Nicinus

There is probably a lot of truth in this, Larry. New users are where software companies grow. At the same time I don't neccessarily think the average existing user is ignorant about some of these things. All who make an elevation surely must be concerned if they produce drawings where these aren't current. I assume the average Chief Premier user is relatively hands-on, given that there are cheaper products like Home Designer otherwise. The other thing to consider is who those potentially new users are? Tract, stock plan and cookie cut builder? I would assume these are the original target market, which may start to become saturated. I obviously don't know but if they are reaching for the one man architect firm, and I think they could, things like this are very important.

I think this is a great idea, but even if Chief was willing to publish such a list (I don't know, but it could be seen as something feeding the competition perceived weaknesses), the downside is that it would be restricted to what they think are the key things to adress. If a number of regular users would publish their own thread with their list of the 10 most critical/desireable suggestions, Chief could then (assuming they care) study and compare these lists and see which features/items seems are the most requested and if there are some ideas that make particular sense. 10 is a good number in that it limits the scope, forces people to think, but still allows some desired things that may not typically come up. Everyone creating their own thread would allow other users to discuss and scrutinize it in case the OP has misunderstood or just don't know how to do something. OP could update his/her list as things gets addressed and needs change. There are certainly some users here, whose top 10 lists I would love to see. Just an idea. Or it could just be what a thread like this one but with the 10 most desireable things instead of 1.

This was probably the one most different concept for me when I started to learn Chief, and I'm not aware of any other program with the same room based paradigm. It is very clever and has many uses, but is so different that it takes a while to adapt as it affects so many areas. I find it a bit cumbersome when having to do story wide changes, and having to make sure all rooms have been set correctly. I would love to see it combined with the more traditional level thinking, where a datum can be set and named, and then referenced from for example wall dbx as top level etc. This could be used in the defaults for structure with values relating to them, making some values more logical and easier to decipher. It would also be helpful for annotating elevations.

+1

This is what I'm trying to come as close as possible with the line weight preview, right? It seems as 1/100mm is ok, my concern is not going to paper, it is to have the same going between plan and layout. Yes, but it should behave the same in Plan and Layout, right? Yes, I'm only talking about the visual aid here. It has always looked correct for me in Layout by setting the line weights in my layers, etc. and my prints have always been close to that of Layout. However, if I toggled the line weight button on in PLAN, it would suddenly look complete bananas with typcally huge thick lines. As I'm ideally trying to use a work flow where I do all work in plan, and then copies it to layout without doing any adjustments there at all, it is very desireable for me to have the same line weight when working (or at least checking) in plan as I have in layout. I want to get away from doing all the work, sending to layout, and then starting to worry about line weight. I do think I have it working the way I was hoping now (although I'm not entirely sure, especially given some of the feedback). There seems to be two ways of getting there: A/ My initial reasoning was that both drawing sheet setups should be set to 1" = 1" as I'm working in plan at full scale, and in layout it refers to the size of the paper. I then get a visual discrepancy in plan as my end result is set at 1/4"=1' or 1:48 so if I want to see a correct preview I have to change the preview line weight a factor of 48, or in this case 50, from 1/100 to 1/2. B/ As Glenn says, if I know I'm sending to layout in a certain scale I can input that scale in the Drawing Scale and then keep the line weight preview at 1/100 as it will then be the same in plan as in layout. This assumes you have layout's drawing sheet setup set to 1:1 (which you will get a warning if you try to change anyway). I think the latter solution is the simpler one as you don't have to calculate the preview scale, but in a way the former is more elegant. If you want to send your plan to layout in multiple versions in different scales (like a zoom in) or if you haven't decided on paper size or final scale yet, it is perhaps more logical to vary the preview, as that really is what it's all about.

I don't think that's it, they both covered the whole screen, each on it's own 30" screen (at 2560x1600). The only difference would be that the drawing scale on plan was 1:1 and in the layout view 1/4"=1'

Ok, so I'm doing exactly what I think you guys are saying. First I create a simple (albeit admittedly weird) little floor plan and make all normal walls 50 (double the old rotring ) as per below: As you can see most lines are thin even though the 'Line Weight' icon is toggled on, in fact no difference except on dotted lines when I toggle it. I then check the Drawing Sheet Setup and makes sure it is as below, and then sends it to layout in scale 1/4" and makes sure "Use Layout Line Scaling" is toggled: However, looking at the now scaled view in layout the lines are thicker (as I would expect at 50). Am I doing something wrong here, and were the view in plan and layout supposed to look similar in terms of line weight? It seems to me that the result I get is due to the view in layout being scaled 48 times, and the only way to compensate for this in plan (which is at 1:1 like the layout drawing sheet) is to change the preview line weight in plan from 1/100 to 1/2, a 50x factor. When I do this in plan they become the same as below screen shot from plan after change: Jim, I noticed in your bay roofs 2 video from another thread that you have the line weight icon toggled on when you are working in plan. Does that line weight represent exactly what you see in layout later? PS. I have a kind of suspicion that some of of my issues comes from setting the drawing scale to 1 in = 1 in in the drawing sheet setup, as it doesn't seem to default to that? I got a bit stuck here so all help is truly appreciated.

I'm not at the desk right now so I can't try it out, but so what you are saying is that my reasoning above is faulty or another way of doing it? It does seem to work so I would like to understand why it isn't.

Thanks Perry, it sure is a bit messy to wrap my head around. The concept of having two drawing sheet setups, one for plan and for layout confuses me a bit. As I understand one always work in 1:1 in plan and then a suitable scale to fit the paper in layout, so it is not immediately clear to why one needs a drawing sheet setup in the plan part. Anyway, if I have the drawing scale in plan and layout both being 1 in = 1 in, and then the scale of the view in layout 1/4 in = 1 ft, I seem to be able to compensate the line weight preview in plan to that of layout by setting a line weight of 1 = 1/2 mm in plan and keeping the 1/100 mm in layout. That gives a line weight scale difference of 50x, which is close to the 48x of 1/4 in = 1 ft. I think I'm happy now, but it would be interesting to hear if someone else do the same? I haven't yet printed but since I'm not changing anything on the layout side I assume I should be good?

I think I have this part right, and I've then used layout to verify the relationships of line weights and then ultimately in the pdf before print. What I'm trying now though is to get it to look the same in plan, so that it matches how it will look in layout. I've never bothered about this part before as I had the line weight icon off in plan.

I'm trying to get it to look the same in plan and layout with that icon toggled on in both. Reading up on the 'line weights and scaling' chapter in the manual now, I've never had that button on in plan before so I haven't encountered the problem it seems. I need to somehow balance my scale in plan to that of layout if I'm understanding it correctly.

Not really in the sense that I haven't touched it, I have it set to the same as you? Are there separate settings for plan and layout?

I've so far not been using the line weight button while working in plan, in order to get as much clarity as possible, and assumed that was the typical workflow. However, a video by Jim Lawes on roofs encouraged me to try to work in a mode where my view would better correspond to the end result in layout, but I can't get the lines to co-operate. Why are lines heavier in plan? Is that because I have a 1/4" scale in layout? It is the most logical reason to me, but if I export in 1:1 there is no difference. Is there a way to compensate this behavior? I have the 'Line Weight' button On in both cases and they cover about the same space on the screen.

I have nothing to add on the framing, but I must say I loved that video, Jim. Opened my eyes to some settings on colors for selections, line weights, etc. I've so far never used 'Line Weight' on when working in plan.

Out of curiousity, which modeling app and which file format would you like to see?

I think Ed pretty much nails it from a practical standpoint. Besides being an interesting theoretical discussion for some here, I feel we are being a bit ruthless with the terminology. Chief is, and has always been, a BIM solution. BIM means building information model and that is what Chief is creating. Interoperability in turn is something that makes BIM more powerful. When people on top of it starts to throw in that Sketchup is a BIM solution, the discussion is starting to take almost comical proportions. Like Doug said we all have different needs, and when Chief doesn't live up to that it is natural to feel that Chief should have interoperability with this or that program, for example making stairs or material lists. The problem is that this list of formats and their different flavors is never ending. True interoperability is on a program by program basis today as there isn't a single file format that can support all the different features different programs offer, and Chief can't support every of these under the sun, at least not if they want to have some time developing their own program. The only format that comes close is IFC, which is still a young format, and despite the issues Doug mentions it is still the most promising one and supported by both Revit and Archicad, as well as the requirement of a number of governments outside US. It is definitely not yesterdays news, on the contrary it is more of tomorrow's. I personally feel that Chief eventually needs to support IFC, and it would certainly also give it a more professional stamp, but at this state of BIM there are in my humble opinion other areas that are more urgent. I would also love to use a more refined stair tool, but in my case it would of course be better if Chief could do it so I wouldn't have to depend on another program. I can create anything I want in Sketchup or 3ds Max and import it for reference as it is if needed. Instead of just asking for more interoperability in general, perhaps it would be helpful for Chief if we could have a poll and prioritize these suggestions? If IFC is the future, we arguably need bridge interoperability until IFC is mature enough, but these needs will differ tremendeously among us.