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.

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.

>

> __._,

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.

> >

> > __._,

>

Just can't agree with you less.

You draw it in 2d the 3d is there, the elevations are there.

In Autocad You are 1 removed from using a pencil.

My guess is Chief was completely different to you, and you did not

have someone to show you the way.

--- In chief-users@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce" <pinnhomes1995@...> wrote:

>

> 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.

> > >

> > > __._,

> >

>

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]

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]

>

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]

> >

>

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]

> > >

> >

>

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]

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

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]

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

Dear Bruce,

First off When someone has a problem they need help with in CA this --

is a great forum.If you had simply said you were having problems with

line weights, lots of folk could have given you the answer you needed.

But to start out with this program sucks, it won't do the line weights

the way the Building dept wants to see them. Short answer Yes CA does

line weights just the way your building dept wants to see them. Just

the way you are used to. You are the one throwing a temper tantrum

because for some reason you can not find the answer you are looking

for. There is pretty much nothing you can't do in CA if you know how.

I am sorry if I offended you, but from time to time I see posts such

as yours and am reminded of an older gentleman I worked with, who when

he started using Chief threw a fit because he was so used to the way

cad did things he got frustrated. He finally took the time to learn it

and he now uses CA exclusively. I myself will use Auto cad on occasion to do

certain things, but not much of the time.

As far as the crashing part, I have been using CA since V9 now using X

, I have used it on 4 different systems, and have had no problems that

you seem to be having. Once again I could have been more PC, but I

really am not much of a diplomat and am sick and tired of PC



Bo Speer

- 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]

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

Ted:  all great points......  i concurr in every one ...  except  that i will

continue to use Chief as my construction drawing program.



We own  AutoCad Lt '98,  Envisioneer 4.5, and  the  download free version of

SketchUp.   In Chief, we have two 10.08a licences and one  X1 license.



I'm having one of my guys learn Envisioneer,  and i've dabbled in SU....



But  we're somewhat stuck  with what we have.



I continue to hold out hope that ART will someday , with one of the new

versions, swing back to  the Construction Drawing side of things.......  i think

(  biased thinking )  that  that is what drives most people to buy CAD... 

creating working drawings fast .....  the rendering is icing on the cake, yet it

seems to be what  has driven  the  program since at least version 8.



Mike Smith

Rhode Island :  Design / Build

   ----- Original Message -----

   From: nhted104

   To: chief-users@yahoogroups.com

   Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:23 AM

   Subject: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first





   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]

   >













------------------------------------------------------------------------------







   No virus found in this incoming message.

   Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

   Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1794 - Release Date: 11/17/2008

8:48 AM





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

Hi Ted



I will have to reply to couple of things.



I have used the layout being disconnected from update to my advantage more than

once.

It is a workaround - but hey it works.



The 2D program is worse than horrible!!

I use chief to create the elevations but any sections & details I draw in

autocad and import

them into a detail where I add text and dimensions. I store the detail in the

library for future use if appropriate.



Yes chief isn't perfect but it can/will do a great job but that can depend on

the operator.

I have used it for the last 10 years and manage to produce construction drawings

without too many difficulties.



Regards

Steve







   ----- Original Message -----

   From: nhted104

   To: chief-users@yahoogroups.com

   Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:23 PM

   Subject: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first





   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]

hi bruce,



which version of chief are you using??





   ----- Original Message -----

   From: Bruce

   To: chief-users@yahoogroups.com

   Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:25 AM

   Subject: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first







   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]

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]

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]

Bruce and all of us have a right to our opinions and to state them

publicly.



Whether they are right , wrong or agreeable is secondary and

inevitably Human individual decision and opinion only.



I do not agree with Bruce's assessment of X1 or 10. I do not care why

we disagree. I don't feel the need to defend or persuade.



I look forward to X2 because I enjoy Chief in all of its versions as

a creative tool that gives me joy and a living I love.



That others denigrate it, criticize it is a fact of Life; I can only

say that I do not live my life through or upon the opinions of others.



I affirm the Human Rights for all of being able to state one's

opinions, practice one's religion and support a political philosophy

of choice without physical duress from others.





DJP

Hi Dave,



FIX THE BUGS FIRST.



Well said and perhaps a little reminder to the newer members of this

informal forum, that we (oldies) originally set up this independent site

where we could freely 'critique' the product with our problems,

frustrations, needs and recommendations that could be both shared and taken

on board by those in the position within C'dA to improve and expand the

future of the product for the betterment of all users.  Well; we can't win

all of them, can we!



Regards,



Erik



Chief-user from v5







Trading as: Chief Architect - Queensland



ABN 30939254349



One2One Chief Architect Software Tuition



Ph: 07 5478 1888



Email: chiefqld@...











From: chief-users@yahoogroups.com [mailto:chief-users@yahoogroups.com] On

Behalf Of David J. Potter

Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2008 03:08

To: chief-users@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [chief-users] Re: Fix the bugs first









Bruce and all of us have a right to our opinions and to state them publicly.





Whether they are right, wrong or agreeable is secondary and inevitably human

individual decision and opinion only.



I do not agree with Bruce's assessment of X1 or 10. I do not care why we

disagree. I don't feel the need to defend or persuade.



I look forward to X2 because I enjoy Chief in all of its versions as a

creative tool that gives me joy and a living I love.



That others denigrate it, criticize it is a fact of Life; I can only say

that I do not live my life through or upon the opinions of others.



I affirm the Human Rights for all of being able to state one's opinions

practice one's religion and support a political philosophy of choice without

physical duress from others.



DJP











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