Chief Vs Autocad

[moak]

I will fully own my bias in this debate. I've used AC and VW in the professional environment and feel Chief pulls it all together better. I went from Archicad to Chief and my impression was "here's software that is doing the things Archicad promised, but fell short." My AC experience was full time from 04-07 and this spring with AC16 evaluating for an office considering a switch form DataCAD (!) to CA or AC. Honestly, if CA did not exist I'd be using Archicad.

I fully agree with Richard's comments in post 48. Schedules and automated titles are one feature of AC I miss.

Here are the things that tipped the balance for me:

• Chief out of the box produced 2D drawings from the model that were acceptable in terms of content and line weights. It might not be what I was drawing with DumbCAD but it was superior to what I could generate with AC. I'll concede this could be a user issue, but not for lack of effort or GENERAL competence learning software. This was a big issue for me, as it allowed me to really take advantage of the benefits of the parametric software.
• Ease of cabinet and custom molding creation. This is important in the custom residential market I work in. For that matter, custom objects in general I found easier to create or import form Sketchup.
• I prefer Chief's method of automatically creating floors over Archicad's approach of requiring the user to create them.
• Roof tools are better for manipulating, joining, creating trim, dormers. Again, the nature of my work means I can almost never rely on the auto roof. They are all manual. I found this easier in CA. Walls automatically join to roofs in Chief, manually done in AC.
• When I change the floor elevation in Chief all the fixtures, cabinets, furniture, windows, etc.. move along with it. Not so with AC.
• I prefer the graphic environment if CA. My first impression was the interface was a bit cartoony, but the views of the model were good. I always felt the AC model looked like screenshots from DOOM. The AC interface can be overwhelming. Maybe it's designed to project it's power, but I have found myself thinking there was so much on screen, to the point of distraction.
• Chief had a better library for the projects I was designing.
• Templates were easier to Create in CA.
• I initially struggled with CAD in CA. Lines always join to form polylines frustrated me. I decided to unload the way I historically drew cad and develop a method that worked with CA. My cad details are new composed of more filled polylines and rectangles than cad lines. I agree with suggestions the CA should add transparency options for fills.
• A general overall impression I have is that Archicad makes few assumptions to honor an ability to create any building type. This requires the user to create and define the things that are not assumed. Chief, being designed for the custom residential/light commercial market I operate in, makes many assumptions (framing approach, floor constructions, etc..) that relate directly to my end goal. I can rely on much of the automated features and easily create the custom conditions when needed.

DSH "Okay, but the next time you do a Sagrada de Familia, you probably would choose Archicad, is that a fair statement?"
I'd give it a go in CA first, but I've drink the KoolAid. Really, I'm trying to do fewer cathedrals these days.

[RMorrison]

<snip>[*]Ease of cabinet and custom molding creation. This is important in the custom residential market I work in. For that matter, custom objects in general I found easier to create or import form Sketchup.
<snip>[*]When I change the floor elevation in Chief all the fixtures, cabinets, furniture, windows, etc.. move along with it. Not so with AC.
<snip>.

@Kevin: I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but a couple of corrections/clarifications. The Morph Tool was introduced in AC16, which has most of the power of Sketchup for creating custom objects. It would be hard to master this in an evaluation period, though. AC17 now ties wall heights to story heights, and moves everything if you change a level height. However, most objects were previously able to be adjusted relative to their level/story height, so this concern may have already been addressed.

@Ben: You've gotten some excellent viewpoints, but one thing to consider is the prior time investment and general familiarity. I suspect that a longtime pilot of a Piper Cub would be overwhelmed with the instrument panel of a 747, whereas someone who'd been flying a 747 for many years would think it was no big deal. One advantage that Chief has that hasn't really been mentioned in this thread is this forum itself. Questions here often get answered within hours-- sometimes within minutes. Of course, you also have to put up with incessant posts about golf, and sometimes snarkiness (and I'm not claiming to be blameless here), which the ArchiCAD-Talk forum doesn't have. In general, though, I think this forum is an invaluable asset that should be heavily counted in Chief's favor.

[dshall]

.................Of course, you also have to put up with incessant posts about golf, and sometimes snarkiness (and I'm not claiming to be blameless here), which the ArchiCAD-Talk forum doesn't have. In general, though, I think this forum is an invaluable asset that should be heavily counted in Chief's favor.

Richard is absolutely correct here. In fact, I am sure this comment was aimed in my direction, guilty as charged. But I will say that with any active forum, there will always be some comments or posts that are not interesting to some. And the more one posts, the odds are the greater number of useless or what can be perceived as snarky comments there are, there are already a few snarky comments in this thread.

I have been on a few other forums, but this one is by far the best I have been on when it comes to getting answers to your question. There are many people here who take their time to help others, not only for the sake of helping others, but also because it helps them to better understand the program.

I consider the folks on this forum part of my extended family, and with all families, there are a few conflicts. Many times I have thought of bailing on this forum because somebody hurt my little feelings, but that is on me. Bottom line, this forum and what I learn from this forum is invaluable to me. I appreciate the help I get from all of the participants on this forum, from the power users to the newbies, they all have something to contribute, which benefits.............. who?.............. mi, mi, mi.

Hey Joe, see you at 2:00 for the round of golf.

[BuilderBen]

[*]A general overall impression I have is that Archicad makes few assumptions to honor an ability to create any building type. This requires the user to create and define the things that are not assumed. Chief, being designed for the custom residential/light commercial market I operate in, makes many assumptions (framing approach, floor constructions, etc..) that relate directly to my end goal. I can rely on much of the automated features and easily create the custom conditions when needed.

That is an interesting aspect that I will keep in mind going forward. In a way fulfilling the old desire that BIM should be an aid in construction decisions, and not only be a 3D environment for CAD.

Have to agree that the forum seems second to none, the interaction and generosity is very impressive and encouraging.

I just found and played with the House wizard, absolutely brilliant. After scribbling on paper for years I started doing bubble diagram in Illustrator in order to keep it more to scale, but this is really handy for area calculations and fast concepts. Then being able to convert it a floor plan was just too much fun!

Still yet not entirely happy or understanding details though. So when I do a "CAD detail from view" it actually copies that whole section? Fine, that doesn't seem logical to me but so be it. However, after doing an Auto detail (which is convenient) the fills (and every line) is then 'super exploded' when I get to the detail view? Can't I keep editing for example insulation? This one I just have to misunderstand, or I don't see the point of sending a view to a CAD detail.

Ben