[ LONG POST ] - I'm a new user, hoping to ask the Chief community if Chief Architect is the best program for my somewhat-unusual use-case. Would greatly appreciate help.

[Ty_Tradeswork]

Hello again everyone, thank you for clicking on my post. It's gonna be pretty long, so I appreciate your time and help;

 

Many of you may remember me. I made a post three years ago that lead to the best discussion experience I've ever had on an online forum. The Chief community is great, and so I return to you all once more for help, now that I have learned more about what I need from a design program, and what my workflow is going to look like.

 

I'm a relatively young independent contractor and graduate engineer. I'm trying to steer my life in a direction that will have me designing and building one-off, small but beautiful homes/cottages for clients.

 

The funding and feasibility of this type of project is beyond the scope of this discussion. Please assume that it's going to happen, even if you feel it's a ridiculous idea. You may very well be right, but my concern at this time is in choosing which Architectural design program would be best.

 

I have put together a Pinterest board to illustrate the type of architecture I'd be aiming for. It's different than what I had in mind in my post from three years ago. It's stuff like this: https://pin.it/2Cau3MUoE

 

I'm aiming for modern cottages. They will be fairly simple from a structural perspective -- I won't be doing any crazy cantilevers or suspended buildings, for example, but will contain some more exotic decorative design elements.

 

These include things like pillars or piers holding half of the building aloft, unique roof designs with large overhangs, large curtain walls, "architectural" or "exotic" exterior wall and roof claddings, and other design elements like rooflines which blend seamlessly with walls. Additionally, the framing of the structure will involve multiple materials, with some walls being ICF, while others are timber-framed, and with a floor assembly maybe involving some steel beams, depending on structural requirements.

 

The buildings would be small, maxing out at around 1500 Sq ft. 

 

Now, the reason for my post is because although I have an educational background in computer-aided design, and am quite familiar with CAD programs like Solidworks, Solidedge, AutoCAD, and even Revit.

 

I've taken about 40-50 hours of guided tutorials on Revit through Udemy. I can now easily handle all the basics, and create finished projects for simple buildings. What I've started to notice, however, both first-hand, and from forum discussions, is that Revit really isn't geared towards residential, timber-framed, highly-architectural construction.

 

I tried my hand at designing a simple wood-framed garden shed, and, compared to building a "normal" building in Revit with the pre-existing wall families, designing this shed on a stud-by-stud basis was like pulling teeth. Wood-framing add-ons exist, but are phenomenally expensive, and heaven forbid you go to change the length of a wall after... That's why I'm considering ArchiCAD.

 

The reason I need to design these buildings on a stud-by-stud level is because I will be the one building them. I have been working as a general contractor and fine craftsman for several years now, and my intention is to build these places myself, with my hands, and my tools. Doing this stud-by-stud level design is my opportunity to plan things out, make sure my joinery works, figure out dimensions and conflicts, etc.

 

Of course, the tasks that are beyond what a single person can do, will be sub-contracted out. The foundation pour, the sceptic install, electrical, plumbing, etc., is all going to be hired out to the respective professionals. Everything else, though, like the framing, roofing, sheathing, etc., will be me. The projects will take several years each. Once again, the feasibility or financial reality of these projects is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

I know that Revit is the "powerful but cumbersome" program. I know that everything IS possible in it, but sometimes at so high of a time-cost, that it simply isn't worth it.. This has lead me to reconsider if Revit is the best program for me, or if there are programs better suited to the style of buildings I want to make.

 

The reason I'm making this new post, is because my workflow has evolved a lot since my post on these forums three years ago. I have a much better sense of the features and abilities that I will need out of a program, and some of the things that may have caused an issue in Chief no longer apply.

 

As far as I can tell, there are five options that may serve me: 1) Revit   2) ArchiCAD    3) Chief Architect    4) Google Sketchup    5) Solidworks

 

What I'm needing from the program is the following:

 

1. The ability to design the entire structural framing of the building on an element-by-element basis. I actually DON'T intend to use Chief's out-of-the-box framing capabilities, unless they really are perfect, and can handle everything I throw at them. That means I need to manually design every stud, every floor joist, every roof rafter, and, most importantly, for these elements to have "mates" or other kinds of relationships, such that if I decided to raise the ceiling in a room, for example, the studs move with it. It would be extremely painful to need to go in and manually change the height of every stud, should I make a change to the layout.
2. The ability to design the joinery and construction details of building elements. That means the birdmouth cuts in the rafters, the miters on the ends of the rafters, and so on.
3. The ability to design the entire building envelope on an element-by-element basis. That means modelling every 4x8 sheet of plywood sheathing on the exterior walls, ever 4x8 panel of drywall on the interior ones, all the floor sheathing, insulation panels, etc. Being able to model detail elements like joist hangers, electrical outlet boxes, etc., would also be fantastic.
4. The ability to model different types of wall and floor assemblies, such as using a few steel beams in a floor assembly if needed, or vertical steel beams for architectural reasons, or a random concrete wall in the middle of the structure, or even slanted wall assemblies.
5. The ability to do some basic landscape modelling. I don't need full terrain mapping or terrain elevations, but at least being able to draw out a stand-in green slab for the ground, and model a basic patio or a driveway would be great.
6. The ability to do some very basic modelling of MEP systems through the use of basic geometric shapes. I do NOT need a full MEP side to the program, but being able to model a basic cylinder passing through my floor assembly as a stand-in for an HVAC duct or something would be very useful. 
7. The ability to generate lots of diagrams and drawings. Elevation views, cross-section views, and, most importantly, construction diagrams of the wall, roof, and floor assemblies, with dimensions and annotations.

 

Based on these needs, and what I've seen of each program, my thinking is as follows:

 

Revit: It can handle them all, but it's extremely cumbersome. I have to place studs and joists by using column and beam families in the structural side of the program, but first I need to manually create all of the different columns and beams I'll need, and then these structural elements don't play well with the architectural side of the program, and, and, and, it's all very cumbersome. 

 

ArchiCAD: This program seems like it could be a good choice, but I'm basing that entirely on this video. This video was where I first learned about ArchiCAD. It seems very similar to Revit, but a bit more intuitive to use, and like it handles element-by-element construction better than Revit. 

 

Chief Architect:  By FAR the best program to use for timber-framed construction, but only if you're keeping to relatively tame suburban design. My old post on this forum generated absolutely fantastic discussion, but the consensus seemed to be that although Chief excels as the framing and diagram part, it can't handle the unique architectural features AT ALL. Even something like a simple slanted wall will completely break it. Now that my intended building designs have gotten a bit more tame compared to the ones I envisioned three years ago, though, I wonder if Chief is now a better choice.

 

Google Sketchup: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sketchup is not a parametric design program, it is a "push and pull" program, more akin to Blender. Quite frankly, I don't know how I would efficiently design a building in this program, if I have to take many steps just to assign a fixed length to a specific beam, for example. Admittedly, though, this is the program I know the least about. My understanding is also that the program does not have a means to create elevation views, or shop drawings, or any kinds of diagrams, without first needing to find or purchase add-on programs to gain this functionality. 

 

Solidworks: This is the program I have the most experience in, with a few hundred hours, and a university course in it. However, it's designed more for mechanical engineering and small parts, and so its workflow of needing to design elements individually as separate files, then save and assemble them manually in an assembly by assigning mates, is extremely time-consuming, and performance-heavy. It also cares a LOT about minutia, spitting out errors and screaming at you if you forget to assign a coordinate origin for a given part, for example.

 

And so that's where I'm at. Five different programs, and no sense of which one would be best for me. 

 

Any help, insight, or suggestions is greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[robdyck]

I think you can do it all in Chief. I think Chief is awesome at framing details, drawing coordination, automation, reporting, etc. and it's only getting better. Let's forget about slanted walls for a moment and assume those will be a rare occurrence. What you'd probably benefit from the most is working with someone to create a customized Chief template that has all the default sets, layer sets, plan views, and camera views that you'd typically use with plenty of thought given to the aesthetic of your experience using Chief.  Then, I think you'd have a completely different view of Chief. When I see Chief being used with the out-of-the-box settings, I don't know how anyone can deal with it, and if I were a new customer searching for software, there's plenty that wouldn't impress me much. But one of the great things about Chief is how you can customize almost every aspect to drastically improve the user experience. You'd be able to customize or 'stylize' Chief to match the architecture you're looking to craft.

But keep in mind that I'm a one trick pony! Over 20 years with Chief and I don't know $#!+ about any of those other programs!

[Gawdzira]

I think your going to be able work out your details and overall project well with CA. The speed of working with the program can be astounding (and sometimes frustrating if you want the model perfect). Very good support system and good enough library that is constantly growing. Also one of the most economical programs with full rendering and construction doc capabilities. I have not checked out Softplan lately but I have heard rumblings that it is pretty damn good too.

 

Your idea of a stud by stud con docs presentation sounds cool on Instagram but the reality is that it is very unlikely to be executed unless you are on the job site 8 hours a day. Making a case for OVE framing and or right sizing of headers, sure. But, even then, unless you have one of those packages with all precut lumber with layout stamped on it (those do exist, at least I saw it on Instagram) you will end up with some level of variation with a custom stick built residence.

 

Below is an image that I had worked up for my engineer to call attention to some critical ridge beams and the load paths as I saw it. This was a guide for him and really quick and easy to come up with in CA. Those are just solids that I placed and moved around. Not perfect since these were visual guides. To me, this is the most important thing. Construction documents are visual guides and instructions, not shop drawings. Also attached is a shop drawing that was easy to produce in CA and highly accurate.

 

On you Pinterest board, a lot of those projects show roof to wall intersections with no overhang. Yeah. It looks cool. I get it. Most of my Architecture profs were very theoretical and conceptual with their work. Gamal El-Zoghby, Raimund Abraham, etc. But, if your insurance/contractor license is following you after the work is done, you might want to work overhangs into the aesthetic.

 

 

 

 

[Ty_Tradeswork]

1 hour ago, Gawdzira said:

I think your going to be able work out your details and overall project well with CA. The speed of working with the program can be astounding (and sometimes frustrating if you want the model perfect). Very good support system and good enough library that is constantly growing. Also one of the most economical programs with full rendering and construction doc capabilities. I have not checked out Softplan lately but I have heard rumblings that it is pretty damn good too.

 

Your idea of a stud by stud con docs presentation sounds cool on Instagram but the reality is that it is very unlikely to be executed unless you are on the job site 8 hours a day. Making a case for OVE framing and or right sizing of headers, sure. But, even then, unless you have one of those packages with all precut lumber with layout stamped on it (those do exist, at least I saw it on Instagram) you will end up with some level of variation with a custom stick built residence.

 

Below is an image that I had worked up for my engineer to call attention to some critical ridge beams and the load paths as I saw it. This was a guide for him and really quick and easy to come up with in CA. Those are just solids that I placed and moved around. Not perfect since these were visual guides. To me, this is the most important thing. Construction documents are visual guides and instructions, not shop drawings. Also attached is a shop drawing that was easy to produce in CA and highly accurate.

 

On you Pinterest board, a lot of those projects show roof to wall intersections with no overhang. Yeah. It looks cool. I get it. Most of my Architecture profs were very theoretical and conceptual with their work. Gamal El-Zoghby, Raimund Abraham, etc. But, if your insurance/contractor license is following you after the work is done, you might want to work overhangs into the aesthetic.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your detailed reply, and the excellent photos!

 

I don't know if you missed a critical line in my original post, but the reason I'm needing stud-by-stud construction docs is because I'm going to be the one doing all the framing and carpentry, by my self, alone. I'm definitely going to be on the job site 8 hours a day, because I'm going to be on the job site 12 hours a day, because I am the job site . Being able to model it all out stick-by-stick allows me to plan my cuts, figure out my geometry, identify any conflicts, all from the comfort of my computer chair, rather than when I'm out standing on the site. I know things will always go sideways, and I will have to modify things on-the-fly, and that's where my actual work experience will come in, but still, the stick-by-stick modelling is crucial for me, unless the program really can spit out framing schedules that are perfect. 

 

And yeah, an excellent point about the overhangs. I live in Canada, and these buildings would have to deal with a lot of snow and rain, so I would never build something that doesn't have overhangs, unless the roof itself is wrapping down the wall somehow. 

 

 

2 hours ago, robdyck said:

I think you can do it all in Chief. I think Chief is awesome at framing details, drawing coordination, automation, reporting, etc. and it's only getting better. Let's forget about slanted walls for a moment and assume those will be a rare occurrence. What you'd probably benefit from the most is working with someone to create a customized Chief template that has all the default sets, layer sets, plan views, and camera views that you'd typically use with plenty of thought given to the aesthetic of your experience using Chief.  Then, I think you'd have a completely different view of Chief. When I see Chief being used with the out-of-the-box settings, I don't know how anyone can deal with it, and if I were a new customer searching for software, there's plenty that wouldn't impress me much. But one of the great things about Chief is how you can customize almost every aspect to drastically improve the user experience. You'd be able to customize or 'stylize' Chief to match the architecture you're looking to craft.

But keep in mind that I'm a one trick pony! Over 20 years with Chief and I don't know $#!+ about any of those other programs!

 

Hey, one-trick pony's still have their place! People with decades of experience are wonderful to talk to about this sort of stuff, because you will be intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the program. 

 

in regards to customized chief templates, I wouldn't know the first thing about how to seek out that kind of help, and I certainly wouldn't be able to afford paying someone to design it for me. If I do go with Chief, I will be going through dozens of hours of guided tutorials from websites like Udemy, and those tutorials typically help you set up a decent workspace in whatever program they're teaching. 

[andypapamarcos]

I recently decided to build a new home and because I have been using Chief Architect for over 20 years for previous home additions, I did all my modeling in CA. I then brought my ideas to an architect, who used REVIT for the construction drawings, and then the build was contracted to a robotic builder who used SketchUp for all the framing models.

I ended up working with all three tools and (from a computer engineer perspective) was able to understand the pros and cons of each which I will summarize here. Also, the timber framing contractor used CADworks and then gave me a 3d model I could import into CA.

 

Chief Architect - the best overall home design tool and especially excels when it comes to views and renderings as well as walk throughs. Many people who looked at the work thought I had already built the house.

 

Revit - very complex and powerful tools for creating wall assemblies, schedules, construction drawings, etc. In terms of the construction details, it did everything 2D that CA did, and more, but took a lot of effort to correctly use even the most basic tools. The 3d rendering capabilities did not come close to CA.

 

SketchUp - even today, I use the 3d sketchup model when I want to know what is inside the walls. It is unparalleled in examining the inside structure of the building especially in how it reacts to a 3d mouse for rotating and zooming. It would be great if Chief Architect would output the framing model to a sketchup file. I have tried some of the export to 3d model stuff but not been able to get it to do what I wanted.

 

If I could only use one tool it would be CA, but the combination of these 4 tools came in handy for the full project.

Good luck!

[Northriver]

4 hours ago, andypapamarcos said:

I recently decided to build a new home and because I have been using Chief Architect for over 20 years for previous home additions, I did all my modeling in CA. I then brought my ideas to an architect, who used REVIT for the construction drawings, and then the build was contracted to a robotic builder who used SketchUp for all the framing models.

I ended up working with all three tools and (from a computer engineer perspective) was able to understand the pros and cons of each which I will summarize here. Also, the timber framing contractor used CADworks and then gave me a 3d model I could import into CA.

 

Chief Architect - the best overall home design tool and especially excels when it comes to views and renderings as well as walk throughs. Many people who looked at the work thought I had already built the house.

 

Revit - very complex and powerful tools for creating wall assemblies, schedules, construction drawings, etc. In terms of the construction details, it did everything 2D that CA did, and more, but took a lot of effort to correctly use even the most basic tools. The 3d rendering capabilities did not come close to CA.

 

SketchUp - even today, I use the 3d sketchup model when I want to know what is inside the walls. It is unparalleled in examining the inside structure of the building especially in how it reacts to a 3d mouse for rotating and zooming. It would be great if Chief Architect would output the framing model to a sketchup file. I have tried some of the export to 3d model stuff but not been able to get it to do what I wanted.

 

If I could only use one tool it would be CA, but the combination of these 4 tools came in handy for the full project.

Good luck!

I use Chief Architect to produce floor plans and construction documents. I use Sketchup with Medeeks wall, truss, foundation, and electrical plugins to produce details. Most of my details are in 3d, I have copied the details workflow from architect Nick Sonders from Truckee, CA. who uses Sketchup in its native form to produce some spectacular mountain vacation homes in Truckee, CA. His work is nothing short of amazing.

[para-CAD]

6 hours ago, Northriver said:

I use Chief Architect to produce floor plans and construction documents. I use Sketchup with Medeeks wall, truss, foundation, and electrical plugins to produce details. Most of my details are in 3d, I have copied the details workflow from architect Nick Sonders from Truckee, CA. who uses Sketchup in its native form to produce some spectacular mountain vacation homes in Truckee, CA. His work is nothing short of amazing.

YESSS!  You are using the same work flow as I am.  Plan views and layout in Chief.  Extremely complex and accurate details in Sketchup Pro with Medeek BIM or sometimes no extensions at all.

 

Larry Belk pointed me in the direction of Nathaniel Wilkerson and Nick Sonders.

 

[mthd97]

Here is a link to a trial version of CAX15 if you haven’t already downloaded it. Give it a try I know many others import objects created in SU. Fine detail 3D framing modeling can probably be done with polyline solids in CA. But those suggestions above sound cool about Medeek BIM. I might also investigate. You will get lots of help from this forum too.

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/

 

Edit: The level of wall framing control in CA is demonstrated in this video below. You can edit framing in elevation too, see the framing play list for more info. But to get down to the connection level of 3D detail, will require work arounds and may also require other apps.

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/501/framing-wall-corners-and-intersections.html

[Ty_Tradeswork]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:58 AM, andypapamarcos said:

I recently decided to build a new home and because I have been using Chief Architect for over 20 years for previous home additions, I did all my modeling in CA. I then brought my ideas to an architect, who used REVIT for the construction drawings, and then the build was contracted to a robotic builder who used SketchUp for all the framing models.

I ended up working with all three tools and (from a computer engineer perspective) was able to understand the pros and cons of each which I will summarize here. Also, the timber framing contractor used CADworks and then gave me a 3d model I could import into CA.

 

Chief Architect - the best overall home design tool and especially excels when it comes to views and renderings as well as walk throughs. Many people who looked at the work thought I had already built the house.

 

Revit - very complex and powerful tools for creating wall assemblies, schedules, construction drawings, etc. In terms of the construction details, it did everything 2D that CA did, and more, but took a lot of effort to correctly use even the most basic tools. The 3d rendering capabilities did not come close to CA.

 

SketchUp - even today, I use the 3d sketchup model when I want to know what is inside the walls. It is unparalleled in examining the inside structure of the building especially in how it reacts to a 3d mouse for rotating and zooming. It would be great if Chief Architect would output the framing model to a sketchup file. I have tried some of the export to 3d model stuff but not been able to get it to do what I wanted.

 

If I could only use one tool it would be CA, but the combination of these 4 tools came in handy for the full project.

Good luck!

 

What a beautiful render! Gosh, the lighting in it is so warm and inviting, it feels like a house from a cute videogame. I like your new house! Especially the beautiful timber-framed vaulted ceilings and exposed rafters. Got any photos of the finished build?

 

I'm not surprised to hear that you use multiple programs. I sorta expect this from most working professionals. Each program covers the weaknesses of the others. Unfortunately, that's just too much mental load to take on all at once. Maybe in a few years I can start using multiple programs, but for right now, I'm already going to be using <Program of choice>, and photoshop, and solidworks, and blender, and.....

 

I've been watching as many videos as I can on SketchUp, and I LOVE how much detail I can model in. Is there a reason you don't use it exclusively? Just to save time, because CA is faster?

 

 

On 3/4/2024 at 2:27 PM, Northriver said:

I use Chief Architect to produce floor plans and construction documents. I use Sketchup with Medeeks wall, truss, foundation, and electrical plugins to produce details. Most of my details are in 3d, I have copied the details workflow from architect Nick Sonders from Truckee, CA. who uses Sketchup in its native form to produce some spectacular mountain vacation homes in Truckee, CA. His work is nothing short of amazing.

 

Interesting that you also use SketchUp to do the detail drawings. Is that an area where Chief falls short?

 

20 hours ago, para-CAD said:

YESSS!  You are using the same work flow as I am.  Plan views and layout in Chief.  Extremely complex and accurate details in Sketchup Pro with Medeek BIM or sometimes no extensions at all.

 

Larry Belk pointed me in the direction of Nathaniel Wilkerson and Nick Sonders.

 

 

Wow, a third person with the same workflow! What's going on, does Chief suck at detail views or something?

 

17 hours ago, mthd97 said:

Here is a link to a trial version of CAX15 if you haven’t already downloaded it. Give it a try I know many others import objects created in SU. Fine detail 3D framing modeling can probably be done with polyline solids in CA. But those suggestions above sound cool about Medeek BIM. I might also investigate. You will get lots of help from this forum too.

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/

 

Edit: The level of wall framing control in CA is demonstrated in this video below. You can edit framing in elevation too, see the framing play list for more info. But to get down to the connection level of 3D detail, will require work arounds and may also require other apps.

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/501/framing-wall-corners-and-intersections.html

 

Thank you very much, and thank you especially for the video. I've found it hard to find good video resources on Chief Architect.

[mthd97]

CA is very strong with timber framing, cabinets and quantity take off along with estimating.

 

Also it is well organized and very user friendly, it has an automated framing system but you can use that then just edit the framing to suit your individual needs where possible.

 

You may need to do your 3D connection details in Solidworks or some other specialized app.

 

Have fun researching.

 

Edited: As with all software you need to learn how to use it correctly otherwise it can be quite frustrating. Learning the tricks of CA can take some time becuase it is highly automated. At times you need to back track and make sure all your defaults are set correctly in order to build your 3D model correctly. There really is no perfect CAD software that will do it all with out using some work arounds.

[ADallas]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:55 PM, Ty_Tradeswork said:

And yeah, an excellent point about the overhangs. I live in Canada, and these buildings would have to deal with a lot of snow and rain, so I would never build something that doesn't have overhangs, unless the roof itself is wrapping down the wall somehow. 

 

Off-topic, I realize (but I have never used Chief for framing drawings, so I can't contribute), but I wanted to point you toward Matt Risinger's concept of "Monopoly framing," in which the building envelope wraps the wall onto the roof and eaves are tacked on if desired.

[Richard_Morrison]

I can opine only on Archicad & Chief, but I've used both for about 25 years. If you want a program that has very few limitations as to design, then I would look closely at Archicad. However, it is not specifically geared towards residential or wood framing. Putting a model together takes more time than Chief, but once done, you have far more analyses available, like element conflict identification, structural/load analysis, and just about any tabulation you can imagine with mathematical functions included, if you wish. If you don't find what you need in the available object library, you can make your own without too much pain. The current version has design options (in the same model), energy analysis, and a very robust MEP facility with ductwork and plumbing. They've finally incorporated temporary dimensions like Chief, and Archicad has a push/pull capability with "morphs" just like Sketchup. There is a steep learning curve initially. Terrain is far more accurate than Chief's.

 

Chief, on the other hand, will get mainstream residential projects out the door far faster, as long as you talking about polygonal rooms and "normal" roofs. I would not attempt modeling a hyperbolic paraboloid roof or tilted walls in Chief, for example, but Archicad could handle those easily. While Archicad can handle millions of polygons in a model without breaking much of a sweat, I would expect Chief to start choking at some point far earlier. To its credit, Chief has been catching up to Archicad in many respects, but there are still limitations. On the other hand, Chief's facility with wood framing and cabinets, as well as the stock products library, far exceeds Archicad. Also, I think a far shorter learning curve than Archicad.

 

Although many seem to like it, you couldn't pay me enough to use Revit. I've used Sketchup, and it has its uses, but both Chief and Archicad seem more geared towards producing construction documentation and 2D details. (I am impressed with Nick Sonder's work, though.) I know nothing about Solidworks. I make more money using Chief since I don't bill hourly, but I feel more secure in the accuracy (up to 1/64th of an inch) and documentation with Archicad. Clients seem to prefer the 3D experience with Chief, and creating a 3D working environment along with renderings is far faster and easier (at least for me) in Chief. HTH. 

 

TL;DR -- Focus on Chief and Archicad. 

[parkwest]

Here's a couple more software suggestions you may want to take a look at.

I have not used Solidbuilder in years but you wanting to see how everything goes together... well, this software should do the job.

 

https://digitalcanal.com/solidbuilder-design-software-programs/

 

And I can't believe not one person on the Chief forum didn't mention SoftPlan.

 

https://ww2.softplan.com/

 

SoftPlan would be my choice to do what you want to do with your designing of the houses you posted on pininterest.  In SoftPlan, you pretty design it how you are going to build it.

 

Like others have said, you might want to have more than one tool in your tool pouch, if you know what I mean.

[3D_Russ]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:29 PM, parkwest said:

 

And I can't believe not one person on the Chief forum didn't mention SoftPlan.

 

https://ww2.softplan.com/

 

SoftPlan would be my choice to do what you want to do with your designing of the houses you posted on pininterest.  In SoftPlan, you pretty design it how you are going to build it.

 

Like others have said, you might want to have more than one tool in your tool pouch, if you know what I mean.

I have used CA since it's infancy and know it quite well except for using custom macros. The last several releases have sure had nice new features, BUT, I have been so disappointed that so many requests for fixes and improvements have not been made. A few, yes. But as I have followed the forums for years, many of the same things that get good support are not included in the new releases. I'm tired of that, plus the many quirks and work-arounds that you have to know on a daily basis. Some of you are making part of your living on training us to use the program as well as some work-arounds. And I appreciate that.

So in my dissatifaction, I looked into SoftPlan, and I'm in a big learning curve!! But I will say this, the latest couple of releases are really sweet. Half the requests I see on the CA forums, SP handles with ease. My take on CA is that it is too automated for complex designs. SP has an entirely different approach and is much more flexable and is somewhere in between Revit and CA. I know I'm getting in over my head  with that statement. But I love what I'm seeing so far. Where some things are not as automated, they make up for speed in many neat tool bars and tool tricks that I wish CA would incorporate. And yes, in SP you design like you build. You have complete control over wall heights and such like. The other day I did a support with CA because I had a floor system with the joists suspended halfway into the basement - like 10" out and 8" in. Well, support told me that CA does not have that capability. REALLY? So another work-around. SP handles that with ease. Everytime you do a work-around, you may or may not have accurite material lists. And that's a whole topic in itself. SP leaves CA completely in the dust on that one.

There are pros and cons to every program out there. But CA needs to make some major improvements in features that have been requested for the last 8 years. I don't want to learn a new program but until CA get's some much-needed features fixed and added (like sloped garage floors, etc), I'll be using something else. 

Chief has a good program that is easy to learn and does a lot of good design. 

 

Russ

[HartDeNoble]

4 hours ago, 3D_Russ said:

I have used CA since it's infancy and know it quite well except for using custom macros. The last several releases have sure had nice new features, BUT, I have been so disappointed that so many requests for fixes and improvements have not been made. A few, yes. But as I have followed the forums for years, many of the same things that get good support are not included in the new releases. I'm tired of that, plus the many quirks and work-arounds that you have to know on a daily basis. Some of you are making part of your living on training us to use the program as well as some work-arounds. And I appreciate that.

So in my dissatifaction, I looked into SoftPlan, and I'm in a big learning curve!! But I will say this, the latest couple of releases are really sweet. Half the requests I see on the CA forums, SP handles with ease. My take on CA is that it is too automated for complex designs. SP has an entirely different approach and is much more flexable and is somewhere in between Revit and CA. I know I'm getting in over my head  with that statement. But I love what I'm seeing so far. Where some things are not as automated, they make up for speed in many neat tool bars and tool tricks that I wish CA would incorporate. And yes, in SP you design like you build. You have complete control over wall heights and such like. The other day I did a support with CA because I had a floor system with the joists suspended halfway into the basement - like 10" out and 8" in. Well, support told me that CA does not have that capability. REALLY? So another work-around. SP handles that with ease. Everytime you do a work-around, you may or may not have accurite material lists. And that's a whole topic in itself. SP leaves CA completely in the dust on that one.

There are pros and cons to every program out there. But CA needs to make some major improvements in features that have been requested for the last 8 years. I don't want to learn a new program but until CA get's some much-needed features fixed and added (like sloped garage floors, etc), I'll be using something else. 

Chief has a good program that is easy to learn and does a lot of good design. 

 

Russ

I have only ever used Chief, and we do very high end complex designs. I usually get them done but there are always some quirky work arounds needed (I ususally end up using a lot of CAD lines to get what I want). I would agree that Chief has made some much needed improvements, but it is frustrating that they have not responded to a lot of much needed requests over the years (specifically for Con Docs and modeling it like it is built). I think there is too much automation too, and they should completely get rid of the rooms to control heights (it makes sense, but far too often it is just quirky to work with). I hope they stop leaning so much into the rendering side of the updates and more into improvements for tools and features that help with con docs and modeling correctly. I do not plan on leaving because I have invested so much time into Chief but it is frustrating. 

[3D_Russ]

2 hours ago, HartDeNoble said:

I have only ever used Chief, and we do very high end complex designs. I usually get them done but there are always some quirky work arounds needed (I ususally end up using a lot of CAD lines to get what I want). I would agree that Chief has made some much needed improvements, but it is frustrating that they have not responded to a lot of much needed requests over the years (specifically for Con Docs and modeling it like it is built). I think there is too much automation too, and they should completely get rid of the rooms to control heights (it makes sense, but far too often it is just quirky to work with). I hope they stop leaning so much into the rendering side of the updates and more into improvements for tools and features that help with con docs and modeling correctly. I do not plan on leaving because I have invested so much time into Chief but it is frustrating. 

Well said, and I agree completely. We'll soon see what comes with X16.