Chief Vs Autocad

[BuilderBen]

Well there you go then; for molding and cabinets use CA. For 12th century cathedrals use Archicad. Scott, any chance of ominous organ music in your vids (or at least some Jon Lord)

jon

It seems you could also use Archicad for airports...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0tUoYUue1U

Anyhow, I'm new here so hi all. I've used Archicad for a couple of years after ironically feeling Revit's 2D tools leaves some things to be desired, and am now looking to see if Chief could be a good fit. I'm 100% residential and still lack a couple of hundred of IDP hours before I can call myself an Architect. I will get there eventually, just got tired working for someone else for the moment.

Archicad is a great tool, but for pure residential work I feel it has a lot of options and open ended approaches that makes it a bit cumbersome to do the bread and butter stuff for typical homes. Mouldings and other practical aspects certainly seems very accessible in Chief. It also seems to have very solid support from all possible manufacturers. I'm getting a little nervous over some people's concern over some of the 2D tools though and I have still to get the hang of layout. Still got a couple of weeks on my trial but have studied a lot of videos.

Not wanting to kick a hornet's nest in my first post, but from reading some of the posts and threads here I get the feeling that perhaps the majority here are more design/builders as opposed to academically trained architects? Would that be a fair assumption? It seems that every time someone wishes for better 2D tools and features such as line profiles, fog, etc they often get shut down and told that it's not needed. I wonder if this view is shared by the developers of Chief, as I'm personally not looking for a pure builder's tool as such. What drew me to trying out Chief was fast conceptual possibilities.

Richard, not having spent too much time with Chief yet I would be very interested to hear more specifically what you think are cumbersome on the construction document side compared to AC?

Ben

[Ron Ravenscroft]

Nuts, no discussion needed, CA blows ACAD away and for residential work as you describe, CA blows Revit away. Was that statement clear enough? Do I know what I am talking about? I think so. Talk to someone who uses Revit and he/she may disagree, but I bet I could blow them away with CA.

Much better than ACAD, most anything is. Chief's big shortcoming is that they don't pat much attention to Construction Drawings.

[RMorrison]

Richard, not having spent too much time with Chief yet I would be very interested to hear more specifically what you think are cumbersome on the construction document side compared to AC?
Ben

Well, several things:
1) Schedules. Chief has difficulty with door/window/plumbing fixture schedules, etc. After you get used to highly customizable schedules in AC that can give you opening square footages, say, along with subtotals, it's hard to accept the limitations of Chief. In AC, anything can be scheduled. In Chief, not so much. At version X5, I am frustrated that I really can't a decent light fixture schedule out of Chief.

2) I have trouble with Chief's fill patterns not having a user definable origin for each instance. I depend on this for accurate tile layouts in elevations, especially.

3) Chief starts bogging down with lots of CAD elements. AC doesn't break a sweat. The user interface for drafting is very transparent. Find and Select elements is available, as well as easy group changes of different types of elements at one go.

4) Then there are lots of small things, like automatically generated drawing titles, linked reference bubbles that automatically update when a detail is moved, ability to display elements on upper AND lower floors, ability to make walls with multiple layers intersect correctly, absolutely accurate terrain models, etc.

To be fair, Chief has some advantages in the design stages; its cabinets are far superior to AC's, and I find the House Wizard very useful. You can throw together a model very quickly.

[lbuttery]

I find the House Wizard very useful

Richard:

interesting, not much chatter on the forum about this feature

I tried it back with ver 9.5 and found it wasn't for me
and have ignored it since then

if I was still in business I would have to check it out again
to see what I was missing

Lew

[BuilderBen]

Wow, didn't think there would be a problem with schedules, was under the impression schedules and material lists were some of the strong suits.

I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be any intelligence when it comes to titles, call out links, etc but thought I was perhaps missing some macro knowledge or such. I actually find the whole detailing very confusing and assuming I'm doing it wrong, but every time I create a detail from a view (by zooming in on the portion I want) it copies the whole cross section to the detail. I then have to erase everything that was outside of my view. I know, told you I was doing it wrong. Haven't found any call-out bubbles yet so I did it like this, will dig deeper.

Biggest problem with changing software is that one is set on certain ways and only looking at what seems better in the new toy. I really like Chief so far, but some things are, should I say "interesting", like setting wall heights via a room definitíon. I can't find a way to define levels either so I assume the concept doesn't exist in the same form as AC/Revit.

Funny, just realized the thread was Chief vs Autocad, and not Archicad!

Ben

[RMorrison]

Ben
Actually, material lists are pretty good in Chief -- not perfect -- but pretty good. Certainly better than AC. You are not really doing anything wrong with the View to CAD, that's just what it does. Floors in Chief are "sort of" like levels in ArchiCAD, but don't try to look too hard for equivalency. And if you are looking for some intelligence in references, you won't find any. Who knows, maybe in X6.

[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.

[johnnyprc]

I'll say this about my experience with Vectorworks and light experience with ArchiCAD, and my research into Revit....vs Chief.

Those apps let you do almost anything if you put the time into the projects - and there are much fewer "glitches" along the way - a clear path to follow to completion (albeit longer). Chief seeks to create THEIR intuitive line to follow in completion of a plan set (quicker), and if what you are working on doesn't match their prescriptive method or schedule - you could be in big trouble. There is a Chief doctorate program that is this forum, and many of the "professors" here have solutions to get you through those problems, but it is many times a work-around approach. I think most of us here on a regular basis are trying to see other user's issues and see the solutions played out so we can learn every bit there is to know. It takes some time, but it is worth it. There is even some general value to simply interacting with others in the same profession.

That said, if you are producing a "typical" house plan set that you see in most neighborhoods - its hard to imagine a better app that Chief. If you are drawing/modeling Frank Gehry look-a-likes, Chief isn't the app for you. The only reason I would consider ArchiCAD over Chief is the nagging feeling I know can't complete every project type. I feel better having Vectorworks in my toolbox as well for just that situation. I'm sure Richard feels the same about ArchiCAD.

[sutcac]

I actually find the whole detailing very confusing and assuming I'm doing it wrong, but every time I create a detail from a view (by zooming in on the portion I want) it copies the whole cross section to the detail. I then have to erase everything that was outside of my view. I know, told you I was doing it wrong. Haven't found any call-out bubbles yet so I did it like this, will dig deeper.

If there is one thing I would recommend you learn from the get go is to use CAD to View as infrequently as possible. This is almost always a waste of time in the long run and is one of the first indications that you are not using the program the way it was intended to, or should be, used. And I can say this with a lot of confidence because I did the same thing for way too long and have watched users come and go from here that have been through the same process. Learn how to model things properly and Chief and you will rarely need View to CAD. Absolutely do not use it for sections, and for detailing only proprietary instances that you can't take care of with more standard, "canned" details. A lot of detailing can be done annotating "live" views of the model using filled polylines as "screens" to not show what you don't want to show.

[Doug Park]

Our customer base is dominated by design/build professionals.

However, architects do influence our design decisions significantly. I like to push for features that are more requested by architects because they really do know what they are doing when it comes to design and are asking for things that some of our design/build professionals don't know they need. For example the space planning tools (House Wizard) is something that most architects recognize immediately as a valuable design aid.

As we move forward I believe that the influence from architects will greatly improve the quality of the program.

[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.

[perryh]

Our customer base is dominated by design/build professionals.

However, architects do influence our design decisions significantly. I like to push for features that are more requested by architects because they really do know what they are doing when it comes to design and are asking for things that some of our design/build professionals don't know they need. For example the space planning tools (House Wizard) is something that most architects recognize immediately as a valuable design aid.

As we move forward I believe that the influence from architects will greatly improve the quality of the program.

Doug, really, you've just alienated most of your base. You don't think us designers have anything to offer. Just because anyone is an Architect doesn't mean anything. That was not a good comment coming from Chief. There are a lot of people here you have just insulted.

[RMorrison]

Our customer base is dominated by design/build professionals.

However, architects do influence our design decisions significantly. I like to push for features that are more requested by architects because they really do know what they are doing when it comes to design and are asking for things that some of our design/build professionals don't know they need. For example the space planning tools (House Wizard) is something that most architects recognize immediately as a valuable design aid.

As we move forward I believe that the influence from architects will greatly improve the quality of the program.

Oh, Doug, you know just what to say! ;-)

[RMorrison]

Just because anyone is an Architect doesn't mean anything.

Well, it means that we cared enough about our profession to keep our butts in very expensive chairs for a number of years, work under the guidance of a licensed professional for several years, and demonstrate our competence to a state board.

[lbuttery]

Perry:

Hmmm, I don't feel insulted ???

I think Doug's comments are on point

You know I have been one to defend the right of non-architects to do designs

but I also appreciate that I have learned from watching the architects
and will continue to learn from them

I am certain that there are things they know that I am not even aware of

I firmly believe that CA should have a team of architects (SME's) that they can
consult with preping the next release to ensure that the features are desirable

same for engineers and landscapers and K&B and deck designers etc

CA should pick a famous architect school and code Chief to do "everything" that school does

adding two or three schools would even be better
I'm sure west coast schools have a different focus than east coast schools

Lew