Barton_Brown

Larry, thank you for taking the time to explain your approach!

Larry, I like your approach. It makes sense and provides consistency from plan to plan. Regarding Lew's statement of many anno-sets using the same layerset - has this ever been an issue for you? My first reaction is that to avoid surprises if a layerset was changed that I would always want a one-to-one relationship between an anno-set and a layerset, rather than a many-to-one. It would mean more layersets, but I don't think this is a big issue for CA. I'm trying to think of what problems would arise with the 1:1 approach but they haven't occurred to me yet. Thanks.

Todd, This is question is probably obvious, but just for clarification, the learning time you wish to determine is for someone completely familiar with the design process, nomenclature, the desired contents of CDs, etc? In other words, YOU, not a new hire. Correct? I think your assessment is fair, given that those that commented started learning CA a number of CA revisions ago. Each revision has added more capability, thus requiring new learning but also simplifying some previously manual steps. I would be curious to hear from CA Marketing/Sales as they would likely have more exposure to the range of learning curves. As you have probably noticed, at the present time there is a relatively small number of active contributors to this forum compared to the total number of CA users and the most active are quite knowledgeable about CA (I'm not in this category). So, your sample size is small and likely not entirely representative of the total CA user population. Have I added enough caveats?

Perry, your approach is what I think is the straight-forward solution. I'm still trying to understand the benefit of keeping the 'hidden' pages in a project specific layout file when one knows they won't be used...

Thanks Perry! I saw that but thought there was a switch labeled more like 'software control'... I'm now set up with your settings...

Jon, where might this setting be hiding from me? I thought it would be in CA 'preferences' but can not seem to find it. Thanks.

Thanks. Sorry, but another question... clearly I have a lot to learn here... Let's say you did a single story project - do you use print macros to only print those pages that apply (ie, ignore the second story stuff?). I haven't used print macros so have a lot to learn here. Thanks.

Bernie, I'm trying to improve my use/efficiency of layout template files so I have an 'education' question for you. If I am understanding what you are doing correctly, you are creating a TEMPLATE layout file that would contain all your possible layout pages and you are creating a 'table of contents' of your layout template file by using the 'layout page table'. What I don't understand is why you would not want all the layout pages to show in the table of contents? I can understand not using all the layout pages when the template file is applied to a specific project and I would expect those layout pages to be deleted from that specific project's layout file. What am I missing with your approach of 'hiding' specific layout pages? Thanks!

Question for the OP - is this a new problem on your home PC or has it always been slow and jerky and lockups on a regular model?

Yes, that is the one, which obviously is already checked... My next guess is lighting and viewing angle - I believe that if you say that you have the same color on the ceiling as on the walls, that this is a fact. What is left is how CA displays the colors. Notice that your walls are not all the same color, they vary within the room AND with the amount of light reflected off of them. I suspect that if you had a bright light pointing at the ceiling that it would be much closer to the color of the walls. You may need to wait until tomorrow when more USA users are awake and can answer your question. I rarely rely on render views when evaluating colors - I find that the ray traces from CA are much more consistent with 'real life' so I have not paid much attention to issues like yours because I always evaluate lighting issues using ray traces. Sorry I am not more help at this point in time.

Lolo, I still think my first guess was correct, I just misunderstood your problem. From the image, I think you have the 'brighten ceilings box' unchecked in your 3D preferenced dbx. See the two images I have attached, one with the box checked, one with the box unchecked - this setting can make a significant difference in your view.

To add spice to the discussion, I'll disagree with Lew on the USB key. CA used to have this type of hardware lock and I was always in fear of loosing it or moving my laptop and breaking it. I LOVE the new approach CA uses for activating/deactivating the license if you have multiple computers. As long as you have an internet connection, this process is fast, almost as fast has moving the hardware lock around between computers, and MUCH faster than getting the hardware lock replaced if lost or broken or you forgot to put it in your laptop bag when you left the office :-).

Without a little more information, most responses will be guesses... so here is my guess. My first guess is that in the 3D preferences dialogbox, under lighting options, that the 'brighten checkbox' is checked. This will make the ceiling lighter than the walls. Another guess is that for the material, in the define material dialog box, the 'shading contrast' value is effecting your view more than you prefer. The shading contrast value effects how the color looks when viewed from different angles in vector views. You might try adjusting this value [warning disclaimer - I have personally never needed to adjust these values from the CA preset values]. That said, if you created your own material, this might be a place to look. If you could post an image of your problem, or better yet, the plan, that would be a great help.

I'm a little late to this party but... Your comment about blobs of color reminded me of a discussion that occurred on this forum a few years ago. The discussion was about how architects and designers interacted with their clients using 3D renders and ray trace images. During the discussion the point was made that some architects/designers preferred to NOT provide their clients with high detail renders or ray traces early in the 'concept' phase of the design. The reason - too many of the clients would focus on the minute details of the image rather than recognize the spacial aspects of the design. Fortunately for the architects and designers, this was about the time, I think, that CA started providing a number of different types of render views, and the favorite one used in this situation was the 'watercolor render'. It provides enough detail to show the concepts without having the details distract the client from the overall design. That said, once you are past the concept phase, the details can be important and then the ray trace images can shine. I'm continuously amazed at how much just changing the texture or color of a finish can influence the overall impression of a design. Not all great architects and designers are also great interior/exterior designers. This might be the area where being able to view, and even alter colors or finishes in a design could be very helpful for a client to experiment with without requiring the architects direct involvement unless the client wishes. Of course, this can also be a can of worms if the client has no design sense... Anyway, just some random thoughts...

Bernie, Not sure what 'properly' means, but attached is the dbx from my Yoga 2 Pro which has the 4400 intel graphics.

Here is a link to a CA 'alternate edit' video: http://video.chiefarchitect.com/?search=alternate+edit

Perry, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think right-click to draw continuous walls needs to be set in preferences, at least it wasn't necessary when I just tried it...

Have you moved any of the first floor walls since you built the roof/ceiling? The cause may be obvious to more experienced CA users, but not to me... If you don't mind, it is always easier to diagnose a problem if one can view the plan file. Zip the plan file and attach it to a post (close the plan in CA first, otherwise your compressed file will have no data).

Interesting discussion - can't resist so here is my perspective on CA. It has been mentioned a number of times that 'CA is different from the CAD programs'. Before I continue, please pardon me if you have heard this before, I haven't seen it stated but I haven't been on the forum regularly for a long time. I believe that CA is different from the CAD programs because the CA approach is that everything is an OBJECT (as in object oriented programming) and these objects have properties and behaviors such as lights mount on walls at a specified height, or ceilings, or floors and wall mounted lights must be attached to wall before they are allowed to be part of a plan. This is entirely different from CAD where at the simplest level, lines are lines and have no inherent behaviors. It is the object's behaviors that make CA a powerful program and also at times frustrating. If the object behavior doesn't match real-world or expected behavior then major frustration can occur. OTOH, if one understands the object's behavior, then creating a plan can be a rapid process, and as long as you have the 'house model' correct, in theory anyway, all views of that 'house model' will also be correct (like plan view, elevation, etc.). it is understanding CAs objects that allow for creative solutions to problems, such as Bill Emery's recent posting that using narrow sidewalks derived from elevation contour lines allows one to display contour lines in the 3D render views - pretty creative, and required knowledge of the behavior of a sidewalk object. Once you start thinking 'objects' instead of lines, using CA becomes much easier to learn. The challenge for CA programmers is to create the object behaviors that match real-world expectations.

The less elegant answer is 'no'. Chief does not provide engineering/structural calculations.

Joe, I understand that there are OS and web browser differences which makes it a challenge to deploy something on the web that plays well for everyone. I just wanted the OP to know that it works for some of us - and CA didn't publish a completely broken video.

Not sure what is going on with your web browser - the video that will not expand on your machine (http://video.chiefarchitect.com/overview/premier/) expands just fine on mine by clicking on the icon just to the right of the speaker icon (lower right corner).

This works great with one point of clarification, when Bill says 'your contour lines' I believe he means 'your elevation data lines' as I was unable to select any of the CA generated contour lines. That said, and a Chief Guru should step in here, in the worst case, one could trace over a few of the major contour lines generated by CA if they are significantly different from the elevation data one entered and convert these polylines to sidewalks. If you have sufficiently accurate elevation data that the CA contours map your data, then Bill's approach is an excellent solution, IMHO.

Dennis, if you want to have multiple ray trace configurations, each a modification of a previous setup, you need to click the 'copy' button under the configuration name before making the changes. Rename the configuration setup, make the changes and then 'save and close'. If you just make a setting change to an existing configuration and then save, CA saves the changes to the existing configuration.

Joe, pictures are not attached....