Residential Design Program Evaluations

As a residential designer who makes a living working in the homebuilding industry, I have learned
that software is relied upon to be more efficient. As homebuilding processes are getting streamlined, so
should the design development phase. During the past few years, I have come to realize that I am not
alone on my quest for that next generation platform for residential design.

Most people think of CAD products when they think of design software. The industry standard has
been using Autodesk products, most specifically Autocad and its mate, Architectural Desktop (now
just Autodesk Architect). As codes and permitting get more complicating, so have the amount of
information required on the plans. As seasoned veterans retire from their trades, less experienced field
workers have replaced them. The demand has been growing for more information to be able to be
extracted from the drawings and assist the building process. And most importantly, changes in design
need to be implemented easily. This has caused many people to ask more out of their software
company in order to design homes. For myself, I wanted a program that knew it was building a house
right from the beginning, and would give me the tools to create plans first and foremost, while also
adding Building Information Modeling (BIM) and strong modeling capabilities for presentations. As it
remains, neither Autocad nor Autodesk Architect has been effective in this.

I have always considered the residential market to be neglected when it came down to support from
software companies. This goes specifically for Autodesk. In a broad view of the industry, this could not
be further from the truth. Upon investigation, I have found a list of companies that focus heavily on
residential, and do a great job I might add. It started with a broad list of programs, and got narrower as
the investigation got more involved. I am left with 4 programs that seem to be very much capable. The
semifinalists are:
Envisioneer, Chief Architect, Softplan, & VisionRez

I found each program’s strengths to benefit a different user. These are not by any means, hobbiest
programs. They are all cutting edge programs that allow you to build a house as you draw it. While
most people think of Revit or ArchiCad when they hear term’s like BIM, these programs share those
capabilities. Revit and Archicad was ruled out because they were not capable of building a house right
out of the box. I found that they were more involved, and did not automate the design of residential
homes. They are very broad, and come with a longer learning curve. They are certainly worthy of being
BIM benchmarks since they are more recommended for the largest of projects. But many people, like
myself, are just looking for something simple and time efficient, yet powerful.
 The investigation started by evaluating trial programs. Being an Autodesk Architect or should I say
“ACA” user, it only seemed natural to try VisionRez from Americad first (
http://www.visionrez.com/index.php ) by ordering their trial CD. VisionRez works as a plugin for
ACA 2008 & 2009, or a standalone with a limited version of the current ACA. Americad is a very
well supported company which is now owned by ITW, an international company specializing in
construction software. They did not have anything in the form of an online support forum for
prospective buyers to see. There is, on the other hand, a great wealth of online videos. This program
lists for $2,995.00 for the Residential Builder Suite 2009 standalone seat. It felt more along the lines of
something I had wished from Autodesk. Being somewhat of a power user of ACA, I felt like my search
was done, already.

VisionRez had added many more usable wall styles, intelligent roofs, take off capabilities, and many
other quantifiable building components than ACA. I navigated very well on my 1st try. But I struggled
a bit when I tried to put something together. I had to learn their sequence for their toolbar buttons and
tool palettes. From what I can see, it was capable of creating beautiful models and do some pretty good
takeoffs. What stood out for me was that it was not only capable of creating quantities for sheathing, it
also had the ability to create sheathing layouts to illustrate graphically. VisionRes certainly has some
automation added, above and beyond what ACA has. However, the modeling capability was not as
automated as I hoped it would be. I did find this program to be limited to the house you are designing,
and lacking any tools for dealing with site design challenges.But I feel like all around, this program is a
real winner. VisionRez is fully customizable since it is based on a CAD engine, which I will talk about
later, an that is probably the biggest advantage it has over its competition. It draws directly to dwg
format, which is certainly industry standard. My vice was that I still felt like I was being forced to use
an outdated format for managing drawings. There are just too many requirements to fiddle with settings
to get things to work. Something as simple as if you wanted to modify or create a wall type and its
displays, you better have a manual handy. I am certainly capable of dealing with this, but there are just
times where I want my time spent on the construction docs. For me it was like I pulled into a new car
lot driving a Toyota Corolla, looking for a more advanced vehicle, and was shown a Toyota Corolla
with new rims, more interior controls, and a great paint job. It was certainly better than what I have, but
not anything groundbreaking. This was now going to be my fallback program at the moment as I
searched for something a bit more time efficient. Right now I would recommend this for only serious
residential designer who have come from Autodesk products. The search shall continue.
 My next move was to try out Envisioneer from Cadsoft ( http://www.cadsoft.com ) through their
downloadable trial. Their support forum is very helpful. Judging by the forum members, it appears
Envisioneer is very poplular “Down under”. The program listed at $995.00 for Version 4.0 at the time
but now lists at $1,295.00 for V4.5, their cheapest bundle, excluding hardcopy books or training
material. What drew me to this program is its price. It was about 1/2 less than its competition. I believe
now that V5.0 is about to be released, the price will go up a bit. Keep in mind that this is a very young
program that still has a few nagging bugs, but I would agree that it would still be considered a bargain.

Envisioneer was so easy to learn that I designed and rendered a house on my first day. It allowed me
to create a custom wall in about a minute. I was able to design the interior a bit as well. It is fully
automated, including wizards to create decks, kitchens, and even a house. I started to see some upside
to a non-CAD program such as this. Please understand, CAD programs are really programs built from a
cad engine to draw lines in great precision on a cartesian & polar grid. You do not get more precise
than a CAD program. However, these days, drawing on a CAD system may be compared to drawing on
the drafting board. You draw everything line by line, and work out the geometry. Envisioneer has
instead built a CAD module into its program. This was sort of hit or miss in this case. The bad thing
about programs that have so much automation, is that they tend to be more limited. The good thing is
that their module worked a lot like a CAD program. It is evident that the focus was primarily in its
modeling capability. It is one of the few programs to offer both raytracing and radiosity. And you do
not need to be a computer genius to figure it out. They advertise what they call “stereo 3D”. This sets
up the rendered model into a 3D mode with the use of 3D glasses. I ignored it as it sounded like an
obvious ploy to get people into their booths at trade shows.

As for its capabilities, it drew heck of a lot quicker than VisionRez. Your design can be whipped up
literally in under an hour. The menu is very well laid out that anybody can find what they need,
regardless of experience. Moving walls is a snap. It utilizes temporary dimensions as you highlight
each wall. These temporary dimensions are linked to the highlighted wall in relation to a parallel wall.
Moving walls around with precision is as easy as changing the values on the temporary dimensions. It
has good site plan tools with an abundant planting library. The deck and roof tools are very easy to
modify. And the estimating module is actually pretty darn good. I got to really liking it until I dug
deeper, and wanted to start some construction documents. My concerns with the program were in how
you represent your objects. For instance, it does not show an interior side of the window sill. I had to
manually draw one in. Secondly, the plotting output was not crisp at all. It was one of the weakest plot
dialogs I have ever seen. Most of the lines plot half tone. In order to fix this, you have to modify every
layer. And it doesn’t allow a default to be set to resolve this. And lastly, if you wanted to take your
drawing from what it calls model view to where you have all your CAD tools, the drawing is detached
from your model. So any updates or changes to the model after the fact, require additional drafting.
This means that the relationship between the model and the construction docs are not linked. This goes
against the philosophy of BIM. My conclusion is that this is a great program for a remodeler who does
not require a certain level of professionalism in their construction documents. Yet it is more capable to
do a bit more.
 Now it was time to try out Chief Architect which I was hearing so much about on forums. I
downloaded their trial version at ( http://www.chiefarchitect.com ). I had demoed X1 and just recently
X2. The program lists for $2,195 without their support package (SSA). That puts it in between
VisionRez and Envisioneer. Chief’s online support forum, ChiefTalk, is very active and helpful. In
fact, its one of the best I have seen on any program. Chief has many features that stand out above its
competition. It has the largest library I have seen yet. The cabinets work wonderfully in 2D and 3D. I
did have to get used to how to draw walls using their “click and drag” method. It is ok I guess. But if
you release the button too soon, it cuts the wall short. It doesn’t happen often with practice. I found the
the modeling capabilities to be astounding on my 1st try. It even draws in 3D well. Even better than
Envisioneer did.

Chief Architect has very nice render view modes. It has a hand sketch mode it calls 'line view”and
a “water color” view mode. The water color and paint views really remind me of Piranisi. These are
new in X2, which is is a beta version at the moment. So there is no doubt that it has the eye candy. My
complaint would be that it hogged up an awful lot of memory resources to render these modes. My
computer froze up a few times just moving the model while in hand sketch mode, even though my
computer is considered more than adequate for every other program I have tried. But other than that it
does a good job of rendering.

In 2D, Chief has a lot of capabilities. Its CAD capabilities are just enough. But you wish it had a few
more ways to do things. It too has temporary dimensions to adjust wall locations. It defines rooms
anytime you enclose the walls. These rooms automatically know that a kitchen requires GFCI outlets
spaced 4' o.c. max. and that each room gets a particular type of flooring. Its pretty intuitive. You can
modify the trim, paint color, flooring etc. I really liked this. Better yet, the cabinets are very intelligent.
There is a great selection of them. In fact, this has the best cabinets I have seen on any program,
outside of cabinet software like 20/20. These cabinets adjust to the condition. If you drag a base cabinet
into a corner, it changes the cabinet to a corner cabinet condition. If you drag one of the grips on the
cabinet, it adjusts not only the cabinet size by proper cabinet increments, but it also adds doors to the
base cabinets after a reaches certain width. That is truly dynamic. The rich text was also a nice
addition. Previous versions of Chief did not give the user the greatest quality text. As for menus, there
is a pretty nifty right click menu giving you options relevant to the item you highlighted. That's very
useful for those who love to click the mouse more than the keyboard.

Construction documents are certainly capable with this program. It utilizes layouts to have drawings
sent to it as views. These views have an outline that resembles what Cad users recognize as viewports.
Within these views, the scale could be updated as well as layer control. You can even send the same
view multiple times to have it display different disciplines. What this means is that Chief Architect
links the model and construction documents. The sections, elevations and plans all update. I feel that
this is what Revit could have been. Chief even one ups Revit in the fact that it has a built in take of
estimating feature. Though it’s a bit simplistic. It gets the job done. It even had some good site plan
tools. Overall, it all works.
I really recommend this program for interior design and doing serious residential design construction
documents.
 Now its time to demo Softplan ( http://www.softplan.com ). This listed at $2,895 with SoftList
(takeoff module) & $2,395 without. I had a working trial demo given to me by the sales person. I was
told that they now have workable demos that are mailed to you like VisionRez did upon request. It
wasn’t downloadable like Envisioneer and Chief Architect. I tried out version 13 & the latest 14.
Their support forum, Splash, is very active and helpful. Right up there with Chieftalk. This program
also took me about 30 minutes to get the hang of drawing walls (Autocad habits). But once I got the
hang of it, it was fine. It had a great selection of walls, windows and doors. In fact more than the
competition. Though to be fair, the sales rep added a bunch for me that were local to Florida.

One of the 1st things I enjoyed was how well their drawing mode concept worked. It practically walks
your through the design process. There are 13 modes and 5 customizable modes. In order, there is:
Drawing, Area, Ceiling, Electrical, Floor System, Framing, Interior, ReView, Profile, Roof, Room,
Site & SoftView. They all give you a new workspace with their own set of tools. The visibility of
objects are also filtered here, so there is less layering to deal with. I really grasped this quickly. Once I
finally learned that I needed to “assemble” my plans to render them in Softview I was quite impressed.
The render view modes were also very impressive. I liked the sketched and illustrated modes that were
added. They also make the drawings looks hand drawn. There are more settings in Softview that can be
adjusted in their render modes to get different outputs than Chief. This can be both good and bad.
Depending on how much you prefer simple vs complexity. The lighting in the rendering needed more
tweaking to get the look I wanted for final raytracings. SoftView's rendering engine also has a lot of
settings to get more out of it. Softview does a lot more than create stunning renderings. It integrates
with the drawing to generate elevations, birds eye views and building sections. I think its modeling
capability seems limitless if you have the time to perfect settings. You can’t quite draw in 3D as easily
as Chief Architect. But it does the job.

In 2D, I found the tools to be excellent. The CAD module in here is the best I have used. I can see
breezing through construction documents with these tools. The cabinets while not as intelligent as
Chief Architect, they are better than the other (2) programs I evaluated. They have a neat
“autocabinet” function that draws runs of uppers and lower cabinets in just a few clicks. You will most
likely go back and modify them a bit. But it certainly gives you a head start. Softplan also gives you
the ability to create instant interior elevations of the cabinets with just a single click. I found Softplan’s
cabinets to be pretty good, not great after having used Chief. Though it does give you lots of tools. The
dimensions and annotation tools are excellent. The site plan mode is better than the rest of the
competition. As for construction documents, I had to learn how to use “multidrawings”. While not as
automatic as “send to layout” in Chief, I found it to accomplish the same thing, but with more
coordination needed.

The big bonus I found here is the options module in v14. It has a toggle at the top to let you know
what option is active. It allows you to set your base plan as the default, and the ability to add 250
options. It works great because these options can keep their layering in tact. This allows clients that
want to see different solutions before they make a decision without saving off different drawings. For
homebuilders, this should be a homerun. Only Argos Vertex has anything that can organize options
better. However, Vertex is not a recommended program for drawing. As for SoftList, Softplan’s
takeoff program, this is the best take off module yet. Its as simple and complex as you want it to be. It
links with most of the popular database programs including ODBC. And best of all, if you highlight an
item on the takeoff list, it highlights the location of those items on the plan. I feel like this program fits
hardcore residential designers.
Its now down to the finalists. Softplan & Chief Architect.
The big Decision:

Head to Head: Chief Architect vs Softplan

Main priorities for program:

1. Create, manage and maintain professional looking construction documentation while maintaining a
strong level of efficiency in the process. I am looking for the best tools.
2. Intelligent drawings that allow additional services to be rendered. Example: Takeoffs, estimating,
energy efficiency design, illustrating details, and renders. I am looking for a program geared toward the
next generation.
3. Rich presentation for visual modeling that does not require countless hours to set up. I am looking
for balance between ease of use and broad selection of options.
4. Stable program. Its important to me that I do not lose precious time and work restarting the program.
Can it handle projects well without bogging down the resources?

Priority 1 – Creating, Managing, and Maintaining professional looking documents with the best
tools available.

Project Management:
Chief has a pretty solid project browser. It organizes everything within in the drawing, to help you
navigate through it. You can hop from one floor to the next. However, Chief missed out on a chance
to take this one step further. Since the plot sheets (layouts) are created into *.la1 files externally from
the model, Chief could have added a browser for that as well. Its still useful.
 Below is a breakdown of how the project browser works:

1 - Any CAD Details you have saved with the plan are listed here. Right-click a CAD detail name to
rename it.
2 - Any Cameras saved with the plan are listed here by floor, as are overviews. Save or rename 3D
views by selecting and opening the camera object in floor plan view.
3 - Any saved Cross Sections and elevation views are listed here. Save or rename these views by
opening the camera object.
4 - All Floors in the current plan are listed here, including the Foundation and Attic. Double-click on a
floor name to make it active in floor plan view.
5 - All materials lists saved with the current plan are listed here. Whenever wall framing is generated,
Wall Details are automatically created as well and are listed here by floor.
5 - Whenever wall framing is generated, Wall Details are automatically created as well and are listed
here by floor.

Softplan has an opposite approach. They do not have a browser to organize everything in the file like
Chief has. They require that the windows system folders are used as the project organizer. Drawings
are created on separate files. Softplan manages these files by linking them together or “assembling”
the plans. This includes plot files and floors. Below is a sample of how the files are structured.

Softplan Project File Structure

The drawings within a project can be toggled with the Projects Status pull down

Projects Status Pull Down

 This may appear to be overly simplistic. However, it does its job. If your goal is to manage the
project, this format combined with the projects status pulldown menu will organize your project,
allowing you to toggle from one drawing to the next. It treats the separate files as if it is all in one file.
However, keep in mind, you will need to save the drawing if any changes are made before jumping to
the next file. There are some good plan overlay tools within Softplan to utilize plan views to be certain
they align, without exiting the drawing. The disadvantage here is that you are responsible for
organizing your files properly. And that you do not get to organize CAD detail, material lists, and
camera views like Chief does. The most noticeable difference is that Chief maintains all the files in
one drawing file instead of linking separate files to create a single database. They both have their
advantages here. I would call it a tie.

Create and maintain drawings:

Chief has a pretty good system for drawing walls, windows, & doors. Doors and windows are
dynamic in the sense that once highlighted, grips can be dragged to up their size. Walls can be moved
and stretched by these grips as well. Highlighted walls also prompt temporary dimensions to display to
allow you to make adjustments. It only takes a double click to edit them. As you draw, you watch a
dialog at the bottom center indicating your distance and polar coordinates.

Chief Architect status dialog

Walls are drawn in by click and dragging while holding down the left button. It takes some people
from other platforms a little bit of getting used to. But its ok once you get the hang of it. Zooming and
panning can be achieved by using the wheel button on a wheel button mouse.

As for the toolbars, Chief has a pretty organized layout. You have buttons and pulldowns. The
buttons have graphics that are pretty self explanatory.

The roof tools are pretty simple for the most part. Its has a dialog box that asks you to fill out the
parameters of your roof. However, There are not a whole lot of tools for the more complicating roofs.
The roof updates as a single entity, but the grips break it up into individual roof planes. As for text and
dimensions, they work well. The dimensions stay with the objects as they move. Dimension strings
also move together, which is nice. Auto dimension exterior does what it says it does. I did not see too
many options for snapping dimensions. There are only 3 choices: Interior Wall Centers, Primary Wall
Side, & Both Wall Sides.
 Text has a nice feature that allows you to have the text rotate with plan or not. Chief’s text editor
resembles the Autocad MText editor. However, it has a useful option of setting the text for printed size
input. It adjusts the size. Something that would have been very useful in all the years I used Autocad.

I now focused on the CAD module. Remember that Chief is not a CAD program. Instead it adds a
CAD module in order to create details and modify sections. I mentioned earlier how Softplan utilizes
modes pertaining to specific plan types. Chief uses configurations to accomplish something similar
based on certain tasks. It also organizes the toolbars based on what configuration you need. There are
four configurations. There is the “default” configuration, “terrain” configuration, “Detail”
configuration, & “CAD” configuration. On the CAD configuration, Chief allows you to draw in
coordinates, like a true cad program using “input line”. However, I did not find it real user friendly. It
has sufficient amount of CAD Tools to get the job done. It is by no means excessive. One new feature I
found very useful for maintaining your drawings is the new revision cloud tool. Softplan has this
feature limited to text at the moment. Though they do have a symbol they can insert and dynamically
adjust. Utilizing the right click menu, Chief gives many other options for your CAD work such as trim,
fillet, chamfer, extend object, copy, convert to polyline etc. I did not like the “reflect object” tool much.
It is the tool you use to mirror an object or line work. It requires you to create a line to use as the
reflection line before you mirror an object. The osnaps worked well for line work. The solid modeling
tools are pretty basic, sphere, cone, box, cylinder, pline solid and face. It does feature a CAD to walls
feature for those who would rather convert CAD lines rather than redraw.
As for detailing, it adds cros box for showing wood plates in section and insulation tool. Not a whole
lot to help you create details quickly on the fly.

Chief has a neat construction document method. You take your drawing, and “send to layout” in
order to organize your plot sheets. You can repeat a plan multiple times. It comes with a viewport that
defines the scale, while keeping the original drawing in tact. The layouts are save off as separate .la1
files to be served as plot sheets. It reads off the main drawing file and is updated as the drawing file
gets updated. That means that the elevations and sections are also linked. There is a toggle for the
number of floors you have as well. It is limited to 30 stories and a basement from what I can see.
Something that Chief also has is display visibilities that can be defined by layers. So turning on
electrical and foundation plan visibility is just a click of a button. So maintaining drawings live with
the model is automatic, and displays are just a matter of defining.

A bonus I like to mention about Chief is that it features a space planning configuration. It uses
predetermined rooms with standard rooms sizes to be configured in order to bubble sketch design a
plan. It’s a very useful tool for sitting down with your client. I have not seen this feature anywhere else.
 Softplan has its own unique ways of drawing. Like Chief, they rely more on a “sketch and edit”
method of drawing. However, in V14, its now easier to input distances as you draw. You select a start
point, and input a distance. Regardless where your mouse is, it will start from your start point.
However, it is limited to right angles only. However, the sketch and edit method has proven to work
well with both of these programs. In Softplan, you choose your wall, set your start point, and then
click on your end point while following the drawing status box for your distance. Softplan has a nudge
feature for adjusting the distances with more precision. Softplan does not use grips like Chief does to
adjust walls, windows and doors. It uses an adjust command to adjust the widths of doors and
windows, and lengths of walls. Really just about anything in Softplan can be adjusted. Even blocks (in
Softplan they are Symbols) can be adjusted. So if you have a bath tub at only 5’ long and need to
represent it at 6’ long, you can just use the adjust command.

The toolbars in Softplan are very well laid out. They are sorted by modes. You can customize your
own toolbar of your favorite commands very easily. You may also customize your own modes if you
have specific plans that need different tools and visibility.

The roof tools are very abundant in Softplan. They have saddles, and crickets as well as roof planes
that can be added over the existing roof. Softplan allows you to see the plate height differences with
color coding in roof mode. It relies on having a bearing surface and forces you to designate wall types
that are set as bearing. It really wants you to build a house. That being said, the automatic roof tool is
very good. It allows you to use levels below you in order to finish a 2 story roof as well. I determined
that the roof tools are more advanced than Chief's.

As for dimensions, Softplan has very good options for the extensions. You can set the extension
format in the drawing as a default or set components in your wall type to allow dimensioning. This
means you can set a walltype to dimension differently. Some wall types have so many layers, its hard
for the program to decide what needs to be dimensioned. Softplan solves this well. Editing locations of
walls doors and windows are accomplished by simply double clicking on any dimension. All Softplan
dimensions are linked directly to an object. Dimensions can be toggled to move the entire dimension
string or just a dimension line at a time. A new feature in version 14 was added to make dimension text
adjust around annotation automatically to avoid overlap. Pretty neat. Below are the dialog options:
 The text in Softplan is similar to Chief. Softplan has a few extra setting such as wrap on adjust, fit on
adjust, outline (revision clouds, capsules, box, hexagon, octagon, ellipse & circle). You can also force
certain text to be visible in all modes. Within Softplan, there are 3 types of default notes. You have
Detail, Overview, and you have No print.

As for the CAD module, Softplan does not have a CAD mode. However, it could be created as a
custom mode. Softplan has more options for detailing by far. In fact it has an excellent detail menu that
have too many things to list. It automatically draws joists, I beams, trusses, wood plates, windows,
doors etc… And it has more solid modeling shapes. It adds arc plane, wedge, half sphere, pyramid
frustum (pyramid shape with a flattened top) with a few additional options for each. There are also
quite a bit more edit and move functions in Softplan.

Softplan uses multidrawings in order to link the plot files to the model files. Any drawing can be
inserted into a template plot file at any scale. The text and dimensions can also be set to automatically
adjust in scale when inserted as multidrawing. Chief does not enable this. Chief allows editting in the
layout by clicking into the viewport. That takes you right to the file. Softplan allows you to edit the file
right on the plot sheet, while linking it to the main file. However using Multidrawing requires a little
more preparation than Chief's "send to layout" which seems more automatic. They accomplish about
the same thing. They both can clip views, adjust scale, and control visibility through their respective
viewports. All plan view plot files are linked to the model. Section & elevation files are
updated from the model by way of file overwrite. The neat thing is that it updates the
generated section or elevation while maintaining all the linework added in or modified. While
this is does not make sections & elevations "live" in Softplan, it is actually a better compromise is
some ways. Sections are the most often modified drawings and this allows for those modifications to
remain while updating the rest of the views on demand.

A bonus I would like to mention is that Softplan offers 3 levels of visibility control. The first tier of
visibility is by use of layers. The second is through object visibility control. And the 3rd is by using
"options". The "options" function is perfect for builders who offer their customers different options.
Another bonus is a new command "difference". This command can compare 2 versions of a drawing
and highlight all the differences on the plans.

Priority 1 verdict

Chief has better project management drawing information within the model while Softplan has better
management of files. Softplan seems quicker to draw because of its large selection of tools like "align
to edge", "distance between", "repeat edit block", "duplicate" and better dimension control. Chief has a
more "linked" database whereas Softplan requires certain items to be updated on demand or to
assemble the drawings. Dimensioning in Softplan seems to work a bit better. Design development
however favors Chief because of its design development tools. Softplan feels a bit more natural in
creating working drawings. As you work through the modes, you feel like its guiding you to complete
the drawings. And the CAD tools or more productive. I feel that Softplan has the edge here.

Softplan Grade - A
Chief Architect Grade - B
Priority #2 – Intelligent drawings

As we discussed before on the project formatting, Chief maintains all the files and views in one file.
The layout files are kept as separate files to read the model file. This is pretty close to fully parametric.
Its certainly more parametric than we need for residential designs. The next term is a familiar term we
hear often, BIM. Is Chief considered a full BIM?. Not quite. But its darn close. The estimating module
in Chief gets the basics done well. However, it does not link to enough databases, and it is not accurate
enough to use for estimating. However it is good for preliminary takeoffs and scheduling.

Chief creates some very useful scheduling tools including cabinets which Softplan does not have.
Some are not really high on importance such as plant and furniture. The most common schedules in the
industry would probably be electrical, doors & windows, & interior finish. Both programs have them.
Softplan adds an area schedule as well from its “Area Mode” that is very useful. I found that Chief has
more dynamic objects. Especially their cabinets. I would rank their cabinet functionality as the best.

Softplan has a more powerful estimating module. But keep in mind that this module adds about $500
to the price at the moment. It is expected to be powerful. It has added features that allow you to
highlight specific objects using colored highlighters. In addition, when you click and highlight an item,
it displays highlighted on the drawing. There is a lot of programming and customization that can be put
into Softlist to get your estimates more accurate. It also has a Ga ResCheck feature for energy calcs. I
am not real sure how well it works, but it sounds like a great head start. And most importantly, it links
to ODBC databases as well most of the major databases. This gives Softplan a better BIM advantage.
However, as far as intelligent objects, other than walls, I give the advantage to Chief because their
objects such as doors, windows, & cabinets can be changed by dragging the grips. Softplan can also
adjust doors windows and cabinets by the use of the adjust command. However, it does not do it as
well. However, a nice feature Softplan adds is the “attach” toggle. You can have your floors linked to
attach so that when one floor moves, so will the floors above and or below it. There is another toggle
that allows closet objects including cabinets and closet shelving to follow the wall. This can be toggled.

Priority #2 verdict – Intelligent Drawings:

Chief has some more enhanced objects that are great to work with. It seems that everything is
interactive. Softplan has a different way of handling its objects. They rely on tools. So Chief has an
edge there. If you are looking for more of a BIM solution, Softplan shas to stand out more because of
Softlist. It just feels like Softlist is major league, while Chief’s estimating is good but not quite in the
same league. When you weight their disadvantages vs advantages, they are pretty even. It may depend
on what is more important to you.

Softplan Grade: B+
Chief Architect Grade: B+
(There is still room for enhancement for both)
Priority #4 – Stability.
We are skipping to #4 now because #3 is the longest evaluation.

The differences between the format of Chief and Softplan are almost night and day. Its actually
amazing how 2 programs that achieve about the same things, go at it so differently. The big differences
I see with Chief Architect and Softplan is how you interact with objects. Chief want you to click on
an object first to highlight them. Then you have the option of moving or adjusting the size by dragging
grips, or to right click for a menu giving more edit options. Softplan allows you to just hover over and
right click for a menu relevant to that object. If 2 objects are on top of one another, it allows you to
choose. However unlike Chief, you need to enter a command to resize an object. The other difference
is how Chief maintains the details, floorplan levels, sections & elevations in one database (.plan
drawing).You create plot sheets from that linking to that database. Softplan keeps each floor level,
details, sections and elevations on their own sheets. They are brought together into one database only
when you “assemble” the plan.

Softplan Floor Assembly

This formatting difference is the biggest challenge in evaluating the products. They both extract
information, but differently. I found Chief easier to manage because all of the model is in one file.
However, Softplan seems to have had foresight here, understanding that these projects get to become
very large. I found that Chief starts to suck in a lot of computer resources once your drawing gets
loaded with so much information.

Using the sample Woodstone file in the trial version to generate an elevation
I was using an XP professional system with Microsoft Outlook & Word open.

Softplan breaks up the data into separate files instead. Because of this, you can work on more than one
Softplan session at a time. This also allows you to have more than one person work on a set of
documents at the same time, better than Chief does. I found that rendering and moving my rendering
around was more stable in Softplan. Especially When Chief was in sketch and watercolor
modes in Chief. They seemed to draw the most resources.

Priority #4 verdict – Stable system

Softplan made up ground after being docked a little for having to assemble plans from external files.
This worked out to make it a more stable system. I never had a crash on Softplan yet. Chief
crashed on me 2x while generating views. It could be that it is more demanding.

Softplan Grade: A+
Chief Architect Grade: C
Priority #3 – Rendering capability & ease of use:

This is one priority that many people put higher on their list. I believe mostly because a large number
of them, like me, were stuck using Autocad Architectural Desktop for so many years, that they felt
rendering was just too aggravating. Chief has targetted these customers. They have focused improving
their modeling capabilities with every release. Softplan has also targeted this group. It just seemed that
Chief put more emphasis on this and Softplan put it on working drawings. With the last 2 releases of
Softplan, it is obvious that they are serious about competing with Chief Architect in this area. I found
them both to do well in this area.

Since a lot of my arguments need to be illustrated, I made the most basic design to model on both
programs. I created both exterior and interior renderings based on them. I did not have access to
raytracing at the time on Chief Architect's beta trial version of X2. I have had a chance to see how it
raytraces on X1. I was told that this was unchanged.

Below are my system specs I had when creating these models:

Please view the screen shots below:

Modeling Capabilities

vs
Chief Architect Plan View

Softplan Plan View

 Chief Architect Vector View Mode

Softplan Shade View Mode w/Lines

Chief Architect Standard View Mode

Softplan Textured View Mode

Chief Architect Line View Mode

Softplan Sketch View Mode

 Chief Architect Vector View Mode

Softplan Shade View w/Lines & Lined Texture

Chief Standard Final w/Lighting

Softplan Textured View

Chief Architect Water Color View

Softplan Shade view w/Lines & Lighting

 As you can see the render views appear equally nice. They just have different their own unique looks.
I was impressed with Chief Architect’s line and watercolor view. They look authentically done by
hand.Softplan’s illustrated (not shown) and sketched view looked very hand sketched as well. Its
pretty amazing how the focus went from realistic to hand drawn or painted so quickly. They both do a
great job of offering lots of additional looks to their renderings. Chief seems to have an advantage
offering the watercolor & paint look. Softplan has nothing like this. However, Softview gives a lot
more settings that can be enhanced and combined to give you a wider variety of styles.

The renders are still stunning without final raytracing applied. Imagine how much better the final
raytraced renders are?

The lighting on Chief was outstanding with radiosity turned on. It gives it a lot of realism. However,
it took close to 1 hour and a half to raytrace. I got similar results on Softplan in 20 minutes using the
highest settings. Softplan just seems to render faster. Chief seems to have no problems spitting out
vector renders instantly, while struggling on the line view & water color views more. It took a minute
to get the lined render for me. Softplan takes no more than seconds on all renders outside of raytracing.
It may have been because I had applications open at the time. In my opinion, they are both certainly
very competent in realistic renders. Chief seems to do a little better on interior renders, because I feel
the radiosity really kicks in there. Softplan has a slight better look than Chief on the exterior raytracing
renders. But this is only after tweaking the lighting and the materials on Softview quite a bit. I like that
Softplan has a smoothing setting that can be applied to each individual material. While this is a great
setting to have, it is a pain in the butt if you want it set on everything. It just seems Chief does not
require as much fiddling around. It should be noted that Softview, Softplan’s model generating
module, does have more settings that can be configured. With Chief, it feels like you barely need to
mess with anything except add light on your first try. I recall spending about an hour messing with a
render setting on Softplan. Chief may not navigate as freely as Softplan, but it seems to allow you to
add more items to the model such as cabinets and furniture while viewing the model. Its feels more
natural to draw in 3D on Chief. Softplan offers better framing options to display in 3D. There are more
truss profiles that can be displayed for sections or for showing a 3D model of the skeleton. Softview,
for instance has attic trusses as well as queen, king and fink trusses that can be interchanged. Its neat
how it generates framing for 3D
.
Priority #3 verdict – Rendering capability and ease of use.
They both created renders that were almost equal. Chief had a slight advantage in interior renders
taking advantage of its radiosity.
Softplan was capable of more realistic exterior renders. However, the key
issue is that Softview required more setting adjustments in order to get it where you want it. Chief
needed only minimal adjustments.
As for rendering views. They were even since Softplan can create a wider variety of looks. But
Chief adds a unique watercolor and paint view that looks very professionally done.
What really set Chief apart is how Chief allows you to interact with the design in 3D better. Chief
just feels natural while in 3D. You can design kitchens and baths in 3D. Softplan does let you detail
the model a bit while in Softview, but its not as free flowing or dynamic.

Softplan Grade: B
Chief Architect Grade: A
Now that the scores are tabulated here, this is how I see it:

1. Create, manage and maintain professional looking construction documentation while maintaining a
strong level of efficiency in the process. I am looking for the best tools.
Softplan Winner

2. Intelligent drawings that allow additional services to be rendered. Example: Takeoffs, estimating,
energy efficiency design, illustrating details, and renders. I am looking for a program geared toward the
next generation.
A Draw. No Winner

3. Rich presentation for visual modeling that does not require countless hours to set up. I am looking
for a balance between ease of use and broad selection of options.
Chief Winner

4. Stable program. Its important to me that I do not lose precious time and work restarting the program.
How handles projects without bogging down your memory resources.
Softplan Winner

Conclusion:

This was very close. But I have Softplan as the winner. It was surprising how their strengths were
benefited in one area, and hurt in another. The fact that Softplan allows you to save a few clicks,
and has the tools you need to create and manage your drawings is more important than the ability to
create eye candy as easily in my evaluation. Both of them are competent in every area. I do feel that
Chief requires more from a computer. You may have to shut down other programs while using it if you
plan on generating a lot of renders.

There are certainly chances that I overlooked certain features of each program as I have not mastered
any of these programs. I got to the point where I felt like I knew enough about all of them to write
something up like this. Hopefully this helps other people save time in their search. While I came up
with a winner, somebody else may have a different priority list. This write up could have been much
longer if I had to name every feature either of them have. They are both the best programs in the
industry for residential. Having tried Revit a bit, I think it would be fun to do a comparison to include
Revit and ArchiCad with Chief & Softplan. Keep in mind that I was able to evaluate the 4 programs
here because I was looking for my next purchase. I have made my choice.

Written by:
Michael A Collazo, AIBD, CPBD
Mike.A.Collazo@gmail.com