Larry,

You, as a very long-standing member of this group, in my opinion, have always
been a facts-only, neutral opinion, and generous knowledgable support to
everyone in this group type of person. Wonderful traits to possess.

I feel you set a great example of behavior and knowlede to emulate.

I have not the CAD knowledge you have but I do have enough knowledge to
recognize a good example to follow.

Perhaps the other members within the group will recognize the groups value and
will silently agree and follow a good lead.

Thanks for your continuous stability and support to everyone.

Edward (Ted) Terrenzio
Chief-User Since 1995


Ted Terrenzio

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Kumpost <lark81432@...>

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:21:19
To: <chief-users@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first


Bruce and Ted:

I have also been at this for a while and started on the drawing board. Does
Chief have problems in some areas? Yes, but then what CAD program, especially a
3D program, doesn't? I can remember coming to the conclusion that the odd
number release in AutoCAD usually created problems that were not fixed until the
subsequent even number release came out. ;o)

While I may agree with some of the basic issues you raised I suspect there are
some things you are not aware of. For example, in X1, did you realize that the
line weights for material patterns can be set in the material DBX? That line
weights vary depending on the page setup and scale you have for your plan and
section/elevation views vs. the page setup and scale you have for your views
sent to Layout. There is also an option to use the Layout setup for line weights
when you send a view to layout that is easy to miss.

It is difficult to answer long generalized rants about Chief. If you could list
specific issues you are more likely to get some help.

Just a thought. :o)

Larry K.




________________________________
From: nhted104 <simplyplans@...>
To: chief-users@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:03:22 AM
Subject: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first


Bruce,

Thank you for putting into a calm and logical response to what I have
stewing and sputtering over since I read Mr. Speer's comments.

I have been involved in the architectural and construction industry
since 1961 and havbe owned my own architectural design firm since
1983. Yes, I learned with a "T" square, 30/60 degree and 45 degree
triangles (until they "invented" the adjustable triangle). I learned
how to properly sharpen the various weights of leads as well how to
properly use an ink stylus and india ink on linen (there is no
erasing - just start all over again). I have worked for a number of
contractors and discovered the BIG difference between a set
of "construction documents" and "funny papers" that most contractors
call the prints that are presented to the field crew to try to build
from. I stayed with "hand drawn" for quite some time after CAD became
popular mainly because the systems were so elementary that the end
result appeared to have been drawn by a 5th grader working with
crayons. I am quite PROUD of the drawings produced for not only
clients but also for the contractors, the material suppliers, sub-
contractors as well as the building inspectors and code enforcement
officials. Except for the client NONE of these people are interested
in pretty pictures (or funny papers)! They want documents that are
easily read and don't require a lot of interpretation - that are
informative as to HOW the components are going to be put together to
produce the end result and that will be structurally sound and at
least code compliant (I always use the "code plus one" rule since ALL
codes are only the bare minimum of acceptability and not necessarily
standard construction industry standards!).

I have been through all the tutorials, the training videos (the
manual is pretty much - like most manuals - useless) and I am also
NOT "trashing" Chief! It definitely has it's good points BUT it also
has it's faults and it's drawbacks. The BIGGEST drawback seems to be
the blinders on the architecs of Chief itself who apparently can't
(or won't) see the forest through the trees! They seem to refuse to
even address the problems that have been to their attention over and
over again and just keep adding bells and whistles while the core of
the apple continues to sour.

How ANYONE can say that Chief has an acceptable CAD program is BLIND!
The dimensioning program is the WORST I have ever encountered (and I
have purchased and used a number of CAD programs over the decades).
Even the text program is still back in the ancient history books
(can't even underline or bold face a single word or a group of words
unless you do the entire note?) If it wasn't so sad it would be
laughable! If anyone thinks that just because they show the "framing"
for a structure based on what Chief will automatically produce then
the contractor will build it that way has never been on the jobsite
when the framers are standing around stratching their heads tryin to
figure out just HOW the building will get built! (the building
inspectors have a ball pointing out all the "errors" the automated
framing drawings show until they are manually corrected by the
designer - and hopefully he will have enough field knowledge to know
HOW things are indeed framed!).

O.K., I've got that all off my chest and now I'm off to work. :-)

Ted Crombie, CPBD
New Hampshire

--- In chief-users@ yahoogroups. com, "Bruce" <pinnhomes1995@ ...> wrote:
>
> Dear Bob Speer,
> Thank you so much for your sarcastic and ill-informed response, so
> typical of people who think they're being attacked when someone
> doesn't agree with them or doesn't share their passion for a
> product. As for the "crashing" Chief has consistently crashed on
> four different computers, all state of the art. It does this in
CAD
> mode 99% of the time.
> I HAVE gone through the tutorials and the problems which
> existed still exist. I really resent your snotty and demeaning
> attitude and if anyone should "go away" it should be people like
> you. I will continue to use Chief for exterior renderings and as
> such I will continue to be a part of this forum. If that's
> something you don't like, then why don't you start you own forum
and
> only allow praise for the products of your choice. That should
make
> you very happy even if a little ill informed.
> If you read my posts, you'll find that I wasnt'trying
> to "trash" Chief, I just stated what so many other users have
stated
> over the years about the problems in Chief that never seem to get
> resolved. Before you attack someone again, I would suggest that
you
> actually read what they are saying and respond to that instead of
> having an infantile temper tantrum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In chief-users@ yahoogroups. com, "rrspeer" <bob@> wrote:
> >
> > I must say you have spent no time with chief, have not done the
> > tutorials, are so ingrained in the way you do things that you
> probably
> > should just ride out your carreer with what you know, and don't
> bother
> > trying anything new.
> > I am sorry but I get a little tired of people like you carrying
on
> > about how bad Chief is.
> > The line weights work fine. Just different then the pencil and
> paper
> > approach which is auto cad.
> > I do not have a problem with Chief crashing. EVER!
> > You have something going on with your computer that has nothing
to
> do
> > with Chief.
> > Please go away.
> > Bob Speer
> > Speer Home Designs
> >
> > --- In chief-users@ yahoogroups. com, "Bruce" <pinnhomes1995@ >
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]