Quirky - that is what I am talking about

[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]

I could never start with a 3D design and expect to model fast enough for my creativity to flow through that process – except in mass modeling with something like sketchup. We are taught that in school, and we appreciate the artistic/creative form to our profession and seek tools to match.

Attached is a project I did, and you can see the example of the 2d hand drawings which inspire the 3d modeling. I think the end result was better in the model, since I was able to quickly assess the changes I wanted to make. If I started with the model, my laziness would have probably prevented me from going back and changing it all... =)

I think it's just about a paradigm shift. While I did learn some of these same things in school, I pretty much skipped completely over 2D CAD drafting entirely and went right to 3D way back when Chief started out as Home Designer 3D Deluxe (or whatever it was). So, I just don't see the tool as limiting my creativity. Indeed, it allows much more time for DESIGN and much less time for "drafting" the design.

As I said, you could nitpick the PDF I posted (which you did) but more careful mastery over line weight in your profile plan layersets, perhaps a little bit of CAD overlay in the vector view, and some Edit Layout (look it up) after you send the view to Layout and you would be right where you want to be with line weights etc. It's just about mastering the tools and getting over the inertia of being set in your ways.

[sutcac]

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

Very well said.

[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?

[IRISH]

There is an art to architecture. True to form, those who practice the full art will inevitably create better drawings, and structures.

The freedom to draw in 2D, whether by hand or computer, makes it so your design is not limited by the CAD tool. I could never start with a 3D design and expect to model fast enough for my creativity to flow through that process – except in mass modeling with something like sketchup. We are taught that in school, and we appreciate the artistic/creative form to our profession and seek tools to match.

Attached is a project I did, and you can see the example of the 2d hand drawings which inspire the 3d modeling. I think the end result was better in the model, since I was able to quickly assess the changes I wanted to make. If I started with the model, my laziness would have probably prevented me from going back and changing it all... =)

Johnny,

I understand what you are saying. I too begin with a basic concept in my mind and I flesh it out- one line at a time. It is within that process that the creativity comes out and begins to show itself. Then, the 3D model is created and the form is finalized.

I can relate because I still design in 2D. Trying to create a design with 3D "objects" just doesn't work real well for me. It is an entirely different way of thinking that I still can't grasp. I guess what I am saying is there are different ways of approaching anything, as we all know, and this is a classic example. Plus, I too would like to know how to better do the lineweight control where needed without creating yet more layers, annosets, etc.

[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.

[rcole]

Thanks for the pics and the description of the point you have been trying to make.

One thing I would like to point out is that many of the folks that have responded to your OP are very experienced with CA and find modeling in CA second nature. Considering this, it makes the idea of creating concepts in 2D a bit of a hard sell.

One thing that comes to mind from your comments is that since you are using mulitple CAD applications it makes it harder to appreciate CA's CAD tools since they are cut from a bit of a different cloth than your more traditional apps.

There are many features that I find quite helpful in CA, such as the multicopy tool. Sometimes they hit the mark and sometimes not so much. It appears to me that in their attempt to simplify the CAD tools they have at times created a monster in such things as automatic snapping to create polylines and dimensions that try to out think the user.

The basic tools have worked in the past, and so far as I know are still working quite well for creating lines and dimensions in a traditional sense. If I am hearing you correctly, you are making the point that it may be of benefit to everyone if CA were to move in the direction of being a little more main stream than they have been in the past with their CAD tools?

But, no deal on creating concepts from 2D elevations from my perspective. Creating the model and publishing views from the model are more in line with my thinking on the matter. I do appreciate your input on such things as editing elevation lines for better printing and presentations.

This has been a very interesting thread.

[Mattyt12]

Here is an example of a quick 2D site plan early in concept drawing. I used Vectorworks with the "hand-drawn" effect, but overall I wouldn't think CA is suited for doing this simply. Maybe I am wrong and ignorant. I hope I am really.

I disagree, I have always been able to replicate pretty much any presentation style that I've come across and liked. How simply one can do so comes down to how organised and well thought out the process to acheive the final product is.

I think the way Chief utilizes layers, layer sets and custom libraries work perfectly to enable a smooth and productive worklflow with a well setup template from conceptualization stage right through to construction. Ive attached an example which I believe replicates yours which was reasonably fast to produce via creating a layerset with custom linetypes and lineweights, CAD boxes with fills and hatches, revision clouds used to create landscaping items layered up to generate colour and definition and can be added as a library item.

I do however agree that more control in 2D would be beneficial, in the way of custom hatches, ability to have a selected fill and a different backround colour without having to have multiple copies layered with different attributes, graded fills to generate skies or fill windows and an auto area fill tool are some examples.

[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.

[lbuttery]

I'm not an architect nor can I draw at all

I think the benefit of doing a model first is that when the client says
move that window over there etc
a handdrawn elevaton needs to be re-done

even a 2D cad drawing would need some re-work
where the 3D model is just a few clicks

the 3D model also allows for additional views to be done from various
angles where the 2D drawing again would have to be created fresh
possibly from scratch

since I can't draw a straight line I have to use the 3D modeling method

Lew

[johnnyprc]

You guys should watch this video. Thank you guys for the comments, at the end of the day I am hoping CA starts to think about this. There are a lot of architects who don't find CA "professional" nearly based entirely on my points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws1fb...feature=relmfu

[johnnyprc]

By the way for those thinking Chief starts at $495, here is screen shot. I was wrong about $79, it starts for $59.00 - for "enthusiasts" (and that is MSRP, i have seen on sale for $19). The few people I have admitted using Chief to at my AIA meetings, looked at me like I was from another planet. One said "you get that cheap software to work for you"?

They have no idea. Chief is hurting themselves more than they know.

[Dave Pitman]

It seems like you are blurring the line between the design and the tool. You are familiar and comfortable with your tools, and want the new tool to be similar so that it too will be more quickly comfortable, which is understandable.

I watched the video. Adding that with what you said above, your take away point for me, is that the ideas which lead to the design come from the designers experience and education. They bring that to the table and couple that with the clients wants and needs and then work through the challenges to bring them together. This is a similar scenario to a majority of service oriented work.

The process, whether it be hand sketching, hand drafting, CAD, 3D modeling, or even scale model building shouldn't be the bar that determines good design. The design should determine.

There are many things in Chief that can use improvement. But, for the majority of the people that use it, I just don't think that they want to use it to design line by line, like you do. I have a friend architect who uses AutoCAD, that will not generally use a component (a group of lines) from one project to another because, like you, he feels that he is short changing the creative process by doing so. So, I get where you're coming from. (By the way, he also thinks Chief Architect is for home owners, but is in conflict when he sees some of the models built and rendered with it.) But, that doesn't mean that it is short changing the process for others that do not share that concept of an ideal.

This is an interesting discussion. But, what I would like to know is what changes specifically do you want to be applied to the CAD tools. Just because I may not use them the same as you will doesn't mean that I wouldn't like them to be improved.

And that sample print?