Nicinus

Beginner question. I've created some dimensions and get a marker for the point I snapped to, but I can't an extension line? My problems seems only to relate to walls, and I have set Wall > Both Sides in the dimension style dbx. I'm not using proximity or any gap settings, everything in the extension tab is set to default.

In which cases would I be able to get a marker on the actual dimension line, but it won't let me create the extension?

I have a bit of a hate-love relation with the structure tab. I like the idea behind it and the control it gives, but I sometimes wish there was a more general way to control absolute levels, and then use the room structure as over rides.

I briefly looked at your plan, and I'm wondering a bit about the crawl space, and if the fact that you created a room by using a slab as rat proofing changed the sill around it? 

I'm following this thread with interest. I'm not an expert either but have had similar problems.

Hmmm, not sure where this ranks on the easy scale. I make the symbol (text, lines) and create the Cad block, then add it to the library. Then I go to Toolbar Customization, select "Place Library Object" and drag that to my new toolbar. After I drag as many as I need, I close the Toolbar Customization, then click the new button. The Library Object Button Specification window pops up, I click the library button to select the object I need which populates the image, and I have my toolbar. 

 

Not sure if I added info that you already know.

Very nice, thanks!

Interesting topic but I think this was spam.

The plan I'm working on now had three curve segments together (a cul-de-sac) and took a bit of fiddling. In worst case you could add a litte line snippet as filler. 

His sense of humor extends beyond building science. Joe is Canadian. A great line from one of his seminars a number of years ago was "We Canadians are a lot like you Yanks. We like to think of ourselves as unarmed Americans with healthcare."

That's hilarious.

So some people use the ML, but most never touch it. My recommendation to CA is that this is one of many areas that Chief could be simplified by removing the ML and associated commands and then create a separate add-on module that could be better and more comprehensive and customization for any users preferences. There could be a strong link between the plan and ML add-on, but it aught to be developed separately rather than just a half -baked sales feature. Some have found how to make it work for 30+ simple homes a year, but for those of us who do 3 custom homes a year, which test the limits of Chief and require multiple work-arounds, the ML is rather amateurish in comparison to other useful features Chief is good at. CA, please focus on developing an app that helps us build an accurate model, clean and simple. Let someone else develop the ML for Chief. Don't try to be everything to all users.

I disagree with this. Although I think there may be areas in Chief that could be more effectively developed by a third party, the material list is in my mind not it. Who else would be in a better positions to create usable material lists than the company developing the actual building model? I would rather see a material list survey and work together with Chief to solve the problems, and a big part seems to be education.

Here's a simple case where the material list is technically correct, but not usable for estimating or purchasing.

 

build a house that is 8'-10" square. Generate a material list. 8 sheets 4' x 8' of drywall are required.  This is correct

 

Take the same house and add a few doors and windows.  Now six sheets are required.  This is not correct.

 

In the world of drywall it still takes 8 sheets.

 

I can compensate by doing a "save as"of the house and then delete all the doors and windows, and get 8 sheets, but I shouldn't have to do this.  I should have the option to calculate this material in a way that makes sense to me, and to my drywall subcontractor.

There is a very similar issue with OSB sheathing.

Mick, I'm very flattered to be grouped with power users like Scott and Perry (whích I'm sure is ill-deserved) but in my case I've actually never touched the material lists, so I can't say if they are hard to use or not.

However, in Bill's case above I find it encouraging if most of the problems are on this level. This to me appears more of a thing where the developer didn't consider the use of panels and just calculated surface, because it didn't occur to him. It is a clear cut case where theory mismatches practical life and where users feedback is crucial. The potentially good news is that this is a formula that hopefully could be changed very easily to not subract door and windows surfaces at least as an option, we're not talking cad lines or viewport graphics programming here.

M.L. might be a good topic for a workshop.

Where do I sign up?? 

Wow, your edition was even older than mine, I have the second edition I believe. 

There is now a fourth:

http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Francis-D-K-Ching/dp/1118745086/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

To me thier seems to be a small core group who dominate this forum and where they get thier time from, I don't know. They must have little sleep and not much of a social life and have delegated thier work to CAD technicians or something like that?

Funny, I don’t see it as the people active here being people with endless time on their hands. I imagine two categories, first where I belong myself, the new users that are trying to, as effectively as possible by asking for helping hands, learn a new software and all its intricacies and therefore are very active. I engage in order to understand and also because I want to make sure my investment is the right one.

The other category is much more important, and these are the people that are giving back. I don’t want to mention any names out of risk of missing someone, but I think we all know who they are. I can see myself, and hope to, be one of these guys in the next 5 years or so that after placing endless questions now are available for the next generation newbies. I also hope I can call some of them my virtual friends and maybe even be invited to a round of golf sometime. 

Designing and drafting can be solitary work and it is occasionally nice to share the daily routine with like-minded, but surely no one thinks these guys help their fellow man with Chief Architect issues because they have nothing better to do? A little more respect is deserved please.

Yes, this is a dilemma, but certainly one that can be overcome and Sketchup is proof of that.

Once a tool starts to be attractive on its own users tend to take notice regardless of circumstances, there is seldom prejudice against great products. If MS Paint actually did something useful I'm sure it would find a user base as well. Strength in construction docs and a smart user interface would be a good way to start being taken seriously.

Another thing is the line edges.  CA has rounded edges and Vectorworks has square line edges.

 

Here is an example of where rounded corners sort of take away the edge (no pun intended) of thicker line weights.

You can even use it to add an image to your Forum posts.

Awesome, hate going through the hassle of the media gallery just to show something!

Nicinus,  I do not understand antialiases,  would you mind explaining this and giving me an example?  Thanks.

Scott, have a look at these pictures (click on them so you see them in size). To some people the difference is barely noticable and to others it makes a big difference, especially when there are a lot going on.

The million dollar question for Chief is will it get better at these things before other apps start to improve in residential design and impede on Chief's claim to fame..? 

A big problem for Chief is one of perception. There is a history of consumer products, and some people see it as a builder’s tool for tract homes. I think it is more likely to see a residential architect using Vectorworks or Sketchup than Chief, primarily due to this. I also however believe this could change by word of mouth. The interface took a nice leap in X7 with cleaner icons, ALDO and broken section lines, etc. If we could see a similar modeless properties workflow, anti-aliased plan viewports, a bit more advanced sheet management and slightly improved 2D tools, I think Chief could quickly been seen as a very strong contender. Like Todd said in another thread, the automation sometimes gets in the way of more free form design, and you have to work around it, but it still solves a lot of things one can only dream of in VW and Sketchup.

Revit is of course another matter, but it is so for everybody competing with it. They have the might of Autodesk behind them, a clear and monetary sound upgrade path from Autocad, and a strong brand. But, it is also a $6,000 product and quite frankly, at this point in time, I actually think there is less I would like to fix in Chief than I would need to add in Revit to make it useful for residential. Most of the strong features in Revit, like massing, families, etc. are most powerful in commercial applications and doesn’t really help my daily routine. Besides, it too suffers from relatively weak 2D and becomes very slow when the model grows.

Another thing is the line edges.  CA has rounded edges and Vectorworks has square line edges.

 

I brought this one up a while ago, but it largely fell on deaf ears.

At this point I think tagging all these objects would require a crowd effort, a la Wikipedia. I would be happier if the libraries were cloud based like the Sketchup warehouse. SSA could allow for tag editing and other additions.

I did like they plan symbols for the trees in VW.  It seemed like they came with some good color,  semi transparent fill and a shadow.  Looked good for presentations.

Not to mention that lines are antialiased, which makes everything look crisp, clear and professional.

Hi Bob,

This is an iconsistency in Chief, and can only be done via the 'Adjust Material Definition' icon when you are in 3D/elevations. For adjusting the hatch pattern in plan via fill style in the object dbx.

My example was done at 1200 dpi and I was looking at the pdf at 100%, so I don't know what else to do to get a reasonable representation.

I think what I'm trying to say that it is a bit difficult to control the relative line weights in Chief. For example roof planes are controlled by the 'fill style' for plan views but the material editor for elevations. There is a disconnect between the plan and cad part, and what is generated from 3D. There is also no fill style in the dbx for walls in elevations, only way to change the hatch that I'm aware of is via the material editor.

Joey, I think your elevations look very good but it is not the way I like mine. I typically want a similar line weight on most of the elevation including windows (especially parts of a window), a slightly thinner weight on hatch patterns and then a thicker on all outlines that represent depth. This is unfortunately often a bit difficult to do in Chief, like with the cap ridge which outlines the whole piece, unless you convert the whole thing to a line drawing for layout. Unfortunately I find that route unacceptable.

Unfortunately I think even 0 isn't thin enough when printing and I usually end up resorting to using grayscales for my hatch patterns. This in turn introduces all sorts of issues, such as the view looking very different in elevations compared to how it looks in layout, and having to control the hatch pattern line weight with the material editor. Not logical to me.

Have a look at the difference between these two screen grabs from a pdf at 100%, on with the hatch pattern set at 0 and the other with it set as a grayscale. Dramatic difference in clarity.

I wish there was a way to control the line weight within object in Chief so that I can have it thicker on certain sides, for example my cap ridges doesn't look all that great and I usually remove them in the final prints, which I find counter productive. 

I think I may be so thick that I need instructions three times in order for it to sink in. 

After doodling with this a little more I would like to correct myself, and it now makes sense to me. I think I failed to consider the width of the base gable fascia.