2012 Codes

[DRAWZILLA]

We've found an example of some of things that next versions of Chief must have..... The needed tools come from Revit MEP. The program has a demo file showing 3D duct work and light cover boxes etc...... MEP by the way stands for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing......most all the tools offered in MEP are not available to us as Chief users...... many of these things are now required to meet the 2012 Codes......if your not doing the drafting/design someone has to provide this in area's that the require the information for permits under the 2012 and above code....... this is not going to go away! 

 

Andy, we as design / builders and try and use the material list.... if you only note the items on a schedule they want show up in the material list. Same thing goes for drip-dege on roofs if it's not there in the drawing it for sure want show-up on the material list as well as other required items. We probably will move programs if things that we need are not offered.

 

Blessings,

Kevin

 

Hvac and Electrical load drawings are just not required here in good old So. Cal. for Residential and never has. We are working under the 2013 CBC, CRC codes. Commercial --yes.  We are the meca of code country here, codes and codes everywhere. but none of that. Anyway, if they were, I'd have an experienced Hvac or Mechanical Engineer do it.

[raltd9245]

The pinheads in government don't care about costs.  They have a money machine!  (us)

Why does there have to be constant code changes?  These guys meet more than the original Congress of the US.

Pretty soon we will have the safest most energy efficient homes that few can afford!!

I get really concerned at the divide between reality and the code designers. It's sort of like software upgrades. Hey it's time for a new code release let's make some changes.

[RodCole]

If I am understanding the comments the OP is making, it is more of an admonition for CA to step up to the plate and either provide better tool sets, or better integration of geometry from other more specialized applications.

 

The title of the thread is a bit misleading, if I am getting what the OP is after.  I can relate to what is being said here, but I would like to point out a few things as well.

 

For starters, I am not at all disagreeing with the OP's position, just wanted to add a little background.  I personally have not come across any one program that has all of the tools I would like to have, and if it comes close on the tool sets, they typically fall short on productivity issues.

 

CA has put a great deal of effort lately into improving productivity, which I for one am very pleased with.  It seems to me that the OP is pointing out Chief's shortcommings in it's 3D solids capabilities, which I believe CA has already admitted are in need of improvement.

 

I am all for Chief improving it's 3D solids capabilities, but I for one do not want to be completely dependant on Chief for these requirements.  My own 2 cents is that I would like to see Chief improve on 3D solids capabilities, but even more I would like to see Chief focus on taking advantage of what other more specialized programs can produce.

 

Again, I do not see this as a Chief problem as such, but rather an industry problem that does not have adequate standards to allaw software developers to move forward on interoperability.

[DRAWZILLA]

I don't want Chief to develop more cad tools, I want Chief to concentrate on making the 3d model better and faster for everyone.

[RodCole]

Right, but that begs the question how do we get there.  Do we have to wait for Chief to develope all of the tools that are already available in other more specialized software now.  Or, can we have both, Chief for productivity and what can be produced by other applications for more specialty items?

 

It seems to me that you are pointing out how painful it can be waiting for Chief to get around to things.  My question is, how long will it take Chief to get around to providing what is already avialable by other means.

 

I was taking it that the OP was refering to features that are mostly done using solid modeling applications that use the ACIS engine or other proprietory methods.

 

My point is that if we are to get the tools and features we would like to have it might be good to explore all the possiblities.  File exchane formats don't appear to have changed much since the 1980's.  They were of limited benefit then, and even less appropriate now.  Great that we have them, but I would like to see some improvements in this area that would make Chief that much better.

 

Can't really separate good 2D CAD tools from powerfull 3D modleing capabilities.  From my experience it is not a one or the other proposition, you really need both, and the better programs out there already do have both now.  What is needed is a way to seemlessly integrate these features into what Chief can and does do well now, as well as what it can provide in the future. 

 

A lot can be done now with the current tools Chief has for integrating geometry from other programs.  There are also a great many limitations presently that exist due to the use of out dated technology and a lack of industry standards for future developement.  I do hear those that say they do not want Chief to become one of the BIG players, with all that comes with it.  It does not seem to me that it has to, we just need the ability to integrate what other apps are doing now with what Chief can do.  That has been Chief's position for a long time now, just time to tweak the interoperability issues a bit.

[lbuttery]

Anyone has a "right" to make a suggestion

 

CA has the "right" to implement or ignore that suggestion

 

all others can only have "opinions" about that suggestion

 

Lew

[Alaskan_Son]

Anyone has a "right" to make a suggestion

 

CA has the "right" to implement or ignore that suggestion

 

all others can only have "opinions" about that suggestion

 

Lew

That goes without saying.  I for one want to make my dissenting opinion heard as well though so CA realizes there are those don't necessarily need or want the suggested features or "improvements".

[lbuttery]

Mike:

 

unfortunately some slam a suggestion simply because they have never needed it

 

the poster makes the suggestion because they DO need it

 

I seriously doubt CA would implement a suggestion based on one posters request

 

there would have to be "enough" to make it worthwhile for them to expend resources

 

when "enough" is reached the number of naysayers is irrelevant

 

Lew

[Alaskan_Son]

I know what designers and architect need, and I can tell you almost nobody needs the so called "code compliance" tools the OP brought up.  CA's lack of said tools doesn't make it a "homeowner" program.  I think some people are just looking for a program that does all the thinking and design for them.  As Perry suggested, if those things are needed have an engineer draw them up.  Fact is, next to zero jurisdictions would accept those drawings from anyone else anyway.

 

Im just growing sick of a system in which NOTHING is specialized or really good at anything anymore.  When something is exceptional at what it does, along comes someone that wants to make that thing good at everything.  People, tools, programs, businesses, and governments are becoming "jacks of all trades and masters of none".  Let Chief remain a master of one and perfect what it already has before adding currently UNNECESSARY "improvements".

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... There are enough Chief users who also have copies of programs that do exactly what you're looking for and they STILL choose to use Chief.  Why??  Because its the perfect tool for the job.

[lbuttery]

 if those things are needed have an engineer draw them up

 

Mike:

 

so, engineers shouldn't want to use Chief ?

 

I have mapped out MEP for residential projects

using workarounds in chief and then sent those floorplans to the MEP trades

for their review and approval

 

sometimes they used my "suggestions" in their own drawings

that they signed/submitted

 

othertimes they sent them back with changes" which we implemented

in chief and then the builder signed/submitted

 

it really helps for the designer to at least consider where the MEP runs

could/should go to avoid conflicts

 

It would be nice it Chief had full-blown MEP tools that could use BIM

to determine or avoid collision detection etc

 

if CA were ever to go this route I would/have recommended that they

consider using modules that can be purchased separately by those who need it

 

at a minimum there should be MEP tools similar to the simple electrical tools

chief currently has for basic mapping of MEP needs

 

 

I can tell you almost nobody needs the so called "code compliance" tools the OP brought up

 

maybe yes - maybe no

 

that is for CA to determine

 

Lew

[payettedesigns]

Lots of luck on this one..

[BryceEngstrom]

I still fail to see what, exactly, it is that Chief is supposedly missing as far as meeting current codes over other softwares.  Does Revit automatically do your mechanical calculations and duct design and layout for you?  No, I didn't think so.  Currently in California they are starting to enforce this HVAC design in residential plans, but, unless you use a licensed mechanical engineer (most of which aren't even currently interested in delving into this aspect of mechanical design, and even if they were would charge $1500 for it), they only accept calculations from two very specific softwares.  At least one of the two, Right-J combined with Right-Draw (both by Wrightsoft, look it up), will allow you to do this by drawing a floor plan of sorts, but the output is so rudimentary I fail to see how this can't just be done with Chief's CAD tools quite easily.  I am attaching a recent output I paid a whopping $250 for.  How is it that you can't do this (aside from the actual mechanical calculations that I assume you don't actually expect Chief to do for you) quite easily with the current tools?

 

 

 

[Alaskan_Son]

I think the truth is a lot of people buy these programs thinking it will do all the work for them magically making them an overnight plan producer. When they see what programs like Revit and Archicad offer in the way of "features", they think those programs can automagically do the work for them. It's simply just not true. All these programs do is make the work a little easier. If you can't draw plans without a program you won't be able to draw plans with one either (basic 3D renderings maybe, but not plans). And if you can't draw code compliant plans easily with Chief, MEP tools or any other "code compliant" tools won't be able to help you. I would venture to say if you can't draw those things up with Chief, you probably would have an even more difficult time with Revit (or any other program offering the tools to "meet code requirements".

[lbuttery]

 All these programs do is make the work a little easier

 

Michael:

 

yep, that is the goal....

 

Lew

[DRAWZILLA]

 All these programs do is make the work a little easier

 

Michael:

 

yep, that is the goal....

 

Lew

 

A little easier? How about a lot easier. Any of you that remember what hand drawing was will understand.

[lbuttery]

Perry:

 

I understand its a lot easier

 

never did hand-drawing - couldn't even try -  can't draw a straight line with a ruler

 

Chief makes it possible for me to do some of this work

 

that's why we make suggestions - to make it even easier

 

just look what an "antique" ver 9.5 is - back then we thought it was "super"

 

Lew

[mcrump]

SC adopted the 2012 building codes July 1 of 2012 but did not adopt the 2012 Model Energy Code when they found out that if you use ResCheck to do your analysis the only way you can meet the requirements are by having 2 steel insulated doors, no windows, 6" R-19 perimeter walls and R-3,000 in the attic.  Like a friend of mine said, "If the government tries to run it, it will be as "blanked" up as a football bat".  Ain't it the truth!

[raltd9245]

Roll 3 (8).pdfRoll 3 (6).pdf[attachment=954:

Perry:

 

I understand its a lot easier

 

never did hand-drawing - couldn't even try -  can't draw a straight line with a ruler

 

Chief makes it possible for me to do some of this work

 

that's why we make suggestions - to make it even easier

 

just look what an "antique" ver 9.5 is - back then we thought it was "super"

 

Lew

Lew here is how we did it in the old days, before the 80's

[raltd9245]

Sorry posted trice

[DRAWZILLA]

Ron

You had some nice hand, I remember back in the day, when I went to computers, people hated those generic looking computer drawings, now they love them. I actually lost a few clients but told them to get with it or use someone else. Eventually they all came back. I used to shadow the elevations by hand vs. the bland lines.

[lbuttery]

Ron:

 

if I tried that by hand it would look like a 5 year did them

 

actually, the 5 year old could probably do better

 

Lew

[raltd9245]

Ron

You had some nice hand, I remember back in the day, when I went to computers, people hated those generic looking computer drawings, now they love them. I actually lost a few clients but told them to get with it or use someone else. Eventually they all came back. I used to shadow the elevations by hand vs. the bland lines.

Thanks Perry. That was kind of a transition to Computer drawings. All Ink on Mylar with press on letters. I had pages of standard stuff and copied onto stickybacks. By the end I was pretty fast with ink. Then in 1984 the price of pc cad came down to a place I could afford. Almost $ 20,000.00 for software HP Vectra Digitizer and Pen Plotter. Never looked back. Started with VersaCad.

[raltd9245]

Ron:

 

if I tried that by hand it would look like a 5 year did them

 

actually, the 5 year old could probably do better

 

Lew

Lew I started drafting at my Father's side at 7yo. He had me do a measured plan of the first floor of our house. WOW that was 68 years ago. I could not draft like that myself today. Oh how times have changed.