GMTinc

I finally saw this. Thanks for the help.

I am quite sure this has been answered multiple times, but I am unable to come up with the right search terms to find it. In my camera vector views, the rafters are discernable throguh the roof surface....just as limes. What have I done wrong?

Thanks to everyone. I got things somewhat improved, mostly with sun angles and lighting, as well as sun colors as in that suggested. I was unable to find any sort of "Environmental Lighting" to enable. Perhaps someone could point me in the right direction. In doing this I have experimented some with rendering techniques. I like the "Technical Illustration" for my purposes. Anyone have any suggestions for setting with that mode? Thanks again for everyone's help.

Thanks everyone. I tried these settings but still have the same problem. I am talking about exterior renderings, so I asume the only light source to be the sun. Soft shadows erc, seem to have no effect on the problem which is that the shadows are about 98% opaque. I let the render engine make 100 passes which made major improvements in all details, but shadows are still virtually opaque. I did find that sending images insted of the camera view, greatly imcreases the quality on the layout page, but I am still confused about rendering.

I know zip about ray tracing. However, I have a preliminary plan and wanted to put a quickly made exterior camera view into layout. Everything I did made for a poor quality image in layout. That in itself is a topic. I wound up, for my first time, experimenting with ray tracing in the hopes of getting a higher quality image to put into layout. The shadows are so dark that they completely mask everything they touch. I have not found a way to adjust this; however, I am sure it exists. Basically tired of experimenting and asking for help: One how to get better quality camera images into layout? How to adjust shadows in ray tracing? Either or, but be nice, I'm clueless about such things as I do not use the modeling aspect of CA very much for final presentations.

Yes the template layer was locked. I sent to Chief and they are unable to reproduce the problem, but it still exists on my computer yet it does not exist with a new plan??

I have a rectangular polygon, in plan view, which I am unable to edit using either the hotkey or the break tool (v.18). This is a new plan with little work done on it. Initially I was able to make several breaks and then the tool quit working. I started a new plan and the tool works, in the same environment, as it is supposed to do. I went back to my original plan, which had a .png template on a separate layer. I deleted the template file from the plan and the tool works????? I have reported it, but just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences.

3-D Mouse Support----FINALLY! Thank you, Thank you.

That last technical illustration is more what I am looking for. Is that (let me flount my ignorance) a "standard" setting or something you put together using render tools?

I tend to like things to have the same general appearance as they did when I was manually drawing them. Don't get me wrong, I would never ever go back to that. Still it is obvious, from what I mentioned, that effect Is available and I was just trying to mine any suggestions as to how. Thanks for your reply.

I understand what you say Doug and it is almost always the culprit when trying to generate anything 3d that does not have some problem. I "design" in Chief and am constantly moving and changing things around. Often I am not sure at all how I am impacting things that I will later come to grief with in trying to generate 3D. Alignment and connections seem at the heart of things. That was the case in this instance, but in making multiple changes to try to correct, I am not sure which was the correct approach. As I say, I find that I loose proper connections, misalign things and wind up with improper wall heights, while "designing" and wind up with something that is a real headache to get into form for 3D. I wish I knew more about how to go through and find these things. As you say, they are most often certainly not visible.

I have done virtually no high end rendering. Photo-realism is nice, during the design process, for helping clients, but the little I have done (and that is very little) takes an inordinate amount of time and often the client spends all their efforts critiquing which textures to use. Just personal, but I find a more technical drawing seems to communicate better in establishing the basic design. However, and a big one, 3d images do wonders to communicate with the client. Mine are generally limited to cad line images made from the stock generated views. I am learning more about doing a design that will accurately reflect the details I want in 3d, but that in itself is an ongoing process, and a different subject. With that as a background of just how clueless I am with this subject, my question is this: I really like the "Style" in the rendering that CA is using in their current advertisements. It is very "technical" looking and eliminates having to spend hours dealing with paint colors, carpet colors and brick textures etc. Still it has shadow lines etc which greatly enhance the clients perception of what the house "could" look like. I have no idea how to do that. For all I know it is some sort of "Standard" style, readily available if I just knew where to look. I suspect not however. I have not seen anything in the online training that helps. Can anyone provide me the basics of how to set up such a render?

The plan I am working on and which prompted this enquiry (although I have had the same experience many times), is actually a revision of sorts. I changed the walls and roof configuration of the garage area from basically a hip roof to a gable roof. In doing so I could not get the auto returns to generate properly. Actually I had difficulty getting attic gable walls to generate also. There were a number of problem areas which I felt might be contributing. I had built the roof manually as there are multiple pitches set at the same eave height. As a result, I had not really set the ceiling height in the garage as it should be. I had also been forced to manually generate the new gable walls. Wall alignment and height I thought might be culprits. I was planning to send the plan to support, but in playing with it, I seemed to have resolved this issue, although like every time before, I am not sure what I did. I basically kept rebuilding walls, checking alignment turning off and on auto returns, setting structural heights for garage walls etc. Eventually some combination worked. I wish I knew the criteria this function requires in order to work properly. I could then at least narrow down the process. I like to use it because it forms perfect connections where the return meets the eave of the main roof. I seem to have even more trouble trying to make manual returns that do not have some issue at that point. Thanks for everyone's response; however, it looks as if I will have to muddle on till the next time.

I, like many, often have trouble getting auto roof returns to generate. When I do, I have never really been able to determine what the problem is. Sometimes rebuilding roof planes etc will help and others I wind up doing them manually. I have two questions for anyone in the know. 1. What is normally the real issue when auto roof returns will not generate. In other words where to look and for what. 2. When doing manual roof returns, what is the best procedure to insure a correct connection to the main roof plain. In other words, getting the gutters/shadow boards/frieze to miter properly. Any and all help appreciated.

Thanks rlacklore. I finally got it. Mucho appreciato

I do not see it under edit or customize tools in my version. The update notes for 16.4.081 indicate it is new with that update.

I have thus far not seen the new intersect/join tool that is part of the 16.4 update. I am supposing it is in a contextual menu somewhere, but I've yet to run across it. I seem to be the only one asking about it so I suppose my not finding it is a testament to my Chief expertise.

I don't seem to be able to get friezes to work as intended, Often they don't wrap around the corner and just as often they are not the same height. I am guessing the latter may have something to do with roof alignment at the wall. I make sure the plane heights are the same but still. Shadow molding often do not miter at the corners also. I read in the last update notes that these issues were addressed, so I am supposing I am now the issue. If anyone has suggestions of what I might look for, it would be most appreciated.

Thanks for all the suggestions. Took a look at xkeys and I think that may be the way to go. Number of keys is I suppose the question. 24 seems good to me. More, and my age-onset dementia will be a limiting factor Thanks to all

Anyone using a gaming keypad, like a Razer, for accessing hot keys? Would much rather have CA make provision for the 3d connexion devices, but since that seems not to be on their agenda, i was thinking of this option as a halfway measure. I like trackballs as opposed to mice and have never found one with many buttons Thoughts and experiences appreciated

Thank you all, and glad to see so many approaches to this problem. I realize, given all the possible variables for each user, it has to be a difficult situation. I am told (but have never verified) that some CAD programs have tried to address this by providing a "view" that purports to be actual print size. Again, it seems to me there are too many variables to do that very precisely. I have experimented with view levels (obtained by buttons and scrolling) that give me a pretty goo approximation; however, line wt./dimensions, as others have indicated, are still a problem. Even looking at .pdf's is no guarantee one will not be surprised by the actual document, and, looking at .pdf's is unwieldy when initially establishing details etc. I think the problems with .pdf have the same source as with CA. The only possible solution, in my feeble mind, would be if we could set zoom levels at a specific percentage, it might be easier to find that sweet spot that works for each user. (Now someone tell me we can already do that) Line wt. and Dimensions scaling would still be an issue I am guessing. I am unfamiliar with some of the solutions presented here and intend to experiment with them. There are so many options within CA, it is difficult to learn the implications of all as well as staying abreast, but that I think is inherent with all CAD programs. I wish documentation was better as that would help when looking for solutions when, in fact, they are available.

Has anyone worked out a decent zoom level for viewing layout sheets at actual size, for the purpose of checking how things look. I suppose it would depend on scale, sheet size and maybe even monitor resolution. Anyway just asking formdecent solutions. I'm sure everyone has experienced that frustration