Line weights are a critical part of any architectural drawing and
set of construction documents. The CAD side of Chief is very, very
poor and delivers everything in basically the same line weight,
which is VERY unprofessional.
I am not trying to dissuade anyone from Chief, truly I'm not. But
I'm also not a novice or an idiot, I've been designing homes for a
quarter of a century and I KNOW what the industry upper level
standards are for drawings, and Chief does NOT meet those standards
without hours and hours of frustrating CAD work. And, if you do get
a good drawing for your construction documents, it is totally
disconnected from the plan generated drawing because you have to
change all the line weights etc to get it there. Not to mention
Chief crashing every fifteen minutes in CAD mode.
I can take a set of preliminary 2d drawings in autocad and complete
the entire set with finished elevations and floor plans and roof
plans etc, in less than a day. To obtain the same look in Chief,
I"m looking at a week or more and even then, I'm not totally happy
with the results.
Chief runs circles around autocad in any type of 3d format, but
unfortunately for us, clients don't build off "pretty pictures",
they build off of detailed, crisp, informative drawings. Don't
assume that I don't know how to operate Chief, I do, I just see the
limitations at present. As for floor plans (preliminary only),
chief is much, much faster than anything else I've ever used. But,
to finish those plans up takes at least 10 times longer to obtain
the same results. If you like Chief for your final drawings, I
think that's great and you must know something I don't know or you
have a different set of criteria. Again, this post wasn't to insult
those of you that love Chief (I do too for 3d renderings on simple
plans), it was to state the obvious that Chief needs to fix the bugs
that exist before moving on to yet another 'bug ridden" release that
didn't fix the issues which plagued the previous version.
I would love nothing more than for Chief to knock the socks off of
Autocad in all respects, but right now boys and girls, they're a
very long way off.


--- In chief-users@yahoogroups.com, "nhted104" <simplyplans@...>
wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I personally couldn't disagree with you more wholeheartedly! Well,
> except that I will definitely agree with you concerning
> autoCad/autodesk (ever since they bought out Softdesk and
attempted
> to make a bteer horse with architectural desktop (disaster).
>
> Yes, Chief with indeed upgrade the plan along with the elevations
> AFTER you take the camera shot and converty it to 2d at which
point
> that (those) elevations become completely disconnected from the
> program as far as updates are concerned.
>
> Chief's 2d program is an ancient beast that is HORRIBLE to work
with
> IF one is trying to produce a good set of construction documents
(for
> the field, the building inspector, the sub-trades AND the client).
> The problem is that it takes and incredible amount of time to get
the
> elevations to a point where there is decent (as well
as "realistic")
> line definition (not all the same line weight) and having to break
> and stop lines from wanting to join and become a continuous
polyline
> not to mention the HORRIBLE window erase feature that Chief has
never
> gotten right. The "hatching" (or poche if you will) "feature" in
> Chief really SUCKS! Right now I still do accomplish the building
> elevations with Chief (and growl all the way through the process -
> especially when Chief "decides" on it's own to change, or even
> eliminate things AFTER they have been saved) but full building
cross
> sections are MUCH more quickly produced using autoCad (I still
have
> and use R14) and I can show WHAT I want and the dimensioning
(Chief's
> dimensioning program is also horrible - I hate being "told" that I
> really didn't want the dimensions I picked and then have
to "fight"
> to get the damn thing to move to the correct point I initially
> wanted) can be very easily accomplished (and "adjusted" manually
even
> if the drawing is "off" by a fraction of an inch). Maybe some day
> Chief will "learn" (at least on the CAD side of things) that doing
> line weights by color is a LOT easier to work with than
> using "WYSIWYG" especially when trying to edit particular lines.
>
> I won't even bother to get into the frustration of the elctrical
> portion of Chief (on the CAD side of the program). It would "nice"
if
> the symbols for many of the electrical components were NOT
strictly a
> true representation of the item. In a set of construction
documents
> (2D) the guy in the field doesn't give a fat rat's butt what the
item
> is going to look like in 3D - he just wants to be able to see the
> item on the drawing so that he can install it. In other words
Chief
> really needs to have a separate library of 2D symbols that can be
> inserted into the construction documents at a scale easily read by
> the guys in the field on a set of blue (or black) line prints that
> have been folded, spindled, mutilated, rained on, coffee spilt on
> etc..
>
> Chief is a GREAT residential three dimensional program that can
> produce extremely wonderful "pictures" of a design and that is
where
> it stops! Sorry for the arnt but Chief is definitely LIMITED and
they
> really need to recognize that they are very quickly pricing
> themselves out of the market - especially when they seemingly
refuse
> to listen to the voices of the people that use the program and are
> the ones that find the bugs!
>
> Ted Crombie, CPBD
> New Hampshire
>
>
>
> --- In chief-users@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Callaway" <avds@> wrote:
> >
> > What about when the client changes his mind?
> > Drawing elevations in autocad means that you have to go and
change
> > the plan and the elevations. In Chief you change the plan then
> update the elevation to the layout.
> > A lot less painful!
> > Personally I refuse to deal with autodesk even after using
autocad
> for 20 years.
> > I like the product (within limitations) but loathe the company.
> >
> > Regards
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bruce
> > To: chief-users@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:14 AM
> > Subject: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first
> >
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > I use an old version of Autocad, but I'm going to upgrade to
the
> > newer one. I find that 3d is not very time effective,
especially
> > when you have go in and "fix" the issues that consume chief.
> >
> > I can do a magnificent set of elevations in 2d which excite my
> > clientele in a couple of hours, and to do the same thing in 3d
in
> > chief would take days and days and still not look as crisp.
Hope
> > that helps.
> >
> > --- In chief-users@yahoogroups.com, Andy&MaryAnn Robertson
> > <a.robertson7@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > > I am always curious. What is the other CAD you use? I do
> > renovations and
> > > find Chief 10 not particularly helpful when doing as build
on a
> > 100 year
> > > old house with three additions, dormers on dormers and other
> > > non-standard construction. Always looking for an alternative
> > > - Andy R
> > >
> > > Bruce wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the first I've heard about x2, I have x1 and don't
> use
> > it much
> > > > anymore. I use another CAD system which is much quicker
for
> me.
> > > > As for x2, it seems to me that they should have fixed the
> bugs
> > that
> > > > have plagued Chief for years before trying to roll out
> another
> > version.
> > > >
> > > > Stairs need to be editable and show rails in plan view for
> one,
> > the
> > > > cad tools need to be more user-friendly and not make the
> system
> > crash;
> > > > and different wall types need to be able to join at the
> corners
> > > > without making some arbitrary "45 degree" joint. Lunacy and
> > > > unprofessional. I still use 10 on occasion to do
renderings
> if
> > the
> > > > house isn't too complex and trim-laden, so I haven't
really
> > looked at
> > > > x1 much. I hate the buttons and their appearance in x1,
they
> were
> > > > cartoonish in 10, but x1 is ridiculous. That said, I've
had
> very
> > good
> > > > luck with Chief support being friendly (except for one
> person),
> > and
> > > > they have always tried to fix the issues. But for that
much
> > money,
> > > > there shouldn't BE that many issues.
> > > >
> > > > __._,
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>