Chief Architect Premier X5 Crack Only
Roseanne Gennett
There are no states of which I am aware that "require" plans to be prepaired by an architect, although there are jurisdictions within states which may. It is always good advise to verify the requirments of the jurisdicion within which you intend to build. The closest exception to my above statement is the State of New York, which requires all residential and commercial plans be "produced by" a licensed architect or engineer. Even in the case of New York, there is no requirement for an architect to produce the plans as engineers are allowed to design and produce construction documents.
Again, local jurisdictions, the local building official, has ultimate authority in setting all requirements for construction and building permits, so it is advisable to perform due dilegence in researching your local jurisdicion's requirements.
As to the original question... I have used several CAD programs over the years, starting on a main frame, and subsequently incuding VersaCAD, AutoCAD, AutoCAD with the Softdesk AutoArchitect overlay, and currently Chief Architect products. They all have their pros and cons. The best advise I have seen in this strand of discussion is to find builders or designers who are engaged in similar endeavors as yourself, and learn from them. Most are willing to share. In it's early days of development I rejected Chief Architect. It just was not construction document friendly. I appears they have resolved this limitation. I am in the process of evaluating it now for my own business, and it looks good so far. However, I am still using AutoCAD for my construction documents simply because of familiarity.
I have managed an architects design department, and developed and managed a Design/Build companiies design departement, also serving as lead designer in both. I am not a licensed architect, but have won design awards in competition with licensed architects. I started on pure CAD products and moved to AutoCAD, but I am now moving toward Chief Architect for ease of use and time of design considerations. The only potential draw back is if you will need to involve an engineer to develope structural documents from your design plans. Most Engineering firms with which I have worked use Autodesk products. While I am sure that Chief Architect provides an export option into dxf format, I am unsure who usable the resulting file would be to an engineer. You may desire to investigate this as well.
I am a draftsman who primarily uses Chief Architect. I have looked at Revit and AutoCAD architecture. I am working on learning Revit now purely for the purpose of putting it on my resume. It has become the industry standard, along with autoCAD. As far as the quality and ease of use, Cheif Architect is far and away better for anything short of abstract and atypical designs. If you are needing to draw some weird, curvy skyscraper for a giant asian city, dont use Cheif. If you are doing typical or mostly typical constrution, this is the program to use, ESPECIALLY if ease of use is important to you.
Sketchup is also a good 3D model program, and we see lots of builders and homeowners come in with sketup files. Its also free. but for ease of use, speed, and the like, there is no comparison, get Cheif. Also, it requires less hardware, I can run almost any file we draw on a laptop with integrated graphics, a 2.4 quad core CPU with turbo, and 8 GB or RAM. Revit just wont run as smooth on such hardware.
I have a little experience with Revit and a lot more with Cheif Architect. They both track materials from a 3d model of the contruction. Both produce quality renderings and detailed working drawnings. Cheif Architectect is purchased with a perminate licence. Revit is "rented or leased" for about the same price annually.
Cheif Architect is capable of fairly complex construction, HD renderings and walk through videos. Revit is undoubtedly more robust with features and capabilities. Both are great platforms for home design. I'm also comparing both platforms and plan to buy inhte next 2 weeks. SoftPlan is another option that is similar to Cheif Architect in features and cost.
I have learned CA (teaching myself), SketchUp, FormZ, Rhino and 3DSMax, and Revit has by far the most difficult learning curve. Things that seem like they should be intuitive are not very intuitive. I understand that it's capabilities far exceed those of CA, but it seems like it could integrate some aspects that make modeling a building more like modeling a building.
I'm a Revit user since 2005, and a CA user since 2016 when I entertained obtaining a license to be able to work with a client/contractor's file. I'm a believer that sometimes one tool is better at some things than others, but it's really great when the program is not too buggy (Revit is less than CA), and helps one produce a well- coordinated set of drawings for a Permit with general ease.
CA comes with a really amazing object library, and honestly this for many is probably a main reason why people keep renewing their SSA agreements with them. The way many objects are modeled, where they each have so many attributes that can be changed on the fly is another great feature. Revit requires you make a new family for each unique instance. Kitchen layout is probably my biggest reason for continuing to use CA. Also, how one works with materials in CA is the same as in Sketchup, and is much more easy than Revit. Both programs have great rendering tools. Visually I like the quality of how many of the objects appear in plan in CA, but I can live with what Revit can produce without effort to improve it. The above accolades for CA aside, the crux of what I do is producing well-coordinated drawings, documentation, managing revisions, making changes, and this is where CA does not do such a great job. In fact I find this perspective to be where CA becomes a liability. Also, in CA there is no phasing (MAJOR HEADACHE), and the work around is to make a separate existing plan file, and then make a new plan file (I hate this the most!, and don't get me started about how to do a demo plan in CA---honestly it really sucks). If you realize after working on the new plan file, that you need to correct something that was existing, then you need to change it in both files. The other way to accommodate new versus existing in a single model involves making specific layers, and wall types for existing and proposed. It is all very convoluted and not easy to manage, especially for larger projects. Yet another area where CA falls flat is with site/civil work. CA is only good for the visual aspect of things, and I do commend the landscape tools in CA with a massive plant library with a "plant selector" tool that is wonderful. But there is not way to do cut/fill analysis, or a spot elevation tool. This is really critical when say modelling sloped crawl spaces with retaining walls.
A work flow that worked great for me, was to utilize CA for generating a kitchen layout. Then I exported that plan file and interior elevation drawing to dwg format, and dropped it into Revit quite easily. But for complex residential or commercial work, with many drawings and details, I use Revit to keep everything coordinated. Levels, Grids, Property lines appear as absolute elements in all views in Revit, but in CA, they have to be cut and pasted (what if they get pasted in the wrong place by accident). Only a little liability. For smaller interior work, that has a 1-2 page deliverable, I just do it all in CA. The other advantage to Revit for me is that it works much better for exporting dwgs to contractors and consultants. CA produces dwg files that have lines colored not by layer, so I always have to go in to each drawing and fix it before sending it out. The list goes on for me. I just think that overall the production of a set of drawings, with building consistently shown across the set, is MUCH less of a pain than doing it in CA. That said, I'm going to finish my interior remodel which is small and that I'm doing in CA.
Here's a further way of also expressing my sentiment about the two programs. If you got a big project, and you don't want liability from inconsistencies in drawings or errors (detail numbers, sheet numbers, drawing scales, property lines incorrect, etc) use Revit. Use CA for kitchen layout and supplemental details like a planting plan and import into Revit as a cad object. Also early on in a project maybe use CA for producing quick concepts with materials, but once approved, STOP, and do the construction drawings for the permit in Revit.
When it comes to a Home Designer Pro, Cedreo, and Chief Architecture comparison, Cedreo is the most accessible and mixes convenience with important industry features. Since the software is cloud-based, it does not require a desktop or significant computer processing power to utilize its features.
Cedreo has the 2D and 3D capabilities and specialization of Chief Architect while reducing the learning curve. It also enables designers to generate highly detailed plans quickly, with entire home designs in under two hours. Because it is user-friendly, designers can create full designs without special training. With the continuously updated software, designers can create top-quality interior and exterior 3D models.
Best for:
While home design software is indispensable to a successful designer, it is also a significant investment. Price is a vital factor to consider when finding the right program to fit your business. Chief Architect Premier, Home Designer Pro, and Cedreo offer various price points so that you can find the one that works best for your business.
Chief Architect mostly offers customer support in the form of content. They have a knowledge base with plenty of articles and videos with tutorials and helpful information on their website. They also have a forum where you can ask and get help for specific issues. However, live phone support requires an active Support and Software Assurance account, which renews yearly for $495. For those with a newer version of Chief Architect (X2 or newer), you can receive support for $125 an incident.