Nicinus

Beginner problem no doubt, but I have a plan with all automatic and some manual dimensions created at 1/8" and I would now like to change everything to 3/32" instead. If I select dimension and change it to my 3/32" annoset it changes and maintain that size, but how can I get all the other dimensions to respect my new default? Active annotation set is the 3/32" Scale annotion I've created, and I've checked that dimensions is correctly set in that one to 3/32".

I think there is a bug in there somewhere. I had the exact same problem in an elevation, couldn't get to see the pattern whatever I tried. It was visible in 3D. I was assuming I was doing something wrong so I loaded an old plan I knew had a roof pattern, and when I had them both loaded in Chief, my new plan suddenly showed the pattern as well. Hard to reproduce though until next time it happens.

If you look carefully you see that the chain is stretched. However, the whole chain section is stretched uniformly, which is better that a stretch plane, which would only have stretched one link. Funny how this video is almost a copy of the stuff Joe discussed in the workshop, did Chief have a participant? The timing is eerie.

99% sure that is from 3ds Max, which makes me assume that is the tool they use to create symbol content. Hopefully that means they are looking at FBX, as the 3ds format has a 64,000 polygon limit, which they could hit with a complicated object.

What if you change from color to black and white in the original view, not in Layout? This is the way I normally do it, although the other way around. I typically send in color and then print to pdf as gray scale so that I can get the material hatch patterns in a soft grey color.

Greg, last time I used Revit it couldn't do slanted walls either? You would have to use massing as a reference, which is messy and inflexible. Did joe's suggestion work for you?

The Color button? [F8]

Larger plans with a lot of stuff becomes very slow, and comes to a crawl if I have multiple windows open such as one plan, one elevation and a perspective overview that needs to be updated in parallell. If I close everything but for example plan and shut off all layers I don't need it typically becomes acceptable again.

Don't know about the mixed licenses, but the X7 upgrade was a very trouble-free experience for me.

The way I read it is that being a builder doesn't typically mean you are a designer, and that the longer education someone has in general the more knowledgeable he is. There are exceptions to everything, but just as there are bad architects the same way there are bad doctors and lawyers, in general an architect is more trained in designing houses than anyone else. Sounds pretty obvious, right?

Are you honestly comparing FLW and Sullivan to DIY? They were both mentored by architects for many years, FLW under Sullivan and Sullivan himself studied architecture both at MIT and École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. In some states you can become a licensed architect without graduating even today, but it takes many years of experience under an architect. And then 7 pretty serious exams.

Almost odd how many feel anybody can be an architect, but no one would ever question the expertise and experience of a lawyer or a doctor and try to do that himself. It is a little bit like marketing, and how some people do their own ads. I guess it is because it looks easy or familiar that one think there must be nothing to it.

Knowing that you have a background in Archicad, Richard, I somehow wonder if this doesn't affect your view given that Archicad also is one of the few that still uses modal dbx's. I loved many features of Archicad, which perhaps is the most complete package of them all, certainly for more contemporary designs, but moving from Revit to Archicad was very painful in this respect. I remember I couldn't believe something as powerful as this still used a modal interface, and this was a frequent topic on their forums. It is more than display properties, it is basically all settings that affect objects, size, hatch, position, etc.

Well, that's certainly not the way I hope my particular suggestions come across, I love it and think most of us are here because they do as well. For what I do, I honestly prefer it to Archicad and Revit, but that doesn't mean I'm not hoping to see some of the stuff I left behind implemented here. I think some of these discussions gets a little intense because someone says that something is important, and then someone else says 'nah' and you have to reload the cannon.

In Chief's case perhaps a way to think about it would be to never have to do 'Ctrl-E', instead the whole dbx could be a constant open window on the side like the library browser.

No, I'm saying that if you as the developer thinks a modeless interface would 'produce small improvements in some cases', I feel you don't understand the significance of this part of a modern interface. For those who remember, the leading high end animation tool Softimage 3D was killed by Alias Maya in the 90's for failing to address this in time.

Wow, statements like this from you as the developer makes me fear for the future.

Sorry, not my intention to steal your thunder and I mostly agree with you, I just wanted to emphasize that it isn't only because they are large bullies that they are successful. Sketchup came from nowhere and carved a niche because it had a great GUI combined with clever tools.

No way. Functionality is king, but GUI the marketing vehicle. It's the combination.

Not entirely true about Protools. They dominate because nothing came even close 20 years ago when the battle lines were drawn. They definitely had the best software and GUI. Same thing with Avid, which at the time was light years ahead of the competition and they still dominate today. Others are challenging, and Final Cut made a serious dent until Apple abruptedly dropped it and now Adobe is trying with Premiere Pro. But the fact is, when it comes to long form editing nothing really touches it, and for news and broadcast, no one offers the same system solutions. One has to remember that all dominant players have become so because there were a reason. After you reach critical mass it then becames a tough player to bring down due to all the trained people and existing work pipelines. Adobe beat Quark Express by iteratively and aggressively produce better and better software until even the biggest magazines relented and agreed it worked better. These are not consumer goods decisions like VHS vs Betamax.

There will always be bugs.

I think you hit the head on the nail here. And to be honest I'm not even sure the Chief guys thinks there is a problem. A big portion of current users have no experience from tools that have eliminated modal windows, and have a very pragmatic view on that tools needs to work before starting to 'work on the paint of the car', and I would assume that also represents the mentality of Chief as a company or it would already behave different in some ways. Sketchup was created by a small team of visionaries who felt design should be a more elegant and natural process, and I'm sure those guys were as flabber gasted when some users started to demand layout tools and other condoc features. At the end of the day Chief Architect is one company's vision, and it will follow their targeted user demographics needs, but it will still be interpreted by how Chief management see the world. As for me, if we could get rid of the modal windows and spice up some of the 2D/3D modeling tools I think we're in great shape.

Age is a number, cheer up!

The ribbon interface is one thing, I think I read somewhere that it was created by Microsoft in order to facilitate the pen interface of tablet computers when Gates first introduced it, and primarily visual. Modal properties however is crucial, all modern tools have it like 3ds Max, Revit, etc. One other exception is actually Archicad that also still struggle with them!

One of the toughest decisions a software developer has to make has got to be between rewriting an existing functionality that has reached a ceiling, or adding something new.