Quirky - that is what I am talking about

[johnnyprc]

Its funny, I was just reading a post recently by another architect selling his X4, and he said:

"Its like im fighting the 3d model. I also find it quite skittish"

That is very similar to a post I had. The truth is that Chief has THE BEST possible BIM CAD out there (even for light commercial), but they need to clean this program up for architects to be interested.

I also own VectorWorks, and Chief needs a lot of work on 2D tools for detailing - mostly how they work. Also, printing is very odd. The drawings just don't look "sharp". I don't know what it is, but for you lifelong Chief users, if you see other CAD systems - it is much sharper. That was also the complaint of the other architect.

The "skittish" and quirky issues need to be resolved. The interface needs to be updated in a very bad way. The icons look so old and cheap. They almost need a re-name too, as the idea there is a $3k+ professional version of what some people buy at Costco for $79 is not appealing for architects. When my clients ask me what I use for software, I don't say "Cheif Architect" for fear they say "oh, i have that program too", "can I get the file to make changes to materials?" When I hand them a $15-20k bill it just doesn't go over well.

[David J. Potter]

Home Designer Pro 2012 is about $495.00 for legal copies.

I have been using Chief Inc software since 1995. I do not find it unstable in any way when used as it is designed.

Part of my business model is supporting older versions of Chief (back to version 9.5) and Home Designer titles, versions 7-2012 (7, 8, 9, 10 and 2012, each version has about seven different titles ranging in price from $75.00 to $495.00) and the persons who use them.

The common denominator of skittish-unstable plans is the ineptitude of end-users who use the software without carefully studying how it is designed to work.
They use it via their "intuition" (aka: guessing) which then leads to goofy behaviors of many and varied kinds.
When those incorrect settings are set in agreement with what one is doing, the behavior and "personality" of the plan goes away as well.

Anyone who really knows Chief Inc Software would not say it is unstable, rather it is an indication of an absence of personal responsibility in the person saying such drivel.
It is like saying that "my hammer bent over the nail".

DJP

[johnnyprc]

I don't agree about it being an issue of "ineptitude of end-users who use the software without carefully studying how it is designed to work".

As an architect, the software should work in a logical way by which to act as my tool. If the tool gets in the way of my creativity, then its not a good tool. Learning how the tool works so you are dictated by that tool is never a good result. I will tell you, if I go back and forth between Vectorworks, Autocad, 3D Studio Max, Sketchup, Revit, I do not find the same "quirky" behavior. Learning curve, yes - quirky, no. Chief needs to stop creating "work-a-rounds" in their software and get it right.

It so happens that even though I think Chief is quirky, it does some things so well its worth it for me to deal with those issues. My recommendation here is to fix the issue for other users who are staying away from Chief due to these issues. Chief is SOOOOO close to being GREAT.

[dshall]

Its funny, I was just reading a post recently by another architect selling his X4, and he said:

"Its like im fighting the 3d model. I also find it quite skittish"

That is very similar to a post I had. The truth is that Chief has THE BEST possible BIM CAD out there (even for light commercial), but they need to clean this program up for architects to be interested.

I also own VectorWorks, and Chief needs a lot of work on 2D tools for detailing - mostly how they work. Also, printing is very odd. The drawings just don't look "sharp". I don't know what it is, but for you lifelong Chief users, if you see other CAD systems - it is much sharper. That was also the complaint of the other architect.

The "skittish" and quirky issues need to be resolved. The interface needs to be updated in a very bad way. The icons look so old and cheap. They almost need a re-name too, as the idea there is a $3k+ professional version of what some people buy a Costco for $79 is not appealing for architects. When my clients ask me what I use for software, I don't say "Cheif Architect" for fear they say "oh, i have that program too", "can I get the file to make changes to materials?" When I hand them a $15-20k bill it just doesn't go over well.

15-20 k bill? Are you nuts? Are you designing a 30 unit apartment complex or a 2000 sf addition. I too would question your billing..... Are you nuts? Why don't you show us an example of your work. what do you mean by skittish, please be a bit more specific or lose all credibility, thank you.

[sutcac]

I'd pretty much have to support my colleagues above. Yes, most architects don't use Chief, but it's mostly because they just don't know any better, run with the herd, and/or fall for the behemoth marketing budget of Autodesk. I have a good number of projects that top the $15-20K range and I get no complaints from clients about my drawings, renderings, or the 3D experience they get in the design process. Most are AMAZED.

Two words- USER and ERROR

[Ron Ravenscroft]

I'd pretty much have to support my colleagues above. Yes, most architects don't use Chief, but it's mostly because they just don't know any better, run with the herd, and/or fall for the behemoth marketing budget of Autodesk. I have a good number of projects that top the $15-20K range and I get no complaints from clients about my drawings, renderings, or the 3D experience they get in the design process. Most are AMAZED.

Two words- USER and ERROR

Well said, BUT, slabs, schedules, easy condocs are not even close to being "up-to-snuff". I can not believe how cumbersome using cad is in many instances. At times the Chief people are a little off the make on what is important.

[rcole]

I used to keep a little note next to my computer screen to remind myself to not get too wrapped up in creating complex 3D models.

The note read "Lines on Paper = Dollars"

It is no wonder to me that good CAD tools are considered such an important aspect of a professional CAD system.

[fcwilt]

I used to keep a little note next to my computer screen to remind myself to not get too wrapped up in creating complex 3D models.

The note read "Lines on Paper = Dollars"

A object oriented program like CA will create lots of lines way faster then traditional CAD.

Modeling has so many advantages it's hard to imagine using just a 2D CAD program.

[johnnyprc]

Well said, BUT, slabs, schedules, easy condocs are not even close to being "up-to-snuff". I can not believe how cumbersome using cad is in many instances. At times the Chief people are a little off the make on what is important.

I would say architects want to have the feel and ability to "purely design/draw", almost like they did with traditional media. In a large way that is why Sketchup has done well, along with the newer Vectorworks - 3D with freedom.

With the QUIRKY elements CA still has, it doesn't allow you to get into a design flow easy, having to always think of: "what was that work-around again"....

That said CA is still better OVERALL than the others. Many things you can't do obviously with Sketchup...

[Ron Ravenscroft]

I would say architects want to have the feel and ability to "purely design/draw", almost like they did with traditional media. In a large way that is why Sketchup has done well, along with the newer Vectorworks - 3D with freedom.

With the QUIRKY elements CA still has, it doesn't allow you to get into a design flow easy, having to always think of: "what was that work-around again"....

That said CA is still better OVERALL than the others. Many things you can't do obviously with Sketchup...

I want to applaud you for the way you have conducted this discussion. I tend to get off track sometimes to my disadvantage. I use Chief in a different way, I do my preliminary design with a sketchpad, then I Start a Chief model. Once the model is approved by the Client I export the plans, sections and elevations to VirsaCad via DWG. VCAD is still a 2D program but I can finish a better set of ConDocs with it. That is not to say some of the users produce great drawings with Chief. My guess is that they are willing to spend more time on the program that I am. I have attempted a couple of small project entirely with Chief. I found myself drawing details in VCAD and importing them to Chief due to faster 2D in VCAD. ART was dropped a few years ago, it may be time to get chief going in a more Architect friendly direction. I mentioned areas for improvement the other day, there are more such as metal studs, hollow metal door frames, etc.

Ron

[johnnyprc]

This is a current project I am working on - entire contract is $122k for these homes in the development. But I had to draw these concepts in Vectorworks as I was coming up with concepts - and look at the plat drawing, NO WAY Chief does anything like this. I guess I am just saying better line drawings. These are all from the same project - I will upload rest on next post.

[sutcac]

This is a current project I am working on - entire contract is $122k for these homes in the development. But I had to draw these concepts in Vectorworks as I was coming up with concepts - and look at the plat drawing, NO WAY Chief does anything like this. I guess I am just saying better line drawings. These are all from the same project - I will upload rest on next post.

The elevation images you posted are quite nice. Are those, and the plat done entirely native to Vectorworks? And, are they 3D views of the model, or entirely converted to 2D line drawings? With the exception of the shadows in the vector view (which I import as an image from a model exported to Sketchup), this can be done entirely within CA. You can nit-pick the attached example, and a bit more time with details would have improved it, but it was produced in a matter of minutes and I think disproves the "NO WAY Chief does anything like this".

I don't disagree with the interface. It could use a lot of improvement, but I find what gets in the way of my creativity more than anything is most often my lack of experience and knowledge of the tools, not the tools themselves. I think it is premature to make a blanket statement about CA, or any other software of this level of complexity and sophistication, when you haven't completed even one project fully in it.

I can't really speak to the printing issue either, although sharpness of my drawings has just never proved to be an issue.

[johnnyprc]

More from Raymond Ridge

[dshall]

I just may stand corrected. I will say that I think CA does just as well with the ELEVATIONS,. I will admit that your site plan looks very nice, but that is not to concede that CA can't do just as well. I believe the main comment that I took offense to, was when you descibed CA as squirrly. CA can be squirrly, but I think it is important to be more specific.

[IRISH]

Well, no matter all the rest of the discussion: I really like your elevation drawings. Very nicely done indeed!