the bizarre (to my way of thinking) method by which Chief defines floor structures etc.

 

I always get it figured out but MANY times I'll bail out and finish detailing by hand as the structure is overwhelming to figure out. Am I the only one? Maybe one of the few on this forum but among Chief's many users? I'll bet there are a lot of us out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that it is "quick and easy to use" because you have learned the skills required. Chief is quick and easy to use for me because I learned to use the skills required. I'm not saying Chief shouldn't change/improve I'm just saying that the skills a user has learned in one program doesn't automatically make it "quick and easy to use". As a matter of fact, for this user, having control like you described in VCAD would be very off putting and way way over-complicated, only for this user. But that's why there's an ass for every seat.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    27853
    Total Members
    6254
    Most Online
    Drab24
    Newest Member
    Drab24
    Joined