Nicinus

Well, since there is a print function it would obviously be convenient if it was possible to print without going through a pdf to do so. I wouldn't mind printing pdfs first in Layout, but from within Chief I would like to be able to print out portions for closer study, sketching, etc.

I've been tinkering on with this and it seems as if the printer stubbornly defaults to letter as page size. Photoshop does not have this problem though so maybe it automatically uses the override that Acrobat let's me do by choosing paper source by pdf page size. It is a nuisance but the main thing is that I can get around it by printing from Acrobat I guess. Interested to hear if this is a common issue for large format printers...

So I tried printing to PDF first and yes the pdf shows the whole width correctly, but when I then print from Acrobat I have the same issue, so I assume the problem is with the printer setting somehow. I have defined a 13" x 19" page, and it respects the length but not the width.

However, the Print dbx in Acrobat clearly shows that the whole page won't be printed (first pic) BUT if I click 'Choose paper source by PDF page size' (second pic) it suddenly works and it fills the whole width? I don't get it, there must be some instruction regarding the page size that doesn't get forwarded, which means this should be able to work from within Chief as well. Anyone that can figure this out? 

Odd printing problem. I've defined a 13"x19" page and looking at Print preview everything looks correct, but when I print it only prints 8.5" wide. Length is correct at 19" but not the width.

Anyone had similar issues?

I really wanted to like Revit for a number of reasons, but although there were features and a workflow that I really miss, it has imho some serious misgivings. For one it lacks, in lack of a better term, 'precision'. Things just doesn't feel 'tight' especially when working with things that are not plumb or level. 2D tools are also weak compared to most other tools and it is painful to do details. The Family concept is both promising and advanced, but it is also tedious and really way behind the libraries from Chief if you are in residential. And yes, it at times becomes extremely slow. One of those tools I have a feeling I may revisit, but not for 5-6 years.

Yeah,  I get it,  I just think about my  son not having to worry about Revit hanging up.......  

I left Revit for Archicad as Revit used to slow to a crawl with bigger models. Archicad was way better but that one too became slow at a certain point. I then tried Quadro level cards, which helps, but my point is that Revit certainly has its share of slowness.

This could have been done in something like Chief, and then imported to for example Max for rendering in Vray or the included Mental-Ray. The house being fairly detailed and the lawn using displacement mapping together with the way things are stripped away makes me doubt this is rendered in cad. On the other hand the front flowers and rocks looks very basic.

Very nice!

With a 29" screen you should be able to run 2560x1600 so you will need either DVI or Displayport.

I'm using two 30" monitors and it works great!

When I created the roof I was standing on the first floor, and when I changed to the second and recreated the roof it worked as expected.

I used the build tool, and CA decided to put a roof on the basement instead of the top floor?

The roofs on the basement levels are areas that are meant to be light wells and open upwards so I can imagine that confused the tool, but why didn't I get any roof at the top? All rooms have the 'Roof Over This Room' checked. 

I also think it would be a terrible waste to not have access to the old threads. Having said that, it some times becomes confusing to read solutions that apply to earlier workflows in earlier versions. An intelligent cut-off date, such as the date of the release of X3 or X4, would be better than just saying a year.

Per the same token, seen from my view as a beginner, I think it would also male a lot of sense to clean up the video index. As it is right now I start at the beginning and then have to check six versions for possible differences in workflow.

PS. The link on the web site goes to the old forum.

And I thought it deducted half of my posts because they were stupid questions...  

Did you ever resolve your issues with the Surface and the Bluetooth mouse? 

No, there seems to be a bottle neck, apparently the same chip handles both wifi and bluetooth. It is not noticeable during regular use, like web browsing and smaller downloads. However, during large downloads that last more than 30 seconds or so I notice a jerkiness in the cursor. Pen and finger pad is unaffected.

An article that discusses this topic, not really sure what the conclusion is, but food for thought:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/magazine/garage-sale-arbitrage.html?_r=0

Steve,

Microsoft have a very generous return policy on the Surface Pro, one month no questions asked. I decided to try one out about a month ago and although I really didn't expect it to work out, I've been converted. Since I have a relatively hefty workstation I wasn't looking for a power laptop as a desktop replacement but more an iPad alternative that would be extremely mobile and let me truly use it as a tablet as well, i.e. reading, movies, web and some apps.

The surface pro does the above decently and within the margin of irritation compared to the iPad reference. It does weigh more and is thicker but not so that it is a deal breaker. Startup response is slower but again not painfully slow. It has a slightly different screen aspect ratio, a perfect 1920x1080, making it a joy for movies but a little to letter box for web browsing although size wise it is more to be considered as wider than the ipad as the screen size is about an inch bigger.

Where it shines though is in versatility. With the type cover that works as a screen protector, you have a very impressive little laptop that handles Chief extremely well. The screen has a high resolution making everything crisp but not tiny. I was worried everything would be miniature but icons and text is scaled up somehow whereas drawings stay sharp. I think what makes it work for me compared to my previous laptop is the high resolution of the screen, and although I zoom in and out a lot, in reality I do that on my 30" screen as well.

Another difference compared to my old laptop I stopped using a year or so ago is that this is a 64-bit 8GB of RAM system with a really fast processor. PDFs are blazing fast compared to my iPad. The touchscreen is handy and the pen very convenient for notes and sketches. If you're familiar with Onenote this is a very strong combination. Add to that Word, Excel and other tools and the added weight and thickness compared to the iPad becomes an acceptable compromise. It becomes really cool when I connect to my workstation with Remote Desktop and suddenly have access to all files. I can even execute programs on my main computer if I need to. I have a small bluetooth mouse that works on almost all surfaces.

Admittedly, the last couple of arguments apply to a regular laptop as well, but then I suddenly just flip off the cover keyboard and enjoy a movie lying in the sofa.

Did you frame it?

No, just played with the space planning tool and then created the floor plan from that, and for some reason the default setting was that it would get the floor from the foundation.

It would be great if all would show up in the filter dbx or a similar one. The ones that are not loaded could show up in a different color or something so that it would be easy to add them.

Now that I've acquired a second computer for field work I suddenly realized I only had my core catalogs with me and none of the bonus and manufacturer catalogs that I've collected on my main computer.

Is there a way to download all of them at once? And is there a way to see which ones that are new and that I'm missing?

Nic

Ok, will check if it's ok to post it. Thanks everybody that gave a helping hand.

The floor finish is 7/8" and set to default so I don't think that is it.

As I said above the room was set to 'Floor Supplied by the Foundation Below' in the default dbx, whereas normally the box above 'Floor Under This Room' is  the one checked I assume, and I was merely wondering if anyone knew why and under which circumstances this happens. 

I made a very small floor plan in a new file with the space planning tool just to test, and this time 'Floor Under This Room' was indeed checked and the camera view had floors so I doesn't seem to be due to the space planning tool.

Well, I've had my fair share of Caillou. He's spell-binding compared to the 100's of Dora episodes I had to watch with my daughter.

Let's approach my question more as a workflow issue so I feel less stupid.

1) Why is the 'floor supplied by the foundation below' suddenly default (instead of 'floor under this room')? Is that because I started with the space planning tool?

2) Now that all rooms are like this, do I have to change them one by one or is there a better way?

After creating a floor plan I noticed in camera view that I don't have any flooring? Under what circumstances could I end up in that situation?

Perhaps I should mention that the floor plan was generated from the space planning tool. I haven't touched the camera view set, and the 'layer floor, surfaces' is visible.

Nic

Thanks Gerry, makes sense!