Q Amp;m Share Price Forum

[Rode Neagle]

Letme first say I am a Chief Architect enthuses. I have recommended and fought for the software more times than I care to count... but... There are just some things Chief does that make me understand why more architects ignore it as a viable design software. Outside of the bugs that continue to plague the software - often things with work arounds like missing thresholds from doorways or issues with bay windows (something I've asked about more than once), to more frustrating issues like working with their decking system... doing anything with their deck system... Chief insists on limits on constructability - which makes me question on a regular basis - why?

A true design software needs to give it's users the freedom to design within the world of all things possible, not just what the developers have coded possible. This is important now more than ever because of the most recent price increase pushing the software into the same cost arena for new users as the other 'main stream' brands.

Most recently I was tasked with building a brick home with 'Chicago masonry' construction. This is mainly just a wall with a double brick wall with furred interior and often plastered finish, but Chief does this with any wall. This particular build involved a tight connection between a bay window and the end of the wall. Internally the wall would be a flush connection, but outside there is an actual corner. Chief doesn't understand what I need it to do and wants to build the wall as a single eliminating the corner altogether.

It doesn't have to be this way and I'm sure it's developed in a way to helps more often than it frustrates - again I'm a proponent for Chief Architect. I'm also sure it's probably difficult to rebuild the coding to give us the freedoms we need to build properly, but @ChiefArchitect - You may need to.

I 100% agree. Because of the time I have invested in Chief I will remain with it for the foreseeable future, but do not get me wrong I am always looking for another software because I need more customization without doing silly workarounds. Chief has a good start on a lot of tools but they a lot of them need a big overhaul (windows, doors, stairs, deck, porches, foundation walls, roof eave/flush eave, small wall connections). Wish we could lean more into those tools/settings and less into the rendering and cabinets. I have made a lot of suggestions but it seems they do not listen to them.

If your work is mainly residential stick construction and you mainly produce construction documents for permit that require you to get approvals from your clients based on visuals from a 3D model, then I'm afraid to inform you that nothing compares to Chief...as much as I hate saying it.

I'll give a small snippet of a limitation in Archicad for you to appreciate Chief's automated Room Definition approach. So, if you Place a garage door and that door cuts into both the main floor wall and the foundation, then Archicad will only cut a hole in the wall you place the door. You will then have to go down to the foundation wall and cut a whole for the garage door.

@Michael_Gia Coincidentally enough I came from SoftPlan myself, so I know the struggles that program has. I've used Chief for 15 years and I know no program is perfect and I genuinely appreciate the support system Chief offers. I did get a work around answer to my question from their dedicated support staff so the issue at hand was resolved; but my statement still stand. Less limitations or the ability to adjust them as we need would be awesome.

I don't have any desire to leave Chief - I'm a 'ride or die' at this point, just wish we had more control - especially when my architects complain about not being able to do something - which 9/10 times - is user error.

Forgive the snark but this comment is pretty silly - all programs are limited to what its developers have coded. They'd literally have to code all things possible for it to be what you want, which I feel like God has done by giving us the ability to invent pens and paper.

As a newish user with a newish perspective influenced by the software I used to use, I'm pretty happy with Chief. Very good customer support, tutorials, user forum, etc. I definitely appreciate that emphasis. And, the software is robust.

Lastly and with regards to priorities, I would always prefer improvements to basic architectural features and tools over any new 3D content (furniture, fixtures, etc.) and maybe even cabinetry tools. Not complaining, but to me that stuff should be secondary to the basic nuts and bolts.

One of the methods I have come up with when dealing with finicky wall connections that I want to define intersections that Chief will now allow is to create a very thin wall (often just 1" thick). I can then draw some very intricate, even short return walls to intersect like I want to.

The catch is I do a CAD fill box that only shows on my Floor Plan view. I set color of fill to wall color (gray in my case) and remove the line color. On the plan set it look perfect and 3d looks perfect.

I'm too old to go get a job with a firm. Framer for 15 years. Then designed for 15 years. 100% Acad until around the time 9.0 came out. I upgraded every time and ended up stopping at X4 when I got hired as a Plans Examiner. I'm just preparing for supplementing my retirement.

I guess my better question now is; How much is paying $200 a month for the latest CA going to do for someone just designing typical residential projects? And for sending out for engineering I just export to AutoCad.

The learning curve to go from X4 to X15 is going to be much smaller than the learning curve for Revit. I have not actually used Revit myself but from the demos I have seen and everything I have heard, it will take you much longer to learn the ins and outs. I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages to both but I'm also sure you will have an easier time sticking with what you already know. You will also be able to bring your old X4 plans into X15 if you ever want to update or reuse any of them.

In the end, the cost difference probably doesn't really matter as long as you are making enough money to justify a $200 business expense. If you can't, then you might need to rethink your plans and just get a job working for someone else even if it is not designing. Or, you could even just stick with X4 if it already does everything you need.

And it won't if you don't really embrace the upgrades. So if you can get by with X4, I'd just use it for now to get rolling, then switch to the latest version if and when the workload supports it financially.

Thanks All, I'll probably run the trial for X15 and see how it feels. I pretty much prepare nothing but architectural drawings for single family homes - no landscaping or virtual walkthroughs. I'd be interested to see how much X15 will speed up or simplify the work I have been happily doing in X2/X4.

I should mention that I'm getting older and learning new things is more difficult than when I first got into designing. That's why I think I have already answered my own question regarding Revit. I mean, $65 per month for Revit Lt seems like a huge savings, but I'm guessing it'll easily take hours upon hours to get proficient in Revit. From my just playing with the trial I see it as complex. Chief may have restraints compared to Revit, but with Chief you can literally open it up and it's pretty obvious how to get going without even watching the training videos. I could see if I was looking to get hired at a firm to use the industy standard, but for producing an architectural plan set, Chief gets you there with little effort.

Interesting discussions above, CAD tool time talk. From my limited perspective if you live in the US and you know to use CA, then you should stick to it and especially if you are still on the old SSA system.

You are never too old to learn something new or get up to speed with the latest CAX15. CA is really a program for home builders and architectural drafts persons mainly. Not many architects will just use one CAD application these days.

3a8082e126