Nicinus

I didn't see this pdf before, but you don't have any line weight at all anywhere. Look at the pdf in 100%, they are the same. As I said in the other thread I think you checked Use Layout Line Scaling.

David, Did you check 'Use Layout Line Scaling' when sending to Layout? You also seem to create a new layout set every time you send something, which in my view creates an awful mess.

The masking polygon is the classic way of doing it and the way it is done in most tools. I personally dislike sometimes having to update both an existing and a proposed building when additional details are needed, but I can't remember ever tweaking the grade once it's done. Another little benefit from the polygon mask is that you can fill it with a white diagonal pattern if you want the foundation parts under grade to show hatched but not the stem walls above.

Can't wait to say I have two yottabytes of storage.

I've given up on the stylus for now, but I found the Surface itself very convenient for a number of tasks and Chief plays well with cloud storage such as Onedrive. If you are considering a Surface Pro I would however wait until October 6th.

I'm in an area with tons of residential architects doing custom homes, and none of the ones I happen to talk to use Revit. A few use Archicad or Vectorworks, and the majority use Autocad and some Sketchup. I'm sure it is different if they do more commercial work. I don't think any one of them has said that Chief is a consumer product, they just haven't heard about it, and the few that have hesitated because it is residential only.

I don't think Johnny is aiming for Archicad, he wants more Sketchup style 3D editing and I've never heard anyone saying Sketchup is complex. The simple fact is that Chief adds more and more poly solid and 3D tools with every version, and there is no reason this can't be done with elegance. I personally don't really need itas I own 3ds Max and am quite proficient with it, but since Chief aims to generate all condocs from a 3D model I assume it has to be an area of focus. At this point I don't need team work functionality either, but I doubt Chief can go on forever without letting people share work.

Not to mention that it would be a more 'intelligent' way to have one model that everything is derived from, instead of having to have some parts of it as cad details from a prior version, that really aren't much more than pictures.

It's not that I dislike as-builts per se, it's just that I would prefer not having to finish it into the last minuscule detail before I can start on my new design.

You can't do that if walls or windows share the same physical space. Like what anymore? A new design idea? I would just delete that design option/mutually exclusive layer/phase or whatever it is called and create a new one without disturbing the core model. Iterating means to repeat and refine something until one gets closer and closer to the end result, i.e. you start with a rough idea and refine it over and over until you are happy.

Let me give an example. You have a Craftsman and are thinking of how a possible addition could work, and if it would be possible to add a balcony as well. The existing house is elaborate with many details. What if you could quickly measure up the exterior measurements with your Disto/tape and add the roof and some quick windows and doors, and then start to play with possible options. As you iteratively work on it you add more and more details to get a feeling for how it will look in it's context. The main model is the same, but the walls that are different are on mutually exclusive layers, one called Walls, Demolish and one called Walls, New. Same thing for other items. In Revit for example you can say that this part of the wall is in Phase Demolish and this one in Phase New. If you chose to show the model in Demolish mode it won't show the new walls and vice versa. This workflow isn't possible today in Chief and you have to update the as-built and the new proposed model twice. I agree that the existing as-build can be essential for understanding a building, but not all of it and certainly not all brackets and millwork on a Craftsman. I like to show detailed as-builts as well and end up doing this finishing touches twice, once for the as-built and once for the proposed. CAD software is meant to improve workflows, and just because we've always done something a certain way...well, you get the drift.

Now that would be cool.

That's just it, I find it hampering to my creativity that I have to create a carefully measured and detailed as-built before I can start with my ideas. My process is iterative, I want to add more and more detail as the project is refined. The architects I know hate this part and typically outsource the as-built to the intern.

Nice topic, it touches upon a couple of interesting dilemmas. One particular area of grief in Chief (and many other tools) for me is the lack of a way to handle ‘parallel’ design alternatives. Just like Lighthouse, I dislike having to first create a detailed as-built before I can start experimenting with design options on a copy. For a remodel I therefore typically do a very rough model first that I immediately start to play around with, and when I’m getting close I create the precise as-built, which I similar to Lighthouse’s first choice, and then save a copy of. I would love to see a way to handle this better, so that the detailing of the existing as-built and the proposed design can continue in parallel without having to update two (and in worst case several) separate models. Revit has a concept of Phases so that a wall can be labeled Demolish for example, which can then be hidden as needed. It also has a concept called Design Options where one can basically switch between ‘modes’ and everything you do from then on only affects that design option until you switch back to another. I’m not entirely sold on this idea, it reminds me of recording macros, and I have tricked myself into a mess on occasion with it. It seems to be a complicated workflow problem and not easy to come up with an elegant solution. Another interesting discussion in this thread touches upon sketching of massing and how that can be expressed as freely as possible. Vectorworks massing tools seems similar to those in Revit, and the biggest benefit in practice seems to be to be able to create walls and floor plans from the ‘poly solid’ model that has been generated. In this aspect I don’t see it as something extraordinary difficult to achieve for the Chief programmers. After all, similar poly solid tools exist in Chief already, albeit not the ever so popular push and pull, and Chief can generate walls from a bubble diagram so why not from a shape. The few times I’ve created something very organic, Zaha Hadid style, was in Architecture school and I then used 3ds Max for the massing. However, just as working with pen and paper, scale can sometimes be deceptive when you have too much freedom, and once it is time to transform the schema into a practical building and reality sets in it often ends up very different. For the kind of houses I design I find that playing around in Chief not only works well, but it keeps me grounded. Still, I certainly wouldn’t say no to a massing tool. What I did like in the Vectorworks video, and something I really miss from Archicad, is the extent a polysolid can be categorized and defined. The whole point, at least for me personally, with creating a polysolid bracket or front step concrete slab is to be able to define it as an object with properties such as volume, manufacturer, cost, etc. and have it go into a schedule. Both Archicad and Revit allows the adding of IFC properties to objects and this is something I hope is on Chief’s radar.

I found this to be a pretty good definition of what people would love BIM to be, a smorgas board for all wishes and requirements, all the way to rendering. What it also shows is that with the right commitment and perseverance even a ‘dumb’ modeler like Sketchup can appear to be a BIM product. Don’t get me wrong, I love Sketchup as much as anyone else, and it’s a great tool for conceptual modeling that produces presentation ready graphics, but to call it BIM is more than a stretch. All the arguments used in the video could be applied to 3ds Max as well with the right plugins. There is not an information database in the bottom here, and there is no parametric intelligence. This is a tool that is comparable to Chief’s polysolids, although instead of being a useful addition, it is the core of the software and all the tools you see in Chief for manipulating for example walls, windows and roofs are missing. Looking a bit further down the road, the promise of BIM to me is also not only a common model that everyone can adjust and harvest needed info from, regardless if it is for structural or maintenance purposes, but a tool that actually helps in the design. A tool that for example suggests different foundations whether the room above is a kitchen or a garage. Rings a bell? What I truly envy with Sketchup is the incredible momentum and critical mass it has reached. Imagine people developing such plugins for Chief and doing these kind of seminars about Chief, invigorating the whole community and attracting new generations of users.

With you 100% on this one, Richard. What else do think is crucial in order for you to do CDs in Chief as opposed to Archi?

I have a Surface Pro 3 with an i5. I have the blutooth mouse but using a mouse when you're walking around and taking measurements is a bit of a problem.