creative design, custom houses, and the limits of Chief?

[HumbleChief]

Chief's biggest limitation IMO is the inability for 2 walls to occupy the same space, no matter the Layer. If walls could be on different Layers and occupy the same space it would add TONS of flexibility to Chief's er.. flexibility.

 

[Cue Lew]

[HumbleChief]

The more I think about that last point, the fact that Chief's Layers are limited to one wall occupying one space, no matter the layer means that, when remodeling, 2 plans MUST be created, starting with an accurate As Built.

 

We currently can't truly have a 'Demo Layer' that can be turned off and on because many times 2 walls would occupy the same space. If that limitation were gone then maybe a single plan could contain all iterations within a single plan file? Even beginning with a rough draft, in a single plan file, that could be iteratively changed and detailed as the concepts progressed.

[Joe_Carrick]

Chief's biggest limitation IMO is the inability for 2 walls to occupy the same space, no matter the Layer. If walls could be on different Layers and occupy the same space it would add TONS of flexibility to Chief's er.. flexibility.

 

 

If one of those walls is "No Room Definition" they can occupy the same space.  I do this quire often when I  need a railing wall in a "Doorway".  But it doesn't have to be a railing.  You can put 2 walls in the same space as long as one of them is "No Room Definition".

 

Try it.

[dshall]

I get the idea of being able to show existing and new in same plan.  You can do that in  REVIT.  But the question is,  how much more time does it take a REVIT user to make this worthwhile?  I don't know.  My typical project takes from 20-60  hours.  For me I do not miss this ability and if it adds a lot of time to producing  plans I am not interested.

 

Not knocking what you are requesting,  just questioning the importance and are there bigger fish to fry.

[HumbleChief]

If one of those walls is "No Room Definition" they can occupy the same space.  Try it.

Does that allow for a true single plan remodel paradigm? Or just allows a wall to occupy the same space? I have never tried to use a single plan for remodeling, always relying on an As Built and different concepts based off of that As Built. Do you think Chief is now capable of using a single plan for a remodel or are the limitations to great to use effectively?

 

EDIT: Or is it even desirable?

[HumbleChief]

I get the idea of being able to show existing and new in same plan.  You can do that in  REVIT.  But the question is,  how much more time does it take a REVIT user to make this worthwhile?  I don't know.  My typical project takes from 20-60  hours.  For me I do not miss this ability and if it adds a lot of time to producing  plans I am not interested.

 

Not knocking what you are requesting,  just questioning the importance and are there bigger fish to fry.

Actually agree with you on this Scott and was kicking around a couple ideas that might work for the OP and Nicinus and not wreak havoc on current work flows used by many.

 

If there's any changes that are suggested and they "add a lot of time to producing plans" - would anyone be interested? The whole idea of all suggestions is to try and make it easier and to save time producing plans - of course.

[Joe_Carrick]

Larry,

 

It can be done using this method and different Annosets/Layersets and different Layers for the "Existing", "Demo" & "New" Walls, Doors, Windows, etc.  I've never found a way to superimpose 3 walls, but 2 is not a problem.

[HumbleChief]

I wonder - does ANYONE use a single plan for remodels? Maybe a new thread - curious.

[Rashid_Garuba]

EDIT....I attached some pics that show the evolution of a project.  These are all basically the same plan.   It is still in flux with me doing the "dirty" drawing right now.

 

Justin,

 

What did you use to render those?

[Joe_Carrick]

Larry,

 

As I've stated previously, I seldom do remodels.

 

However, I have Layers for Existing, New & Demo for Walls, Doors, Windows & Cabinets.  I also have Layer Sets defined for Existing, New & Demo that allow me to display the various objects.  The Demo Layers are "Locked" in my "New Layerset".

 

I wouldn't want to use separate Plans - there's just too much possibility that there would be something different between the Plans.  It's easy enough to switch Layer Sets and send each to Layout.

 

BTW, That is all in a "Remodel Template" since I don't want the extra Layers, Layer Sets and Annosets in my regular Template.

[lbuttery]

I would prefer not having to finish it into the last minuscule detail before I can start on my new design

 

Nicinius:

 

when doing remodels, I will rough sketch the house and then proceed to do the project area in detail

the clients want to see the alternatives right away and not wait for me to "finalize" the as-built

 

when the remod design is "completed" then I will go back and create a clean as-built

 

Lew

[Lighthouse]

maybe this is obvious, but I typically draw existing conditions as a plan.  Then I save that plan as a new design plan.  I make a copy of the existing plan as a cad detail which I put in the new plan as a layer.  So I can have the existing plan and the new plan walls occupy the same space because the existing walls are a cad detail.   But I'm sure you guys know how to do that.  So I assume the problem you are referring to is the inability (using this method) to make changes to the existing conditions plan, because it is now just a cad detail?

[Joe_Carrick]

David,

 

There is nothing wrong with using the CAD Detail method.  It's just not my preferred way of working.  I like to be able to change the "Existing" when/if I find there was something wrong with the "as-built".

[johnny]

I get the idea of being able to show existing and new in same plan.  You can do that in  REVIT.  But the question is,  how much more time does it take a REVIT user to make this worthwhile?  I don't know.  My typical project takes from 20-60  hours.  For me I do not miss this ability and if it adds a lot of time to producing  plans I am not interested.

 

Not knocking what you are requesting,  just questioning the importance and are there bigger fish to fry.

 

I dont find CA so far to be any time-saver...in fact, its been the opposite.  There are so many things it does elegantly and quickly that I believe if I can start to better understand the app I might be able to make it work.  So far, if I had to spend the time I do now on projects I couldn't keep using CA.  Some might say its my failing, and not CA's - but I have to disagree based upon what I see on the threads and tutorials by Chief Experts.  Dan B. gets stuck often.  That doesn't happen in other apps....I find I rarely, if ever, get stuck like I do in CA.

 

As to this thread - I dont fully understand why CA doesn't have basic 3D toolsets like most apps have now.  In another thread I saw a Dev mention it was coming, or a focus of CA to improve - something along those lines.

 

If CA had SU tools inside of it that would be all that is necessary for this app to meet all sorts of needs.

[dshall]

I dont find CA so far to be any time-saver...in fact, its been the opposite. .......

 

 

I do not believe this,  but you knew I would disagree.  There is no way you can be very fast with  CA because you are asking a lot of elementary questions.  It's not a knock on you,  just an observation.

 

So,  if you are interested in knowing if CA is a waste of your time,  or whether you should be using a different program,  how do you make the determination?  

 

Let me ask you this,  if a competent CA  user were to go against a competent.....  pick your  program.......  user.....  and if the  CA user  was quicker with more info,  which program would you choose?   You  would choose CA.  So here is the challenge if you are interested.  Find your best user of some other  program that competes with CA,  and I will go up against him in a challenge to provide a set of CD's of an existing 2  story,  2800 sf. home on a sloped lot with a pool.  Nothing over the top,   but your average tract house.

 

Give us both 8 hours,  and let's see who does a better job.  I bet that I  could produce a set of plans that was almost permit ready.  Not perfect,  but darn close.

 

Hey Johnny,  are you coming to the UGM.  You bailed on me when I was in Washington, we were supposed to get together for a drink.  Anyway,  why don't you come out to the UGM,  you have some great input and I think the CA folks would appreciate any input you may have.

[Richard_Morrison]

I dont find CA so far to be any time-saver...in fact, its been the opposite.  There are so many things it does elegantly and quickly that I believe if I can start to better understand the app I might be able to make it work.  So far, if I had to spend the time I do now on projects I couldn't keep using CA.  Some might say its my failing, and not CA's - but I have to disagree based upon what I see on the threads and tutorials by Chief Experts.  Dan B. gets stuck often.  That doesn't happen in other apps....I find I rarely, if ever, get stuck like I do in CA.

 

As to this thread - I dont fully understand why CA doesn't have basic 3D toolsets like most apps have now.  In another thread I saw a Dev mention it was coming, or a focus of CA to improve - something along those lines.

 

If CA had SU tools inside of it that would be all that is necessary for this app to meet all sorts of needs.

 

This may be one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. From what I've seen in the above Vectorworks video, and the capabilities I know to be in ArchiCAD, these both already HAVE these capabilities. So why aren't we just using these programs, if we really need these features? For me, the answer is that these higher-level programs are now so feature-laden that the complexity of use overwhelms what I need to get done. I look at the Vectorworks dialog boxes within boxes, and my brain turns to mush. From what I've seen, Revit is worse. There are many things that need to be improved in Chief, for sure. But I do not need clay-like modeling,  "Teamwork" features, IFC compatibility, or the ability to show phased work. For the type of projects that I do, the current level of features are pretty much fine. I don't WANT Chief to become ArchiCAD, because the relative simplicity of use that I depend on would be gone. I can now sit in front of a client and design some pretty good floor plans with furniture and trim, especially if using the House Wizard features. (Including in addition/alteration projects.) I can't do that with ArchiCAD, because there are so many damn settings to be juggled. I'm not doing "sculptural" works. If I were, I would use a different program. What I would lose by the addition of all of these modeling features would be too high of a price -- and we are fooling ourselves if we don't think there is a price in piling on features. In the hands of an expert user, any program is going to seem amazing. "Snobby architects" may use these modeling programs to their advantage, but that's not my market, nor the market of 95% of most projects out there.

[Joe_Carrick]

I'm with Richard.

 

During my career I've done several Hospitals, Office Buildings, Custom Homes, Condos and Apartments.  I won't do Condos any more because of the law suits that inevitably come after a few years.  My current practice is limited to Custom Homes of various sizes.

 

I've never done a project over 8 stories, but none of the projects that I have done couldn't be done quite quickly using Chief.  There are several things I would like to see improved so that I could do less text entry, but Chief already saves a massive amount time and does a better job than any other 2D or 3D Architectural Software that I've seen.  I have tried several demo versions and Chief is my favorite by a lot.

 

I spend most of my time now making Design decisions and very little converting the design to ConDocs. 

[johnny]

Its true VW and Archicad have a lot of features, but if you don't want to use "a feature" to complete a project you have powerful (but basic) 3D shape modeling tools as a standby.  I may only use 30-50% of Vectorworks, but I can do anything I want with that % since I can approach the same challenge from different directions.

 

CA seems to be a 1-trick pony in that if you dont do it the way they want, it aint getting done.  Obviously I dont mean everything is like that, but many things are.

 

For me, if CA had solid basic modeling tools I would feel more confident in my ability to get things done on time.  I believe this would help new professionals using CA as well - since many of the 3D apps use similar features and processes now to create/model shapes.  Not to mention, the initial concept phase would be much more useful.

 

I too have not done large commercial projects beyond some interior design for a certain office space or floor of a large building.  I'm not after CA to provide anything of the sort, so we are in agreement there.

 

Please keep in mind you guys are CA guru's and represent a very small % of the users in regards abilities - your perspectives may not be the same as a more common user.  You guys have a perfected work-flow that you've been repeating and users like me are still trying to find a workflow to duplicate and perfect. If one of you guys took at start to finish video tutorial on a project with all your processes that would be huge (but I realize not practical in terms of effort).

[johnny]

I do not believe this,  but you knew I would disagree.  There is no way you can be very fast with  CA because you are asking a lot of elementary questions.  It's not a knock on you,  just an observation.

 

So,  if you are interested in knowing if CA is a waste of your time,  or whether you should be using a different program,  how do you make the determination?  

 

Let me ask you this,  if a competent CA  user were to go against a competent.....  pick your  program.......  user.....  and if the  CA user  was quicker with more info,  which program would you choose?   You  would choose CA.  So here is the challenge if you are interested.  Find your best user of some other  program that competes with CA,  and I will go up against him in a challenge to provide a set of CD's of an existing 2  story,  2800 sf. home on a sloped lot with a pool.  Nothing over the top,   but your average tract house.

 

Give us both 8 hours,  and let's see who does a better job.  I bet that I  could produce a set of plans that was almost permit ready.  Not perfect,  but darn close.

 

Hey Johnny,  are you coming to the UGM.  You bailed on me when I was in Washington, we were supposed to get together for a drink.  Anyway,  why don't you come out to the UGM,  you have some great input and I think the CA folks would appreciate any input you may have.

 

Sorry Scott - I really didn't mean to blow you off but I had something huge come up at the last min.  I promise if you come this way again I wont bail.

 

I'd love to come to the UGM but i'm swamped right now, and driving through eastern Washington right now with the fires going on could be an issue.  Hw 20 (which I would take) is actually closed (last i heard), so I would end up having to traveling around-about meaning 2-3x the time.

 

On the modeling challenge, I have no question a competent CA user could give anyone a run for their money in any app....although, it is entirely possible they could run into a major sticking point and lose that competition, as I know you've had problems as well with certain things.  Though the other apps may have issues and nuances, I dont believe they are anywhere near the level of issues CA has. 

 

That said, 50% of my issues would near go away if CA would implement my suggestion on having the manual connections as an option.  It more often than not the automation that gets me stuck.

 

[johnny]

Just thinking, if I had to name (3) three things that would change my experience overnight with CA, it would be:

 

1. Better basic 3d modeling tools - like Sketchup has, including groupings/component methods.

2. Option to make connections manually and turn off automation (again, just option to do that - nothing would change for current use).

3. Terrain and Street/Road improvements.  Terrain is very complex and I feel hard to control, while the current road/driveway tools doesn't create real (code based) transitions.

 

Wishlist visual items would be:

 

1. Profile lines.

2. Poche fills for wall/object sections

3. Shadows in any view.

[dshall]

........Please keep in mind you guys are CA guru's and represent a very small % of the users in regards abilities - your perspectives may not be the same as a more common user.  You guys have a perfected work-flow that you've been repeating and users like me are still trying to find a workflow to duplicate and perfect. .......

 

Uh yea,  speaking for myself,  I don't know REVIT,  I don't know VW,  I don't know  SU,  I don't know my wife's birthday,  but I know a bit about CA because that is all I know and that is how I make my money.  I made a conscious decision to stay focused with one program.

 

 

 

 

 

 If one of you guys took at start to finish video tutorial on a project with all your processes that would be huge (but I realize not practical in terms of effort).I think I have in essence done the start to finish video.  It might be a bit dated by now,  but I do remember the  point was to find out how quickly and efficiently I can do a set of plans.  

 

I did the start to finish video several years ago.  It was an excersize to determine how quickly I could do the plans.  It is somewhere out there.

 

I get it,  until you have done many homes,  you do not know the process.  And the more homes you do,  the more you tweak the process to become quicker.

 

It is definitely an organized process to draw the plans.  And yes,  I know CA is not perfect,  I have said a few nasty words while dealing with their program.  

 

For some of us lame brains,  CA is all we can handle, and to help improve it,  we take the pilgrimage out to headquarters every other year.........  believe me,  it's not the golf or the fine dining or the cruise on the lake that gets me out there,  it is the opportunity to interact with Doug,  Dan,  Brian,  Scott and the rest..........  errrr ,    18 holes of golf or 3 hours with ?  Really an easy decision.

[HumbleChief]

This may be one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. From what I've seen in the above Vectorworks video, and the capabilities I know to be in ArchiCAD, these both already HAVE these capabilities. So why aren't we just using these programs, if we really need these features? For me, the answer is that these higher-level programs are now so feature-laden that the complexity of use overwhelms what I need to get done. I look at the Vectorworks dialog boxes within boxes, and my brain turns to mush. From what I've seen, Revit is worse. There are many things that need to be improved in Chief, for sure. But I do not need clay-like modeling,  "Teamwork" features, IFC compatibility, or the ability to show phased work. For the type of projects that I do, the current level of features are pretty much fine. I don't WANT Chief to become ArchiCAD, because the relative simplicity of use that I depend on would be gone. I can now sit in front of a client and design some pretty good floor plans with furniture and trim, especially if using the House Wizard features. (Including in addition/alteration projects.) I can't do that with ArchiCAD, because there are so many damn settings to be juggled. I'm not doing "sculptural" works. If I were, I would use a different program. What I would lose by the addition of all of these modeling features would be too high of a price -- and we are fooling ourselves if we don't think there is a price in piling on features. In the hands of an expert user, any program is going to seem amazing. "Snobby architects" may use these modeling programs to their advantage, but that's not my market, nor the market of 95% of most projects out there.

Richard, I couldn't agree more regarding the complexity of the mentioned programs. I think there's a certain power within that complexity but the learning curve is very steep, as it is in all design software. I do not need to design atrocities such as Frank Gehry has perpetrated, I just need good solid software to design residential remodels and custom homes.

 

I think Chief has lots of room for improvement to be sure but the complexity of some of the design software leaves me cold with way too many tools I would never use and the dialog boxes within boxes within boxes etc. would make me crazy - until I became expert of course.

 

The one thing that changed my mind and made me stop looking for any other software was this video below from a Revit expert. It took him an hour to create the house he demonstrated with no real cabinet selection (you have to actually purchase families of cabinets, door etc.) and really just so so presentation tools. Some nice tools for sure but overall, without that expertise, it would/could take me days just to learn the interface.

 

Speaking of competitions, I wonder how long it would take an expert Chief user to repeat what is shown in the video below? Layout's already set up with sections and floor plan views sent from a previous plan, just like you would start a new project. Any estimates?

 

Any takers?

 

[dshall]

.....The one thing that changed my mind and made me stop looking for any other software was this video below from a Revit expert. It took him an hour to create the house he demonstrated with no real cabinet selection (you have to actually purchase families of cabinets, door etc.) and really just so so presentation tools.......

 

Larry,  I have been bugging my  son for a couple years now to demonstrate REVIT to me.  He is not an expert yet,  but I think he is pretty good,  he loves the program,  and he is getting better at it.

 

I think I might have to start withholding his allowance until he gives me a demonstration.

[HumbleChief]

Maybe you guys could have a 'house off' and see which has which strength/weaknesses? Does he do residential design?

 

I'd be curious but really have no intention of learning another program, nor do I have the time or mental dexterity in these later years.

 

Have you seen that video? It is an hour long and very enlightening and to be honest I was underwhelmed to say the least. Now if I was doing commercial projects or Gehryesque type projects Chief would not even be a thought, but for my business, it's very good, sometimes not great, but very good.

[Lighthouse]

Clearly Chief is used by a wide variety of users with varying requirements. And I agree that programs can become burdened with too many features.  I assume Chief understands their market and tries to build the features that their users want.  Of course the problem is  they don't know whether the lack of certain features keeps large market segments from buying the product in the first place. 

 

Most people design conventional homes that can be easily drawn in Chief, and maybe that's the end of the story.  But the question is how many people out there who do unconventional buildings use Chief and are frustrated, or don't use Chief because it's not a good solid modeler.   I don't know the answer, but it might be a question worth asking.  Can we take an informal poll?  Of course, I'm sure this forum is skewed towards a particular type of user, and therefore the poll would not be perfect, but I'm curious if I'm a one-percenter, or maybe there are more users than we might think that would like these tools?