Chief Vs Autocad

[moak]

I will fully own my bias in this debate. I've used AC and VW in the professional environment and feel Chief pulls it all together better. I went from Archicad to Chief and my impression was "here's software that is doing the things Archicad promised, but fell short." My AC experience was full time from 04-07 and this spring with AC16 evaluating for an office considering a switch form DataCAD (!) to CA or AC. Honestly, if CA did not exist I'd be using Archicad.

I fully agree with Richard's comments in post 48. Schedules and automated titles are one feature of AC I miss.

Here are the things that tipped the balance for me:

• Chief out of the box produced 2D drawings from the model that were acceptable in terms of content and line weights. It might not be what I was drawing with DumbCAD but it was superior to what I could generate with AC. I'll concede this could be a user issue, but not for lack of effort or GENERAL competence learning software. This was a big issue for me, as it allowed me to really take advantage of the benefits of the parametric software.
• Ease of cabinet and custom molding creation. This is important in the custom residential market I work in. For that matter, custom objects in general I found easier to create or import form Sketchup.
• I prefer Chief's method of automatically creating floors over Archicad's approach of requiring the user to create them.
• Roof tools are better for manipulating, joining, creating trim, dormers. Again, the nature of my work means I can almost never rely on the auto roof. They are all manual. I found this easier in CA. Walls automatically join to roofs in Chief, manually done in AC.
• When I change the floor elevation in Chief all the fixtures, cabinets, furniture, windows, etc.. move along with it. Not so with AC.
• I prefer the graphic environment if CA. My first impression was the interface was a bit cartoony, but the views of the model were good. I always felt the AC model looked like screenshots from DOOM. The AC interface can be overwhelming. Maybe it's designed to project it's power, but I have found myself thinking there was so much on screen, to the point of distraction.
• Chief had a better library for the projects I was designing.
• Templates were easier to Create in CA.
• I initially struggled with CAD in CA. Lines always join to form polylines frustrated me. I decided to unload the way I historically drew cad and develop a method that worked with CA. My cad details are new composed of more filled polylines and rectangles than cad lines. I agree with suggestions the CA should add transparency options for fills.
• A general overall impression I have is that Archicad makes few assumptions to honor an ability to create any building type. This requires the user to create and define the things that are not assumed. Chief, being designed for the custom residential/light commercial market I operate in, makes many assumptions (framing approach, floor constructions, etc..) that relate directly to my end goal. I can rely on much of the automated features and easily create the custom conditions when needed.

DSH "Okay, but the next time you do a Sagrada de Familia, you probably would choose Archicad, is that a fair statement?"
I'd give it a go in CA first, but I've drink the KoolAid. Really, I'm trying to do fewer cathedrals these days.