Nicinus

There is no particular reason why your screen and printed line weights should be the same.

Screen weights depend on the resolution of your monitor and zoom level.

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.

Secondly, with Line Weights toggled on, the line thickness in plan will change as you zoom in and out. 

The display of line weights in floor plan are not absolute in that they can be influenced by your monitor resolution. 

Zoom right in on a wall and see the line thickness increases - this assumes that you have some thick line weights in your wall definition and: 

Yes, but it should behave the same in Plan and Layout, right?

Nicinus,

I think of "Show Line wgts" as a VISUAL aid to help me distinguish between different line styles in the same view. w/out it enabled, all line work displays the same thickness, regardless of the assigned wgt. It makes linework "pop" in a video or screen capture, so I will enable that if I remember to do so. Normally, I don't have that enabled while I'm working. I also use it as a kind of pre print check for elevations & sections in layout as I use the "Edit Layout" tool. AS Glenn said, what you see is largely determined by your screen resolution.

What "Use Layout Line Scaling"  controls is the PRINTED output. A line w/ a specifc wgt will print exactly the same thickness regardless of scale or source of the view. All you have to figure out is what wgt do you want to assign to this layer/line/object in a specific layer set. Drawing scale is NOT a consideration at all. I generally advise to start w/ a basic line or a wall, determine what line wgt prints how you want, & then go from there (up/down) w/ the line wgt you use for each layer.

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.

In your post your comparison images are not at the same zoom level which makes it hard to make a valid comparison.

 

Assuming your setup is as you showed, you have line weights on in both images, and you are using the same layer set in layout, they should look the same if you are at the same zoom level in layout and in plan. Do a side by side view of both plan and layout and get them to be same size and they should look the same. It is also better to zoom in far enough so that adjacent lines are clearly separated.

 

As you zoom in/out some adjacent lines will tend to overlap on screen, especially with the older lower resolution displays. I think that is what you are seeing. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to draw a line thinner than 1 pixel on screen.

 

The best test is to print each view to the same paper size, DPI and scaling in each view.

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:

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:

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?

The layersets ultimately control the lineweights and how they are sent to the layout, if that's how you send them. There are also other controls in the send to layout DBX. for controlling the lineweight, there are some videos on Chief's website.

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.

Mr McCrump.

Here's my lame attempt at a video explaining how to do those bay roofs.

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.

Basic file compatiblity with other high end 3D modeling apps so I can get stairs and other complex designs done quickly and efficiently.  I really do have two wishes

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.

Improved polyline editing such as working with individual segments without disturbing other parts, deleting anchor points, bezier points.

Maybe it could come a cloud based effort in the future, where people who have applied to be an editor could make changes and update keywords, etc. A bit like wikipedia, which is a too big effort for one company to handle.

++1 This just has to be fixed, it's such a great library so it is so much more the shame that everything is hidden in it.

I also want to get rid of the division between core and bonus, as now I have to look in one first and then the other. Chief will just have to find another way to justify its support subscription. And it seems that whenever I search I get 80% colors to scroll through. The filter is not enough, there has to be better categories and please put an intern for a year on tagging keywords to each item.

Are you implying we said nothing of value? 

Yesm I've tried both in plan and layout. The dbx settings are identical whatever I change, but it is only reflected in plan.

I should mention that the one I'm struggling with now is an elevation, but I'm doing other test changes to geometry at the same time I in this case change the line style for foundation walls, close the plan and get the question whether I want to update layout, click yes, and the geometry changes I've done are reflected but not the line style ones. In plan everything is correct.

I think I may need to call tech support on this one.

O'boy, that's quite a glitch. I've redefined my foundation wall layer to a dotted line style, and no matter how I open and close the layer dbx it won't take it. 

Personally I hope that your training will be out of business by X7.   

Well, I don't mean it like that, but using gray scales in the material editor on patterns is in my mind not the way to go and hopefully something that will be changed soon. There should be possibilities to set line weights for patterns, elements in windows, and edge profiles, etc. without resorting to that kind of work arounds.

Check that the reqd visibility is set in both plan and layout.

Not sure what you mean, if I use the same layer set that should carry into Layout, right? Or can you set visibility somewhere else?

2 things. First, double check using the layer properties dbx (the "0" icon if I recall correctly) in the layout that your layout is using the same layerset that you're adjusting.

If it IS the same layerset then simply closing that layer dbx should update it. It's an ongoing little glitch with layouts that's been a problem for a long time now. I often open and close that dbx to get layer display to update.

It was the one with the check mark, and it seems like a glitch as I was clicking that layer on and off, and suddenly they disappeared. Good to know that it was a glitch and not a systemic issue, thanks!

Thanks Grame, that actually did occur to me and I created the polyline from my foundation level.

Much obliged Graeme, that took care of it.

My plan has already been sent to Layout using the same layerset (not a copy) and updates all changes. However, I've now created a new layer, which is switched off in the layer set, that I've moved some walls to. This walls are not visible in plan, but remains visible in Layout. If I close my plan and reopen the view by double clicking in Layout, everything is again correct in plan but the remain visible in Layout.

It's like the correct layer set is called once the view is opened in the plan view, but the Layout part of the program somehow can't see it. Is this a bug or am I missing something?

Why is it that a line style on a wall doesn't seem to apply to the first and last portion of the wall, and can I change the behavior?