2D CAD - How much do you use?

[dshall]

Jonny does some very nice stuff in other more powerful programs than Chief. I'm not sure its possible in Chief in it's current state.

I don't remember any of his 3D stuff........ 2D,  who cares anymore?  I was looking at his floor  plans in post 22, interesting floor plans,  but we can all imagine how much more powerful it is to show that as a model,  especially to the homeowners who cannot visualize the house they are about to spend 3 million dollars on.  The 2D stuff is telling only part of the story.

[DRAWZILLA]

I've seen some of his details that would be very difficult to model. He also does very large projects, not sure how chief would handle large projects, is the engine there?

[johnny]

I don't remember any of his 3D stuff........ 2D,  who cares anymore?  I was looking at his floor  plans in post 22, interesting floor plans,  but we can all imagine how much more powerful it is to show that as a model,  especially to the homeowners who cannot visualize the house they are about to spend 3 million dollars on.  The 2D stuff is telling only part of the story.

 

I've used mostly Sketchup and some Vectorworks up to now with 3D work.  Here is a "Main Street" shopping area addition done in Sketchup, and you can say CA can do this work, but larger projects need better grouping and components than what I think CA offers.

 

(added)

To clarify, I think CA could model this scene just fine, but the organization of the file would be challenging IMO.

[dshall]

I've used mostly Sketchup and some Vectorworks up to now with 3D work.  Here is a "Main Street" shopping area addition done in Sketchup, and you can say CA can do this work, but larger projects need better grouping and components than what I think CA offers.

Yea,  that is very very nicely done.  I just don't understand how you are so proficient with so many different programs,  my hat is off to you.  The only programs I am fairly proficient with are CA, WORDS WITH FRIENDS and the program to keep my wife relatively happy. 

[johnny]

Yea,  that is very very nicely done.  I just don't understand how you are so proficient with so many different programs,  my hat is off to you.  The only programs I am fairly proficient with are CA, WORDS WITH FRIENDS and the program to keep my wife relatively happy. 

 

Thanks Scott - yeah, I do use multiple apps well, but they all have strong similarities in getting things done.  Modeling in Vectorworks is now very similar to Sketchup except more accurate and better "publishing" tools.  Vectorworks is very similar to applications like Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop in many ways.

 

Chief has been, without a doubt, the most difficult software i've tried to learn - yet I see the power of truly mastering it.  At first everything looks so easy, and I wondered why the heck more architects/designers weren't using this application.....well, then I found out.

 

CA in many ways is amazing.  It handles things other apps don't even try to.  I'll admit the resent DAE file format support from CA has made things nice in import/export of 3D models.

[jtcapa1]

After reading the posts, and looking back over a 30 year career as both and Architect and a Building Designer, I can see where Johnny  is coming from.  Architects are trained to think with our hands on paper, at least before computers took over.  We fondly refer to that old dusty role of tracing paper you forgot you had, as "talking paper".  We simply could not have any kind of design discussion without it.  Fast forward 30 years and we can see that the next generation of Architects and designers are thinking more digitally, and us old dogs are really trying to commit to thinking digitally but it is a double edged sword.

 

All the time we would lovingly dedicated to thinking and sketching by hand has been replaced (mostly) with thinking and designing in our heads, while trying to quickly output those idea's into a digital CAD format that is both 2d and 3d.  The goal is not to get lost in the transition.  Paper and pencil is fluid and lets the creative idea's flow out nicely.  Mimicking that in 2d CAD has come a long way, and can end up with beautiful results like Johnny's work in a lot less time, than the old hand method, whereas creating in 3d is much less fluid for me.  I save time by skipping some of the design culling steps and jump directly into 3d work, but it still does not feel as creative and clean as the old methods.  I have to get the design model worked out in my head first before committing to a 3d model.  As you all know that is not easy.

But it can be very quick.

[country]

I can do beautiful 2D and half decent Renders in Vectorworks but Chief thrills my clients. A vast majority of them cannot picture the final product in 2D and even with my limited knowledge I am able to show them spaces with Chief that they can relate to. It definitely takes more time now but I can see that improving rapidly as I become more familiar with the program.

Vectorworks just sent out a great deal on upgrading but after looking at the new features (and definite lack of residential improvements) I am sticking with Chief. Big learning curve mainly because of Chief's structure setup (top down building) but very happy clients trumps all. I'll just have to adapt.

[johnny]

After reading the posts, and looking back over a 30 year career as both and Architect and a Building Designer, I can see where Johnny  is coming from.  Architects are trained to think with our hands on paper, at least before computers took over.  We fondly refer to that old dusty role of tracing paper you forgot you had, as "talking paper".  We simply could not have any kind of design discussion without it.  Fast forward 30 years and we can see that the next generation of Architects and designers are thinking more digitally, and us old dogs are really trying to commit to thinking digitally but it is a double edged sword.

 

All the time we would lovingly dedicated to thinking and sketching by hand has been replaced (mostly) with thinking and designing in our heads, while trying to quickly output those idea's into a digital CAD format that is both 2d and 3d.  The goal is not to get lost in the transition.  Paper and pencil is fluid and lets the creative idea's flow out nicely.  Mimicking that in 2d CAD has come a long way, and can end up with beautiful results like Johnny's work in a lot less time, than the old hand method, whereas creating in 3d is much less fluid for me.  I save time by skipping some of the design culling steps and jump directly into 3d work, but it still does not feel as creative and clean as the old methods.  I have to get the design model worked out in my head first before committing to a 3d model.  As you all know that is not easy.

But it can be very quick.

 

Yes, you are very correct.  Here is a project I was dusting off from 2008 (at the real estate crisis when projects were put on hold) and having to start to bring forward again, and that is exactly why the coloring of the background is what it is - the yellowish tracing paper.

 

...but i have to say, ideas brought forward this way - the process is developed through the doodling...and can be very fast.  Here is a block 2d model where we started planning for a hotel/condo project where most the terraces needed to be substantial and not have overhead covering as most projects have.  Here in the NW we have light issues, and our client wanted to do a modern replication of a "hanging gardens".  Anyway, this shows the process evolving.  (obviously we had tons of these types of drawings but just showing a few to relate the story)

[yusuf-333]

I have posted this a topic similar to this one in the old forum, some time I start with concept 3d exteriors from some stufs I have already done(made symbol) and triggers ideas to flow smoothly and watch my perspective view when shaping and floor planning both at a time. Here is an example of it. And the outcome is totally different from the starting concept and again it becomes the idea generator for an other one to come.

[dshall]

..... Big learning curve mainly because of Chief's structure setup (top down building)......

 

Maybe at the workshop we can help those that are having issues with this thinking. Honestly,  it is second nature to me, I am not sure when it happened,  but it did.  

 

I was thinking about this in the shower this morning,  trying to come up with an argument in CA's favor to justify their logic for this approach.  I haven't quite put the reasoning into words,  but maybe by Thursday afternoon I will put together the correct words to justify their approach.

 

I bet GW can justify their reasoning.

[Jay_on_Cape]

I've been seeing the "top down" comment thrown around a lot lately.......... Scott help me out here as I've only been using the program since version 4.....What are they talking about????  CA is just like you frame.  1st floor first, 2nd floor (or roof) second, etc. 

[country]

That was the one thing that saved me when I started learning CAD and using Vectorworks. It works the way you would build it. You set the main level or story at 0 and all the floors above went in a positive direction and if you changed a height the floors above moved up or down accordingly. Lower floors were just lower floors in a negative direction. Chief just doesn't work the way I think so it is just a matter of being careful right now. Chief with VWs structure setup would be near perfect for me.

A good explanation why it is that way may help but I seriously doubt it is going to straighten out the learning curve.

I'm sure I will get lots of AHA moments out of watching/listening to the workshop.

[dshall]

I've been seeing the "top down" comment thrown around a lot lately.......... Scott help me out here as I've only been using the program since version 4.....What are they talking about????  CA is just like you frame.  1st floor first, 2nd floor (or roof) second, etc. 

Funny you should ask.  I just did a stupid vid seeing if I could somehow help these other folks out in their thinking.  I am not sure if the vid is any good,  I will post in case someone has nothing better to do.

 

Jay,  I am an advocate of the top down building,  but when I did the vid,  I am not sure I can justify my reasoning.  I think it has something to do with if you change the floor height of the second floor does it change the ceiling above or when you change the ceiling height of a first floor room,  how does it effect the level of the second floor this effecting the absolute ceiling height of the second floor ceiling which it does.

 

For those that are interested,  build a building like the building in the picture.  Now set your default floor and ceiling heights.  Make sure you stagger the walls at the first and second level. Now experiment with changing individual room floor and ceiling heights and experiment with changing the default floor and ceiling heights.

 

I would bet that after doing this for about 10 minutes,  the methodology may start to sink in.  And while you do this,  try to imagine why CA chose to do it this way,  and the problems CA would have if they were to do it the way you think it should be done.  Those guys at HQ are pretty sharp,  with something like this I bet they spent some time trying to figure out the best way to make this work.

 

One final note,  if you think CA screwed up,  get over it,  I doubt they will change it,  just remember there are a lot of us out here that don't have a problem,  and I bet with a little work,  you won't have a problem with it either.

[Jay_on_Cape]

Me thinks there are numerous ways to do almost any single chore in CA but sometimes some users outsmart themselves.  I always "try" to nail down ceiling heights with the customer before I even start a project and with my structural background I usually know the depth of the floor system so those surprises are usually rare.

 

 If changing the floor height of a second floor I would always change the  ceiling height of the first floor not the 2nd floor floor.  If changing the depth of a floor system on a 2 or more story I would change the framing depths / floor structure and group select all roofs above 2nd floor subfloor and raise them whatever depth increase.  To me this method is very easy.  Everything moves but roofs above 2nd floor subfloor.............

 

Whenever any change regarding ceiling / floor heights or floor system depths if you follow this rule you'll eliminate a lot of thinking and even more repetition of work.

 

 Start any modification as close to positive 0"(top of 1st floor sub-floor) as possible.

[johnny]

One final note,  if you think CA screwed up,  get over it,  I doubt they will change it,  just remember there are a lot of us out here that don't have a problem,  and I bet with a little work,  you won't have a problem with it either.

 

Overall I think Chief's format is fine.  What I dont like about Chief is how reliant it is on Dbx, and the "correct" view.  What I want to see improved is the generic 3D shape modeling tools, and the "grouping" mechanics.  We should be able to model shapes in lieu of "objects", and then set the "shape" as a "object".

 

If you took Sketchup (which is very basic app), and merged that with CA - it may be the perfect result.  From CA's own mouth it sounds like they are greatly improving the 3D shape experience.

 

Scot Harris said:

"Johnny: thanks for the thread. 3D shape modeling is in our product strategy"

[dshall]

Yea Johnny, we need someone like you around to teach us what we don't know.

[glennw]

I would bet that after doing this for about 10 minutes,  the methodology may start to sink in.  And while you do this,  try to imagine why CA chose to do it this way,  and the problems CA would have if they were to do it the way you think it should be done.  Those guys at HQ are pretty sharp,  with something like this I bet they spent some time trying to figure out the best way to make this work.

 

 

Scott,

 

Of course I don't know, but I suspect that the guys at Chief didn't purposely design top down platform editing into the program.

I could be totally off base here by underestimating the programmers intent way back in the early days.

Chief has developed over the years from what was a basic cad program that has it's own methodology for model creation.

 

I think that for most situations (say single or 2 storey houses with single level floors) Chiefs "bottom up" paradigm works a treat, especially if you start by setting the defaults correctly.

 

The "top down" method only becomes required once the platforms in that initial model need to be edited. 

Because of the way Chief works with rooms and platforms, it is easier to make any platform edits from the top down. 

I daresay that most of these edits COULD be done from the bottom up - but it would be much more difficult.

Now, was "top down" a deliberate programming method or was it just a result of the way Chief works? - I haven't got a clue!

 

As you say, this part of the programming paradigm is so entrenched in Chief that I really can't see any major change anytime on the horizon.

There may be room for some user friendly tweeks though!  

Whenever any change regarding ceiling / floor heights or floor system depths if you follow this rule you'll eliminate a lot of thinking and even more repetition of work.

 

 Start any modification as close to positive 0"(top of 1st floor sub-floor) as possible.

 

Jay,

 

A lot of users would disagree and would suggest that any platform modifications should be made from the top down. 

Of course the method used will always depend on the particular situation - particularly if platforms are split or multi level.

I think that more often than not, platform changes can be made with default settings (assuming no split or multi level platforms - please don't reply by saying that most of your projects have split or multi-level platforms!  ).

[Jay_on_Cape]

Glenn,

Even though I couldn't imagine doing so, why would you prefer starting from the top if you build the model from the bottom? Since I've never done it this way you may be able to shed some light on this.

No, as I am located near Cape Cod most of my homes are Cape Cod style or a gambrel / beach style home. The levels are usually simple (rarely more than one floor height per floor). I couldn't even guess the year of the last plan I drew with a split level entry.

[glennw]

Jay,

 

We are pretty much in agreement.

My point was that if you have single level floors (no split or multi-levels per floor) then there usually isn't a problem editing from the bottom up and this can usually be done by changing the floor defaults and using auto roofs and auto foundations.

 

BUT...if you have a model that contains multi-level platforms that need manual editing on a room by room basis, you will find it a lot less painful editing top to bottom once the model is built. In these circumstances you can get yourself into a bind with Chief endeavouring to make changes to the platforms to compensate for the users input that causes conflicts in the model.

 

Scott is hosting a Gotomeeting this afternoon on this very topic - if you are at all interested, I suggest that you try and get on board.

You should be able to find the details on another thread.

[johnny]

"with Chief endeavouring to make changes to the platforms to compensate for the users input that causes conflicts in the model."

 

 

 

CA should really have a feature where you can turn off automation and manually create floor elevations and connections between walls and roofs, walls and walls, and walls and objects. 

 

In Vectorworks we have a "story" editor, but only through operation do major items connect.  I really think having a solid non-automated way to model in CA (the professional version) would be useful.

[DRAWZILLA]

I think part of the problem is that if you happen to lose room definition, it will sometimes revert back to the defaults, possibly with you NOT knowing.

[HumbleChief]

I think part of the problem is that if you happen to lose room definition, it will sometimes revert back to the defaults, possibly with you knowing.

Really have to pay attention to this possibility.

[Joe_Carrick]

Johnny,

 

The reality is that Chief has a different way of looking at Floor Structure, Roof Structure, Rooms and Walls.

 

The first 3 are the basic controlling elements in the vertical dimension.  The rules are:

   1.  The primary building blocks in Chief are Rooms and everything else is tied to those elements.

   2.  The Floor Structure or Roof Structure can not occupy the same vertical space as a Room

   3.  2 Rooms can not occupy the same vertical space.

   4.  Rooms must be in contact with the Floor Structure above and below or the Roof Structure above- no exceptions.

 

Walls normally are the height of the Room - but can be edited (railings, half walls, pony walls).  Changing the height of a Wall will not effect the vertical positioning of the Floor Structure or the height of the Room.

 

Having a "Manual Connection" scheme simply doesn't work with rule #1.

 

If the Floor Structure and Roof Structure (PLATFORMS) were the primary and rooms were simply defined by connecting walls between those then it might work.  There are 3D CAD Apps that work that way but Chief isn't one of them.

[Joe_Carrick]

Let me put this another way:

 

Rooms are defined by enclosing Walls and a Floor Structure below and either a Floor Structure or Roof Structure above.  That is as simple as I can say it, but you have to understand that the Floor Structure is always connected to the Room above

[Joe_Carrick]

WOW, another case of a thread in Chieftalk getting totally turned to a different topic.  This started out talking about 2D CAD and has morphed into a discussion of 3D space.  How in the world did that happen?