Results 166 to 180 of 224
-
09-18-2012, 08:20 AM #166Grumpy Old User
- Join Date
- Aug 1999
- Location
- Seattle 98199
- Posts
- 1,180
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
Ron Ravenscroft
RAVENSCROFT ARCHITECTS, LTD.
20611 N. 17th WAy
Phoenix, Arizona 85024
623-434-0092 - 480-797-6894
rrarchpa@cox.net or ron@raltd.net
Version4 to X5 and beyond
-
09-18-2012, 09:04 AM #167Just Some Guy
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
- Posts
- 717
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.Regards, Frederick C. Wilt (Began with v9, now using X6 aka v16)
-
09-18-2012, 09:35 AM #168Registered User Promoted
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Oregon USA
- Posts
- 519
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.Last edited by rcole; 09-18-2012 at 09:54 AM.
Rod Cole
V2 thru X5
-
09-18-2012, 09:40 AM #169Grumpy Old User
- Join Date
- Aug 1999
- Location
- Seattle 98199
- Posts
- 1,180
Ron Ravenscroft
RAVENSCROFT ARCHITECTS, LTD.
20611 N. 17th WAy
Phoenix, Arizona 85024
623-434-0092 - 480-797-6894
rrarchpa@cox.net or ron@raltd.net
Version4 to X5 and beyond
-
09-18-2012, 01:38 PM #170
keeping all those limitations constant i try do some 2d and 3d
without wasting a big timeYusuf hassen/
engineer & architect.......
Win7 home premium,32bit,3GB ram ...
X2/X4 premium
Autocad 2010, Staadpro 2004.
-
09-18-2012, 03:11 PM #171
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.X5
i7-3930k Dell XPS - 16GB Ram
(2) 30" Dell 3008WFP Monitors
Wacom 24HD
-
09-18-2012, 03:45 PM #172
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.
Yusuf hassen/
engineer & architect.......
Win7 home premium,32bit,3GB ram ...
X2/X4 premium
Autocad 2010, Staadpro 2004.
-
09-18-2012, 04:02 PM #173Just Some Guy
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
- Posts
- 717
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.Regards, Frederick C. Wilt (Began with v9, now using X6 aka v16)
-
09-18-2012, 05:12 PM #174
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.X5
i7-3930k Dell XPS - 16GB Ram
(2) 30" Dell 3008WFP Monitors
Wacom 24HD
-
09-18-2012, 05:27 PM #175Just Some Guy
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
- Posts
- 717
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.Regards, Frederick C. Wilt (Began with v9, now using X6 aka v16)
-
09-18-2012, 05:28 PM #176
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.
ThanksYusuf hassen/
engineer & architect.......
Win7 home premium,32bit,3GB ram ...
X2/X4 premium
Autocad 2010, Staadpro 2004.
-
09-18-2012, 06:42 PM #177
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.X5
i7-3930k Dell XPS - 16GB Ram
(2) 30" Dell 3008WFP Monitors
Wacom 24HD
-
09-18-2012, 06:54 PM #178Just Some Guy
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
- Posts
- 717
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.Regards, Frederick C. Wilt (Began with v9, now using X6 aka v16)
-
09-18-2012, 07:18 PM #179
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.X5
i7-3930k Dell XPS - 16GB Ram
(2) 30" Dell 3008WFP Monitors
Wacom 24HD
-
09-18-2012, 07:39 PM #180Going back on track, I'd really like to see some improvement on the 2D tools within CA.
Not generalities, some specifics...please.
Also, that elusive "crisp" pdf elevation example is still missing.Kind Regards,
Dave Pitman
Current Version: X5
System
Win-7 64 bit
Intel i7 930 (2.8 ghz x 4)
Nvidia gtx 260 (1 gb ram)
12 gb ddr3 ram