Quirky - that is what I am talking about

[johnnyprc]

I gave it about 25 minutes. Enough to get an idea.

--

I wasn't talking so much about the specific design, but the elements used to create the drawing. In many ways I look at your drawing and mine and see my point made. You had to find elements already created - you had to make a model. You couldn't create a comparable "concept" without actually modeling the entire structure (exterior at least).

Part of my point here is that CA should contain better 2D tools, since Vectorworks and Autocad/Revit have great 2D tools for the architectural practice. CA needs a rich 2D tool set with the sharp printing to go with it. Add a new UI, and CA is hands down the best BIM/CAD app on the market.

[marty]

I think I get where Johnny is coming from. He wants to draw a 2D elevation of one face only without building a model for a concept. Something that long time users have given up doing long ago as they have found out it is faster to draw a model and elevate than do it in 2D.

For a new user that may not be the case but I know for me the 3D model is way faster - particularly when changes are required. There is a change of mindset required when working with Chief but it doesnt come overnight.

[Dave Pitman]

Part of my point here is that CA should contain better 2D tools, since Vectorworks and Autocad/Revit have great 2D tools for the architectural practice. CA needs a rich 2D tool set with the sharp printing to go with it. Add a new UI, and CA is hands down the best BIM/CAD app on the market.

So, you are saying that you would prefer to draw this using strickly CAD tools, and not object based tools, irregardless of how long it takes?

That doesn't make sense to me, but then I have never drawn elevations using strictly CAD, why would I want to?

I wouldn't expect CA to go in the direction you suggest any time soon. Just my opinion.

[johnnyprc]

Bryce, that is a nice elevation....that does give me hope about CA. Can I ask, did you have to do an entire plan to get that, or is that a concept?

Does it print sharp???

[sutcac]

Bryce, that is a nice elevation....that does give me hope about CA. Can I ask, did you have to do an entire plan to get that, or is that a concept?

Does it print sharp???

This does happen to be from a complete model, but it doesn't have to be. I do quite a few concept elevations for clients as part of an overall feasibility study that never take more than an hour. You really can use Chief in a conceptual way once you get more comfortable with it. It can print very sharp. In the B&W elevation, the lines are the same sharpness as any CAD drawing, only the shadows really depend on resolution, and that can be enhanced if necessary. In the watercolor/sketch elevation, the export does depend on your screen resolution. I have a 30" high-res Dell monitor so that isn't an issue.

[marty]

I could never start with a 3D design and expect to model fast enough for my creativity to flow through that process

Unfortunately that sounds a little like making virtue out of necessity. If the examples were free flowing shapes with random curves and sloping walls I might agree and then suggest that Chief is not the program for you but from those samples I suspect it is too early for you to comment on how fast Chief can allow your creativity to flow.

No software can touch the speed of Chief for developing Concepts except perhaps Sketchup but that software is limited by its lack of tools for taking the project to the later stages.

[sutcac]

Unfortunately that sounds a little like making virtue out of necessity.

Very well said.

[johnnyprc]

OK - I THINK I HAVE IT. See the attached drawing. The reality is that its not so much that CA prints worse than other apps, its that the program creates overlapping lines that makes the drawing seem not sharp. Doug wanted specifics - here it is: CA needs to not stack lines together that end up coming across as thick profile lines when not intended. The reverse is true when dark profile lines are needed.

I am sure someone is going to tell me a work-around, but I dont have that same problem in Vectorworks or Revit. It makes for a "sloppy" drawing if you dont go in and edit every line.

My point is that since this is generated from a model, we give allowances. If my draftman gave me this drawing as something he created in 2D I would not be happy he didnt have line weight correct. See the other CAD example to compare.

[johnnyprc]

Sutcac - I wasn't trying to nitpick as much as bring out the printing issue. I think that really is the problem with CA - lines are stacking up on each other in a way that changes the communication of the drawing. Profiles lines are meant to convey importance, and if you have them all over the place and then lacking in the right areas, I dont see how that is a good thing.

Notice how Sketchup deals with profile lines - it smartly knows what is what, and allows you to modify if you need. If a free program like Sketchup does that why not CA?

[johnnyprc]

Some say virtue IS a necessity.

[marty]

I must admit it took me a view years to wean myself away from the need to conceptualise on paper before building the model.

When I started using Chief at V4 I did so with 5 others who were all eager to get into 3D modelling.
Unfortunately most of the others quickly gave up finding that the Computer was no match for the long learned and well honed skills on the drawing board.

I took the approach that I would need to take several steps backwards before reaping the benefits of the change over and it paid off in the end. Chief uses different logic to most other software (Revit is the closest) and anyone who applies logic learned with other programs is bound to find it quirky at first.

[sutcac]

Some say virtue IS a necessity.

This is saying something entirely different than trying to make necessity *into a virtue*.

I still think this line weight issue, and printing clarity, you stress can be handled in Chief just the way it is. This doesn't mean it can't be improved. I have spent a lot of time here on this forum pushing for improvements in other areas as well, I just don't place this one as very high on the list. Sometimes I think architects have a tendency to fall in love with their own drawings a bit too much and lose sight of the actual design service to the client and that it's what gets built that matters.

Just as a quick example of using Chief in a more "sketchy" way I am attaching another watercolor/sketch elevation I gave to a client a couple of years ago, and then floor plans of the Chief model it was based on, which you can see are very minimal other than the front. The resolution is, again, limited the 200KB limit on the forum.

And just one example of what Lew is talking about above, I can evaluate 10 different roof pitches and roof overhangs in literally a matter of seconds. I then look at the video you posted and cringe at the amount of time it would take to evaluate the different pitches by hand sketching.

[johnnyprc]

I think architects have a tendency to fall in love with their own drawings a bit too much and lose sight of the actual design service to the client and that it's what gets built that matters

You being an architect should know and appreciate this more. The reason we are taught this in school is to make us care about everything we do. If we give great thought and care into how we draw and present something, the thought is that we will start to give more attention to the design.

Why does the Army/Navy/Marines spend so much time and effort teaching people to keep their personal spaces so clean? What does that matter to war? I was watching something on the French Foreign Legion and about how they get you thinking on small issues so the end result is the best in can be.

That is the same with architecture. The process works, and it is a way to keep sharp. Sharp in drawing and design. One last point is that most the people on this board probably work for themselves. If they ever had to go work for a large architectural company, what I am saying is SOOOOOO important…or you will not have a job. They don't care how good a designer you are, they care what the drawings look like - as normally someone above you is doing the "design" work.

[spencerdesign]

Thank you for posting the link to that video. I enjoyed watching it. I do work for an Architect and the workflow is exactly like that. His sketches are impeccable and he knows exactly what the model should look like in his head. After the owner signs off on the concept I get to build the model. Then the design is refined from there. It works very well.

[Chad Cardin]

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.

Ive read this post from first to last and took it all in. At first I was taken back by your brutal honesty of opinion but also appreciated your candor.

First I would like to say irregardless of chiefs abilities your elevations were outstanding, some of the best Ive seen in a while. No matter what elevations throughout this thread, they all look fantastic. Great job on those.

I also liked how you backed up your arguments with concrete examples from other programs. Many of us havent used autocad lately or vectorworks so by showing us how old school chiefs toolbars were, I could see by your comparisons how you came to that conclusion.

Someone mentioned toolbars jumping and yes, Ive noticed just today having to readjust the toolbars five times because they are bouncing around even when locked.

I also liked your example of the elevation lines. This clearly gave us an idea of what the competitors quality is like, when a lot of us havent seen it. For the most part you make a great argument and have backed up with examples how chief could improve. Glad you posted, got a lot of us thinking.

When I first read this, I was getting ready for the cheerleaders of chief to start firing off an argument but was surprised because not a lot was said. I think a lot of this had to do with showing us comparisons and good examples of what you were talking about.