Looking for help with the thought process Please


MC_Florida
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think we should be open to borrow from any program that offers something that makes Chief faster and more productive to use

 

Nicinus:

 

I agree 1000%

 

why not continue to make Chief better ???

 

otherwise, CA could have stopped long ago with the upgrades

 

I'm sure many of us remember a decade ago when we all enthralled on how good Chief 9.5 was

 

wow, it can do all of that ....

 

Lew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me there are many reasons not to use Revit and price is not one of them. I watched a video of a simple house being created by a Revit expert that took at least twice as long as the same thing would have taken in Chief with cabinetry that looked like it was created by a child. Way too complex and almost no library of cabinets/fixture etc. Some nice features but nothing compelling enough to switch, again without cost as a factor.

 

Having said that there's no reason Chief has to be anything like Revit and no reason they can't implement their own version of 'phases' and make it easier to use and understand. After all it's only a series of layers turned on and off for each 'phase'. We currently have the ability to do everything that Revit's phases does except place walls from different phases in the same location(s).

 

An overarching 'Versions' system that contained each set of plans with a master Layer control for each 'version' would be sweet IMO. Each 'version' could be named and categorized and held within a single plan file. Click on a different version and every thing changes to that version.

 

I wonder how many of Chief's users would welcome such a feature? I would use it all day every day but what's the cost benefit within Chief business model? There's no reason to implement such a major change without a lot of customer requests for such a feature and how would such a feature effect overall sales?

 

I would welcome a feature like this with open arms and he!! yes, steal every good feature from every competitor out there until Chief becomes even more powerful and useful.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of Chief's users would welcome such a feature?

 

Larry:

 

considering that we see this request "often" it would seem to something that Chief should offer

 

time after time a new user comes here only to be frustrated and told "so sorry"

you have to use a "workaround" - that's what we all do

 

Lew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that there's no reason Chief has to be anything like Revit and no reason they can't implement their own version of 'phases' and make it easier to use and understand. After all it's only a series of layers turned on and off for each 'phase'. We currently have the ability to do everything that Revit's phases does except place walls from different phases in the same location(s).

 

I would welcome a feature like this with open arms and he!! yes, steal every good feature from every competitor out there until Chief becomes even more powerful and useful.

 

Bingo! That's how we should look at things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...we could even use Anno Sets as they now exist with the exception of walls occupying the same space in different versions. Is that the only limitation within Chief's current paradigm?

 

I'm going to move this to the suggestion forum, even though it's not a new idea, maybe it's time to revisit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of Chief's users would welcome such a feature?

 

Larry:

 

considering that we see this request "often" it would seem to something that Chief should offer

 

time after time a new user comes here only to be frustrated and told "so sorry"

you have to use a "workaround" - that's what we all do

 

Lew

 

Two things I'd like to say here. 

 

Number one,  just because we hear a request often doesn't make it realistically feasible.  Chief's room based system works differently than many other design programs.  I think it may simultaneously be one if its biggest strengths and its biggest weaknesses.  I believe most everything and everybody that is really good at anything is going to have this same problem.  

 

Number two,  just because you see another program do something doesn't make what we're doing in Chief a "workaround".  That's simply ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me there are many reasons not to use Revit and price is not one of them. I watched a video of a simple house being created by a Revit expert that took at least twice as long as the same thing would have taken in Chief with cabinetry that looked like it was created by a child. Way too complex and almost no library of cabinets/fixture etc. Some nice features but nothing compelling enough to switch, again without cost as a factor.

 

Having said that there's no reason Chief has to be anything like Revit and no reason they can't implement their own version of 'phases' and make it easier to use and understand. After all it's only a series of layers turned on and off for each 'phase'. We currently have the ability to do everything that Revit's phases does except place walls from different phases in the same location(s).

 

An overarching 'Versions' system that contained each set of plans with a master Layer control for each 'version' would be sweet IMO. Each 'version' could be named and categorized and held within a single plan file. Click on a different version and every thing changes to that version.

 

I wonder how many of Chief's users would welcome such a feature? I would use it all day every day but what's the cost benefit within Chief business model? There's no reason to implement such a major change without a lot of customer requests for such a feature and how would such a feature effect overall sales?

 

I would welcome a feature like this with open arms and he!! yes, steal every good feature from every competitor out there until Chief becomes even more powerful and useful.

 

I would welcome a feature like that as well, but I think its a whole lot easier said than done. 

 

Because of Chief's room based modelling approach and because of the way walls, floors, and roofs make automatic connections, I'm thinking multiple walls would be next to impossible...which is probably the reason we're currently limited to having only 2 walls occupy the same space (1 normal and 1 no room definition)...even with just those 2 we run into connection issues.   Any more than that and how is Chief supposed to know how to make any of those connections? 

 

Like anything there would also be unexpected costs and consequences .  We would either have to start manually setting each and every wall, floor, and roof connection parameter, or the program would become slower and more complicated, or it would get more expensive, or likely a bit of all 3...before you know it we have Revit.  If that's what you want, go buy Revit.

 

Would the feature be cool?  Maybe.  Would it be worth it?  Probably not.  Just my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I don't doubt your analysis is correct but so what? And I really don't mean that in a negative way. It might be difficult, but so what? It's all difficult isn't it? So what?

 

I don't want any parts of Revit that I've seen but having the ability to have more that one plan version in a single plan file would be awesome IMO. Is it too hard? Maybe, but given the incentive it might be doable but I'd leave that up the Chief programmers to figure it out instead of deciding it can't be done for whatever reason I think might be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

 

I have to disagree with your number one and two above...

 

also, as a former programmer I "think" it could be done

(notice I didn't say easily)

 

my suggestion would be for chief to have a model space area

where the model to display is totally controlled by layers that are on

 

this would be "planset" 1

 

need an alternative then create "planset" 2 in another model space area

 

there could be as many "plansets" as memory and other resources would allow

 

at a  minimum a decent PC should be able to have 4 (?) "planset" capability

 

then the user need simply choose the "planset" to work in

with the ability to change "planset" just like we change layout pages or floors now

 

will this method work ???

 

only CA can answer that

 

Lew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strictly do residential additions and remodels.I find that a CAD block of the existing plan, superposed, locked and sent to the back works really, really well for remodeling. As I move walls the dashed demolition lines are exposed. I do have to change the wall line type, ore delete and build a new wall, but it keeps my demo plan in front of me as I do my design work.

You can apply the same process to elevations if desired.

I also assign existing framing to a layer so as to be able to control the display on my framing diagrams. Existing roof planes can also be put on a seperate layer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do many many remodels for many many years now and find Chief is the perfect software for me. It does everything I need to produce every condition I need so to those that say not good for remodeling, learn how to use it. Just don't use the material list, to much trouble to get correct.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

 

I have to disagree with your number one and two above...

 

also, as a former programmer I "think" it could be done

(notice I didn't say easily)

 

my suggestion would be for chief to have a model space area

where the model to display is totally controlled by layers that are on

 

this would be "planset" 1

 

need an alternative then create "planset" 2 in another model space area

 

there could be as many "plansets" as memory and other resources would allow

 

at a  minimum a decent PC should be able to have 4 (?) "planset" capability

 

then the user need simply choose the "planset" to work in

with the ability to change "planset" just like we change layout pages or floors now

 

will this method work ???

 

only CA can answer that

 

Lew

 

Lew, I have no doubt the method you described would work and I don't believe it would be too difficult to accomplish.  I just think it would miss the target by a mile.  You would still have 4 different plans to manually modify and sync.  I guess it's not a bad idea and it might serve a purpose, but its nothing like the "phase" idea.  The key to making any good, usable "phase" system would be to be able to place ONLY the new objects being modified and have the connections work correctly for all options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I don't doubt your analysis is correct but so what? And I really don't mean that in a negative way. It might be difficult, but so what? It's all difficult isn't it? So what?

 

I don't want any parts of Revit that I've seen but having the ability to have more that one plan version in a single plan file would be awesome IMO. Is it too hard? Maybe, but given the incentive it might be doable but I'd leave that up the Chief programmers to figure it out instead of deciding it can't be done for whatever reason I think might be relevant.

 

I just think its wise to be careful what we ask for is all.  If there are obvious potential drawbacks and costs, it might be a good idea not to try and push an issue too hard.  We may get exactly what we ask for...and find it it wasn't worth the cost.  Not saying that's the case with this, just think its worth considering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

 

you missed the point about plansets

 

they would all be in one .plan file just like layersets and annosets

 

the central idea is total absolute control over what displays via layers

 

if existing walls are on layer A and new walls on layer B

then if the user tries to turn on both layers Chief would issue a warning that those layers

belong to different plansets

 

Lew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

 

you missed the point about plansets

 

they would all be in one .plan file just like layersets and annosets

 

the central idea is total absolute control over what displays via layers

 

if existing walls are on layer A and new walls on layer B

then if the user tries to turn on both layers Chief would issue a warning that those layers

belong to different plansets

 

Lew

No. I didn't miss anything. I understood all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Member Statistics

    32364
    Total Members
    9156
    Most Online
    Optimum_Moving
    Newest Member
    Optimum_Moving
    Joined