Quirky - that is what I am talking about

[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

[fcwilt]

There is another application for good 2D tools that should not be overlooked. That is the creation of custom 3D objects.

I would think that to create custom 3D objects you would need a program that would work in 3D. How does one create 3D objects in a 2D program?

Just saying that it would be nice if Chief stepped up and gave us a few tools that worked in a more traditional fashion.

I like DeWalt tools but they don't always make the tool I need - then I need to go with another brand. Sort of the same situation - CA will likely never be able to be all things to all people.

[rcole]

Every 3D object is fundamentally a projection of a 2D profile, the only difference is that some programs give you a command that automates the process.

There are a lot of programs that give the user the ability to convert 2D geometry into 3D geometry by projecting it into 3D space.

I believe the point of this thread is that certain professionals, Architects, would be more inclined to use CA if it functioned in a more familiar fashion. Also there is the comparison between the quality of the tools being evaluated.

Basically tools that are percieved to be cheap and with limited function verses tools that are percieved to be of high quality. Yes, I agree that no program will be all things to all people.

But what we are talking about here seems to me to be that what is an otherwise quality tool is suffering in a particular area, and that area is effecting it's market appeal in a broader sense.

[Ron Ravenscroft]

I would think that to create custom 3D objects you would need a program that would work in 3D. How does one create 3D objects in a 2D program?



I like DeWalt tools but they don't always make the tool I need - then I need to go with another brand. Sort of the same situation - CA will likely never be able to be all things to all people.

Most of my details are 2D. I used to fuss over framing and at a users meeting I found that one of the guys that makes great ConDocs in Chief uses lines and 2d For framing once I did that things sped up.

[yusuf]

keeping all those limitations constant i try do some 2d and 3d
without wasting a big time

[johnnyprc]

Ron and RCole:

I think the guys at Chief Architect would like to understand what you (and I) are saying about the 2D. Much of this thread is to point out that Chief's 2D tools need to be greatly improved (in my opinion, and sounds like both of yours). I've thought about doing exactly what Ron is talking about - export my model back into Vectorworks to clean up a nice set of ConDocs.

I do wish CA had the 2D tools the other programs did, and some people have suggested I dont know CA well enough. That could be the case, but I do feel I have not seen examples of 2D drawings coming from Chief that are as "crisp" as what we produce in other apps.

[yusuf]

i support most of your suggestions about improvements of the 2d, and generally ca act global and look around how other software's are performing. about market and brand name of chief architect i don't bother. let them first ask us to comment, they did not still respond either. rather i request to spend 1/1oth of the time you r spending searching market for a big company like ca,to do that for me and this may be value adding for both of us.

[fcwilt]

Ron and RCole:

I do wish CA had the 2D tools the other programs did, and some people have suggested I dont know CA well enough. That could be the case, but I do feel I have not seen examples of 2D drawings coming from Chief that are as "crisp" as what we produce in other apps.

There may be a difference between what you would like to produce in the way of ConDocs and what is actually needed out in the field.

I have built homes using ConDocs generated in CA and they were perfectly fine.

Perhaps builders are not that picky about the quality of the drawings if they are adequate to the task.

That said I am always in favor of CA being improved as long as the improvements add significant value.

[johnnyprc]

Frederick: I am 100% confident that CA produces construction documents that are "perfectly fine". In fact, I am sure the primary marketing of CA is to design/build professionals - not as much architects.

There is a design process architects are taught that goes well beyond "perfectly fine". We study our handwriting and create an art of that alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5p-...feature=relmfu

Some architects, not all, take their drawings very seriously as part of the artistic aspect of our profession. I want my drawings to look better than what most builders draw, and I will take the extra time to apply what I have studied to do so. I believe the process itself can elevate final design.

I would just like my tools to accommodate this. In my argument (per this thread) I suggest CA would be better off to provide this ability in an improved way to appeal to architects as well as the design/build community. The 3D BIM of CA is the best I have seen.

[fcwilt]

There is a design process architects are taught that goes well beyond "perfectly fine". We study our handwriting and create an art of that alone.

Why?

Structures serve a purpose - how does artistic handwriting contribute to that?

Fine handwriting will not improve a bad design and a good design will not serve it's purpose any the less if the handwriting is not so good.

BTW I am an engineer - as such I believe that form follows function.

[yusuf]

Ron and RCole:

I think the guys at Chief Architect would like to understand what you (and I) are saying about the 2D. Much of this thread is to point out that Chief's 2D tools need to be greatly improved (in my opinion, and sounds like both of yours). I've thought about doing exactly what Ron is talking about - export my model back into Vectorworks to clean up a nice set of ConDocs.

I do wish CA had the 2D tools the other programs did, and some people have suggested I dont know CA well enough. That could be the case, but I do feel I have not seen examples of 2D drawings coming from Chief that are as "crisp" as what we produce in other apps.

plse follow this link http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chief-...6990754?v=wall
Suddenly there, i have seen a post added before 3hours. a very nice design of a medical center by chad white using x4 and much alike with your excellent works in other softwares. If that elevations r done in ca with out any other 3rd party collaboration,clearly the feeling we(u,i and many others) have about the degree or extent, users exploit the capability of the software is also a factor and proved.and it is clear that we all feel that ca has some internal strength and wish improvements. Thats why we r talking about it. it is just because we like it. Plse be a fan on facebook and take a look at that post .in my view chad white has performed well in chief and it may become important for us to contact him for details and learn from him his technics.
Thanks

[johnnyprc]

Why?

Structures serve a purpose - how does artistic handwriting contribute to that?

Fine handwriting will not improve a bad design and a good design will not serve it's purpose any the less if the handwriting is not so good.

BTW I am an engineer - as such I believe that form follows function.

I guess it comes down to how far you will take an obsession. I feel like I obsess about my work.

In the movie "The Last Samurai", there is a section where Tom Cruse's character says about the Samurai: "they devote themselves to the perfection of whatever it is they pursue". Its a mindset that you get into that even the small things can be very important. I believe you will see that in all successful cultures and cults.

I propose that a person who views their "pursuit" in that way will produce better work by the nature their effort affords them.

[fcwilt]

I propose that a person who views their "pursuit" in that way will produce better work by the nature their effort affords them.

I think the law of diminishing returns may come into play here.

A builder who insisted that every piece of wood be cut to a 1/32", every nail be driven in exactly straight, etc would never finish a home in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.

Obsession in art is fine but when work needs to be done obsession may stand in the way.

A balance needs to be found.

[johnnyprc]

I think the law of diminishing returns may come into play here.

A builder who insisted that every piece of wood be cut to a 1/32", every nail be driven in exactly straight, etc would never finish a home in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.

Obsession in art is fine but when work needs to be done obsession may stand in the way.

A balance needs to be found.

Yes, but what we are talking about here is to seek a tool that cuts the wood to a 1/32", or nail driven perfectly, without much more effort. My point is to make the 2D tools better so I can more easily attain my goal.

My comment before was in response to the issue of having the goal in the first place. If the builder doesn't even try to find the tool, since he doesn't value the effort, I think that defines his dedication.

Now we are getting into philosophy. Going back on track, I'd really like to see some improvement on the 2D tools within CA. I hope people agree.

[Dave Pitman]

Going back on track, I'd really like to see some improvement on the 2D tools within CA.

Those of you that are asking for better 2D tools, do share some examples. I'm really not being argumentative. I don't use other-cad, so I would like to know about the tools that you are missing in CA.

Not generalities, some specifics...please.

Also, that elusive "crisp" pdf elevation example is still missing.