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

[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

[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.

[johnnyprc]

More from Raymond Ridge

[IRISH]

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

[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.

[johnnyprc]

thanks IRISH - or i guess Gary. So you know we are modeling that out right now in CA, and I will upload later to show.

[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.

[johnnyprc]

After I do these homes in CA maybe I will have a different impression. This is the first major project im doing in CA. The other architect who posted said "skittish". I was just interested to see another architect write the same thing.

My daftsman so far uses those words to describe CA. There is a learning curve needed so avoid elements in the program that it appears they couldn't fix. Dshall, I remember you working on something for me in a video that you had a fit with - and you couldnt understand why CA was acting that way. Really, thats what I am talking about and if I could bring more attention to it maybe Chief will fix it.

[dshall]

A..........Dshall, I remember you working on something for me in a video that you had a fit with - and you couldnt understand why CA was acting that way. Really, thats what I am talking about and if I could bring more attention to it maybe Chief will fix it.

Good point, I am essentially a nitwit, so what I may have been having issues with may have been my bad, that is why it is important to specify what the issue is. Just today I learned one more thing that I was blaming CA for, but I learned how to work around the issue.

[Dave Pitman]

I see this from both sides. I think that Chief is capable of providing equally nice elevations, and could get close to the development plot plan by utilizing individual plans turned into symbols.

Also, many problems in the model come from not having specifications for various objects set up correctly.

On the other hand, I have always thought a "work around" should be used "while" the issue in the program requiring it was "fixed". And, that "fixed" should not take new versions. New "versions" are for new features and added functionality.

Many disagree with this, including CA.

[johnnyprc]

One thing misleading is that these elevations are a very low res. here. These print lazer sharp, and I notice the images aren't a good representation.

Oddly, when I print 2D from CA its not as sharp as from other CAD apps. I know I am not the first person to say this.

[Dave Pitman]

One thing misleading is that these elevations are a very low res. here. These print lazer sharp, and I notice the images aren't a good representation.

In order to take subjectivity and screen resolution out of the equation, could you provide a pdf with one of those elevations that we could print locally to compare with a Chief derived print?