DavidJames

I still think it's operating as it should. 

Unless I'm mistaken, the minimum heel height for trusses is 4"

Truss heel height is measured from the top of the plate, to the underside of the roof sheathing so the section drawing you provided looks correct

Hi Rob, 

It's been a while since I've used Sketchup, but I believe what's happening is that the model was "grouped". 

What you might have to do is open the file up in Sketchup, ungroup/explode it, then resave it. Importing this updated file into CA should allow you to assign different materials to different parts. 

I believe this is typically done by providing a gap between the molding and the wall, rather than creating a hole in the molding itself.  

I would just grab the molding polyline and drag it back roughly 4" from the wall  

17 minutes ago, StephenGreene said:

 

 

Thanks, David. I had done this before and figured it out but my mind just went blank this time.

Happens all the time to me lol. 

Glad it worked out for you  

Hi Stephen, 

Try the following: 

Edit>Default Settings>Plan

At the bottom, put a check next to "Show Living Area Label". 

You're very welcome. Glad it worked out

2 hours ago, Ross-RCD said:

Oh Wow! I think that worked. 

I first tried changing using the duplicated wall type on all three porch walls, but that didn't work. However, just using the new wall type on the inner walls did the trick! Interesting. 

 

Thanks so much!

Hi Ross, 

I tried editing the intersections and had success with the right side, however the left side doesn't seem to be working for some reason.

One alternative solution is to take the interior vertical railings and duplicate the wall type.

Eric - try drawing the line on an angle and see what length it gives you. 

47 minutes ago, marlem2000 said:

Hi, David! Many thanks for stopping by. Any detail about how you made the hole with the polyline solid?

No problem at all

This particular design can be achieved by drawing the polyline solid in plan view, and then adjusting the extents in elevation view. 

While still in elevation view, you can then select the bottom of the polyline solid and break it into segments (using the "break tool" or F3) which will allow you to create an opening and adjust its shape to whatever you prefer aesthetically. 

I would probably create the opening via Polyline Solid: 

On 12/9/2022 at 3:55 PM, SHCanada2 said:

 

I think this is the thing, if you can setup your templates(with schedules, layout boxes, details already there) and a few macros, you can do things very quickly. For me I would find it hard to believe a tool could be much quicker for a run of the mill house to produce plans for construction. It seems the more odd/custom the house is then it takes the time, but for the vast majority of houses that are built on flat or near flat  lots, it is pretty darn quick. That of course excludes any rendering, as I would consider rendering "extra" to the house plans/con docs. 

 

I would be interested in knowing how @DavidJames can do things quicker in revit for his residential designs

 

If there's any interest from users in this forum, I don't mind creating a tutorial on how I use Revit for residential work. You'd be surprised at how quick, easy, and headache-free Revit is to use once you get over the learning curve and you set up libraries (families) etc. Everything about the user experience is extremely polished and all the tools provided are a godsend. You'll never encounter strange anomalies with the software that will require "work-arounds" to fix the issue, nor will the software ever fight back. Everything just works, and works really well. 

Ultimately Revit is insanely powerful for design and you can do just about anything. 

... 

28 minutes ago, lbuttery said:

older ads offering licenses for sale to "whoever," make it seem pretty standard that your license could be sold. 

 

Chris:

 

precisely my point

 

thanks for posting CA's prior policy on selling licenses

 

now my X14 license is GARBAGE

 

Lew

I can still think of one way of being able to sell the license down the road... however it would cost a lot lol. 

13 minutes ago, birneyd said:

If CA is bent on going to the rental model, then my suggestion would be to add an additional feature that allows the program to be loaded for a nominal fee and bills by hours used (the license activator connects to mommy in any case).  That would allow for casual users to have access to the program and potentially increase the user base beyond the high-output pro base that will be the only users left with the current new model.

The only way the billed-per-hours-used model would work is if Chief received some major polishing and improvements. 

When I was using Chief solely for new-builds and renovation plans, I constantly encountered myself having to spend hours upon hours trying to figure out why the software was doing "x" when I wanted it to do "y". As the projects became more complicated, the frequency of issues I encountered also increased. It was incredibly frustrating. 

I can only imagine how much that frustration would get amplified if one was now having to spend money on those hours where there's almost zero productivity. 


 

40 minutes ago, OkcDesigner said:

Full Revit is only $2,675.00 a year!!!! I get that Chief is way better, however the top of the line (in others eyes) is only $700.00 more after January!

 

WOW.......................

 

 

Depending on what your needs are and what you’re using Chief for, I would argue that Revit is a far better piece of software with FAR less headaches (if any). 
 

In 2019, I stopped using Chief for 99% of my projects and moved over to Revit. I wish I had made the jump sooner to be honest as I couldn’t be happier. 
 

The only projects that I’ll use Chief for are interior renderings as there’s nothing better and quicker on the market when it comes to building interior scenes (which I ultimately export to Lumion). 
 

With this new pricing structure, The potential new user will think long and hard about where they are going to invest their money… CA or the industry standard. In a lot of cases, I think they will choose the latter.

That being said, I would imagine that any legacy users that were thinking about opting out of SSA this year are no longer even entertaining that idea and probably won’t for years to come. 

3 minutes ago, ChiefArchitect said:

@DavidJames the annual subscription price of $1,995 is not a promotional price.  This is the discount for paying for the year up front as opposed to paying $199 monthly.

Thanks for the clarification. I quickly glanced at it and assumed that it was an early promotional discount. 

New license subscription:

• Monthly subscription: $199
• Annual subscription: $1,995 (save 16%)

When that promotional discount of 16% comes to an end ($2,375), it puts CA in the same ballpark as Revit Architecture ($2,675). 

Can't comment on the Remarkable, but I've been using the iPad + Apple Pencil + Procreate for years now for field measurements/markups and have never looked back. 

Split levels have always been a headache in Chief for me as well. 

In your specific scenario, I think you need to adjust the heights for: 

Ceiling Height

Stem Wall Top
Floor

Not sure if this is what you were hoping to achieve, but this is the end result: 

SPLIT ENTRY - R1.plan

Revit has this feature. You can essentially unlock the siding and the exterior plywood layers which then allows you extend just those items in either direction on the Z-axis. 

It would be great if Chief was able to adopt the same ability. 

1 hour ago, Michael_Gia said:

...

My wish list for Christmas would be to have the ability to “explode/ungroup” the exterior finish layer and the interior finish layer of walls so we could modify those as we do p-solids.  

Is that too much to ask for?

Shane, 

Unfortunately auto-building the roof raises up the roof planes over the garage which is a different scenario from what Michael has (lowered roof planes w/ an inset exterior wall). 

Just now, GeneDavis said:

Revit sure costs a lot.

Well worth it in my opinion. 

A 2 year subscription for Revit (full) is paid for with one project.

Also, most people can get away with Revit LT which is $450 / year... which is extremely reasonable if you ask me. 

21 hours ago, johnny said:

However you look at it, Chief is spending FAR more time on things that will sell new copies of their software to users that fit a target client which is not representative of my company, or many on this forum.  They seem to be developing in order to make big splashes in sales booths or youtube videos wherein a few clicks blows the audience away and they open their wallets to buy a copy or two imagining they will ride off into sunset and save thousands by not needing a design professional any longer.  The design professional needs better stair modeling tools, or generic solid modeling etc...not faster watercoloring renderings (again, as a for instance).  

 

My company has started a process of examining alternatives to Chief - and we're exploring ArchiCad in depth right now.  We may have 14 copes of X12-X13 to sell...who knows.

This is exactly what it is. It seems like since X9, the company has shifted the focus mostly to making things look pretty all in an effort to sell more copies to new users while neglecting the productivity features that matter to the long-term user. Sure the 3D view may look pretty (which is does), but the road to getting there can be hours upon hours of frustration. 

My business is 99% clients reaching out and asking me to quote on permit packages for city permit. At absolutely no point am I trying to "wow" clients with 3D images in the hopes to land a project. When I secure projects, what I need is software that will get the job done correctly, efficiently, and without the need to fight/trick it into doing what I want it to do, all of which produce a final product that looks professional. I've been using Chief since X3 and unfortunately there are just far too many frustrations/quirks/issues/missing features that the guys over at Chief keep deciding to ignore... and the list keeps growing. 

Last year I decided to make the switch to Revit for all my construction drawings and honestly, I wish I would have done it sooner. Sure it takes longer initially as you have to create a lot of your own families (windows, doors, trims etc), but once you get that out of the way, you'll find the whole design experience monumentally more enjoyable w/ minimal to no headaches. 

Revit is light years ahead of Chief in terms of:

• Terrain design/manipulation
• Object snapping
• Custom object generation
• Smart 3D models
• Generic 3D modeling (imagine polyline solids that can host windows, doors etc)
• Auto-linked sections
• Auto-linked callouts
• CAD tools
• CAD Exporting
• Level adjustments (adjusting ceiling heights, roof heights, b/o concrete heights is a breeze)
• Phasing (absolutely incredible feature for renovations!)
• Layouts
• Drafting options like duplicating views/layouts
• Temporary Hide/Isolate options 
• 2D Detailing
• Sloping slabs
• Masking features
• Alignment options/behaviour 
• Draw distance in elevation views
• Speed of operation
• Overall quality of drawings
• ... and many more

Over the last year, I've been closely watching what would come out with X13 and... yet again, another disappointment.

At this point the only things that Chief does well (and I'm talking really well) is to quickly create floor plans, and provide 3D views of said floor plans/simple spaces and/or the exterior of simple structures. If a client reached out and asked me to create a 3D render of an interior space, I wouldn't even think twice to do the design in Chief as there isn't anything out there that's faster (though I would still export everything into Lumion for rendering)

Anything beyond that, no thanks. I'll pass. 
 

I'm using Lumion for both interior and exterior rendering and animations.

 

28 minutes ago, rgardner said:

If you register for the webinar after it is done the recording is available right away.

 

Just tried and it worked! Thank you very much