Quirky - that is what I am talking about

[johnnyprc]

here is another direction - XSTUDIO. This logo would need a lot of work, but at least it helps iwth visual. Maybe the X should be much larger and in assocation with the "6". I see this far from "real", but just throwing quick ideas out for fun. I do like the name XSTUDIO and combines the other idea for using "X".

[jcaffee]

The only time you "studio" or "suite" software naming is when there are multiple standalone applications or built-in extensibility for third-party toolset developers. (An API would be required)

"Chief Architect" is iconic within its marketspace to the point where certain educational institutions (individual professors) regularly refer to it as "Cheap Architect". It's good that some know-it-all software snobs are envious enough to ridicule; CA is noticed.

jon

[johnnyprc]

I agree with Suite - but Studio is often about complete functionality. MS Visual Studio, 3D StudioMax - those are "complete" packages.

[jcaffee]

Both packages you mention are open to third-party development. In the case of VS 2012, there are literally thousands of third-party add-on packages available to automate or extend the functionality of the core software.

As the CA staff has mentioned here, on this forum, as much as they would like, none of the CA line has an API, therefore no access but through Ruby scripts. And frankly, automating an external spreadsheet or two does not make the software "Studio" worthy.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic. You do nice work Johnny!

jon

[Bradley Boltz]

OK, how about "STUDIO" by Chief Architect. Here is a quick logo concept (rough)... A Studio denotes you can do it all under 1 roof, and I think that applies to CA if they make the changes in 2D i suggest (LOL).

A better but similar name might be "Project Architect" by ART as "Chief" has alway brought to my mind an image of an American Indian headdress!:Sly: By the way what ever happened to the A.R.T.?

I'm chiming in to have a future link to this thread and do agree with the earlier "Skittish" and stability comments. I also agree with Dave about fixes that should occur during the midterm of the current version and not presented so often as "The next version". Fix the stuff that plagues us regular users and add the bells and whistles after allowing me to dimension to exactly what I want (eg everything on the dang screen).-BB

[HumbleChief]

It seems like changing the name of Chief Architect is a solution looking for a genuine problem.

If Chief Architect performed in a professional manner, and didn't have the 'quirkiness, and whose tool bars were modern and didn't shift around, and walls that connected predictably and dimensions that were accurate and reliable and had features that professional architects needed on a day to day basis, it wouldn't matter WHAT it was called, people would beat a path to its door.

It wouldn't have derogatory nicknames and those who used it would be proud to claim they did. NOT because of its name but because of its features and performance.

Obviously, on the flip side with a GREAT name that EVERYONE thought was absolutely perfect, with an amateurish interface and 'quirky' behavior', and all the things that keep Chief from becoming a GREAT application, it would make absolutely no difference. People would run from the product even with that perfect name.

There's a thousand pieces of software out there with bad names that do an excellent job. Adobe? Corel? HERE'S a list of software names that in NO way indicates how competent their software is.

Hopefully the engineers and officers at CA are not being distracted by changing their company's name and more focused on the job at hand, which is to create the best, most competent and professional software they can.

Likewise, I hope I can stay focused on the job at hand, which is to service my customers with the most professional and competent drawings and design services I can - no matter what the name of the software I use.

[perryh]

I agree Larry, and I think its a, "what it costs thing". Most people think you pay for what you get, and some people must have the most expensive item to get some sort of acceptance from others. This is not necessarily so, not on everything. Revit can charge a lot because it does do anything, and people in this business get some sort of instant approval because they have an expensive program. Its like when I did an Extreme makeover home addition years ago. I did it for free because it gave me instant creditability with customers, I got calls from all over the country. If they only really knew it doesn't mean anything. Software is kinda like that in a different way.

[lbuttery]

I don't think the name Chief Architect needs to be changed
and I doubt if CA would be willing to do so

I do think the Home Designer products should be sold under a different label
like they were in the past to avoid confusion with a "cheaper" product

Lew

[HumbleChief]

Revit? Seriously? That name, I think, makes the point brilliantly.

[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.

[johnnyprc]

I think the naming issue got a little off-the-mark with this thread. Its a small thing. I dont think anyone expects Chief to change their name so much as actually name their product. "Home Designer" is the name of Chief Architect's entry level CAD, but it lists "Chief Architect" in a way that makes people think that is the name of the software.

What we all use for a pro version is called what?? Premier? Is that a noun or adjective? That is the point people - there really is no straighforward name for the pro product, so its very confusing.

To carry this further, since Premier is not the name but the description, are we using "Home Designer", the Premier verion by Chief Architect? So when was the last time any of you referenced this correctly? We call it Chief Architect, but it is really not I guess. Listen, no need to argue with me here, I see the extreme viewpoint I am taking - and I dont even agree with myself completely. Point is - its confusing.

I am way more worried about functionality - so all this discussion on name is a lesser point by far.

So lets just call it: "Chief Architect by Chief Architect" - cause that makes a lot of sense. (we'll have the exorcism later)

[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...

[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.

[rcole]

Yes, that is very true, and I agree that printing from a model is by far the better way to go.

For me that is even the case for concept applications. Crank the model and go. In that sense 2D tools are best used for final edits to elevations and documentation.

There is another application for good 2D tools that should not be overlooked. That is the creation of custom 3D objects. I have attached a custom window surround that I did yesterday.

I could have done this in CA using the tools available, but it would have taken way longer and been much harder to work with. In this case I used 2D profiles to create the 3D geometry that makes up the Symbol object in Chief.

I see also that I want to change a few things on the surround. Again, easy in another app, but a pain using Chief. Walls, window, paneling, and custom chair rail in Chief, but the custom surround was done in another app.

Just saying that it would be nice if Chief stepped up and gave us a few tools that worked in a more traditional fashion. The reason I use other apps is because I have found that it is easier get the model done by what ever means required to get it right than to fight with Chief.

Back then I would use CAD tools to fix problems with the model rather than fight with Chiefs automatic modeling features. Now I use other programs in order to solve that problem. Why, because they have better 2D tools that I can use to create 3D models. 2D tools are fundamental to 3D modeling in many ways.

Edit: Creating complex models is not as difficult for me now as it was then, but that is mostly because I don't use CA for those situations any more. Even with features such as Ray Tracing, unless your business is producing renderings, we still get paid mostly for putting lines on paper. Good modeling tools and good CAD tools are both very important to me in order to produce work in a timely manner.