CJSpud

Can't you just annotate what is suppose happen with the switch downstairs. There's a limit to what is practical on what can be shown, especially when you have a switch on a lower level controlling a light on the ceiling or wall of an upper level. I would just put some text in describing where the wire is going to and leave it at that. I am assuming your lower level plan has the switch showing ... and you'll need to annotate the wire from the switch to the light on the floor above for the lower level as well. The same thing could happen with flood lights under an eave or on a gable wall that are switched from the floor below. Edit: To keep your floor plan(s) from getting too cluttered with annotation, it would probably be better to have some sort of label or callout pointing to the wires going between levels and the switches and then have the label descriptive off to the side somewhere.

Larry: I opened your plan and sent the front elevation view to one of my layouts .... plot lines & color unchecked .... and the trees show in LO ... in color. Not sure why they show in color and can't seem to change that. Now I have a mystery with your plan on my end.

I have run into posting problems with two situations in particular in mind: 1. Taking too much time for a regular post .... the time out thing mentioned ends it. 2. Starting with a regular post and then deciding to do a more detailed post ... assuming what I've already typed will just get carried over to "More Reply Options" when everything is lost unless I've did the Ctrl C thing. I wish they'd loosen up on the time out period, whatever it is, and fix the loss of data when switching to giving more detailed responses with attachments.

Mucho Gracias.

Thanks Scott .... my bad.

Not that I am aware of.

Thanks Dan. Any statistical breakdown on who's using Chief .... architects, designers, design/build, builders, kitchen/bath designers, etc. That would be fun to see.

Actually, Chief has a "whole bunch" of architects on staff via Chief Talk and many more that don't participate on the forum but still use the program. Perhaps many of those communicate directly with CA via TS unbeknown to us who use the forum. It would be interesting to see a statistical breakdown of users of CA Premier and see how many architects are on board and using CA for their business. Here's an interesting article on residences designed by architects: http://buildingadvisor.com/your-team/architects/ If this information is reasonably accurate, then can we really expect CA to want/need an architect on board to make the program better? I agree with Larry, an experienced builder may be more valuable. Chief used to have an experienced former builder on their staff but he has retired (Mont Stevenson). I am not sure if they presently have someone else on staff with a construction (hands on) background ... but it wouldn't surprise me if they don't. Given all that CA presently does, I find it hard to believe a bunch of computer dudes came up with all that functionality without have someone on board who knew a little something about construction. Chief probably has some super savvy construction and design contacts they rely on from time to time. It would be nice if maybe Greg or Dermot or Scott just told us one way or another about where the expertise comes from .... but that has never been something CA has ever said much about so I don't be surprised if they keep us guessing. [by attending CA Users' Meetings, all these questions we are having would likely be addressed directly by the company leadership if one prefers to go that route - I have found Greg and the rest of the crew to be quite open about the direction CA is going in ones I have attended. Same goes for the breakfast they host at the IBS]. Many users don't know the history of the development or what is now called Chief Architect. The company's name use to be ART (Advanced Relational Technology, Inc.) if you didn't know. Here's a little piece from an older ChiefTalk forum thread about Chief's infancy: The Beginning Source: Dermott Dempsey ~ Started working for Chief Architect, Inc (ART, Inc.) in 1998 "Chief Architect Inc. was originally called Advanced Relational Technology Inc. because it started out as a database software company. Jack Simpson the owner and founder of the company used to joke that the only reason he started writting home design software is because Oracle basically put him out of business. He started writing Chief while he was looking for a job and if he would have found one, the company probably wouldn't exist. Actually, there was a lot more to it then that. He was in the process of designing and building a house in California at the time and he saw the need for an easy to use home design program. He was also trying to teach himself C++ and Windows because it was just around that time that both were becoming popular in the PC world. Through the right combination of vision, hard work, and a little bit of luck, Chief Architect was born. Chief Archtitect eventually moved to Idaho because Jack grew up here and still had family in the area. I started working for Chief Architect back in 1998. At the time, the development team consisted of Jack, myself, and one other programer and we worked out of Jack's attic. It was a very nice attic and we had a great view of the lake, but it was still just an attic. The rest of the company was in a small office across town. This led to all kinds of communication problems. It was a very different company back then. Everything was done very ad-lib and the company seemed more like a start-up then a mature business. The company was in the process of putting out version 6 and I remember having a hard time believing that they had actually done this 5 times before. The bug database was a stack of papers and notes on Jack's desk. If someone wanted to raise the priority of a bug, they would come by Jack's desk and find the bug report and move it to the top of the pile because he never managed to get to the ones at the bottom." Maybe CA's name should be changed back to the original as many newer users of the program seem to be getting the wrong impression .... that CA is a program designed for professional architects. The more I think about it, I am surprised the lawyers even let Chief market a program called CA without everyone in the organization being a certified, licensed, insured, whatever else architect. No, I don't think we need to get into a discussion about the lawyer stuff .... that would really get emotional. I am reminded of former clients I had that gave me some pretty specific drawings as to how they wanted their new home designed and built. When I put it on paper (in a Chief plan) and showed them how in many areas things didn't fit well and needed some modification, they got a little dismayed and eventually thought they were better off hiring an architect who they were sure was going to get them "what they wanted" .... and boy, did they get that. A friend in another line of work who was dealing with this same couple got to see the new plans and design from the architect. I eventually got to see the architects plans and his design didn't even remotely resemble what I was given by the clients. My friend quoted the gal as telling him that "I didn't even know this is what I wanted" when talking about the architect's new design ... and apparently that design wasn't quite what was wanted after all as the couple has never built their retirement home based upon the architects plans. It was my fault that I lost that job ... I should have done a better job of working with these clients and presenting them with other ideas etc. What was about a $2,500.00 job for me became a $30,000 + job for the architect and not sure what to say about what the customers got out of all of that. They're still living in a little apartment in the corner of a pole barn they initially built on their property which has a lovely view of the Snake River canyon south of Lewiston, ID. This job causes me to get a little emotional when discussions about architects come up .... left a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth .... but life goes on. I am not here to bash architects, I think many of them do wonderful work. We have many excellent ones participating on ChiefTalk who are very knowledgeable and have been instrumental in some of the improvements I have seen in the program. Similarly, we have some great designers on ChiefTalk who also have had a hand in providing ideas to improve CA. Just as there are many bad contractors out there, so to are there many not so good architects - it's really the nature of the beast ... a people problem thing. FLW wasn't an architect (per the lawyers) and many are fond of his work and contributions to architecture .... and many are not. He did have a brain and was able to use it. I think that is the customers that CA is after, regardless of their training, ... people who can take their product and make it work for their businesses or for their personal use. I think that's what Jack Simpson had in mind way back when CA was conceived in his mind. I don't think that it is the intent of the CA ownership and staff to compete head-to-head with all the other CAD design programs out there by matching all their various tool sets and functionality. That's not to say that they won't make improvements in the program based on things other CAD companies are doing or coming up with, providing such changes are a fit for way Chief is programmed to operate. I don't think CA is at a place where they are pressed to keep up with the other CAD companies ... but, competition (so to speak) being what it is, that may happen some day. There's been some great discussion here but I think that it's pretty much gone full circle now and I personally think it is time to move on come up with some other great topics for discussion. If we want improvements in CA, we know we should post them on the Suggestion Forum or email them in to Tech Support ... be specific in what we want and give examples where possible. I will leave you with what Chief says about their products on the website and from this you should be able to get a good idea as to who they are marketing their products to: Chief Architect Software is a leading developer and publisher of 3D Architectural home design software for builders, designers, architects and home DIY enthusiasts. For professionals, we publish the Chief Architect® software product line; the most popular product for residential home design. And, for the consumer DIY home design market, we publish the top-selling and best-rated Home Designer® product line. With these compatible product lines, professionals and consumers can share ideas with ease. Edit: I see Dermot and several others have posted while I was typing this .... but will post anyway.

Ditto what Graham (and Michael) said.

Kevin (OP): Your comments (with a twist) have been bounced around on Chief Talk many times. When I got into Chief (v7 - 2001), I had almost absolutely zippo CAD experience on my resume, and other than dabbling with Sketchup a wee bit, that is still true today. In other words, Chief Architect is IT for me now and in the foreseeable future. At this stage in my life, I have NO interest in keeping up with the Jones' or all the other CAD and other fancy software out there for architects, designers, engineers, etc. I am not saying that I definitely won't ever use some other software for my design work, but at this point in time, I don't see it happening. Chief is it for me ... it, for the most part, does what I need it to do. Yes, I still have some quibbles about some aspects of the software. If I get my head out of the sand one of these days, I will hit the suggestion forum and/or TS with my "issues" and hopefully, CA will come through with the changes I want to see. I have seen it happen many many times in the past - and unless I drop dead tomorrow, I will see improvements in the program many times in the future. Those guys and gals in Coeur d'Alene are listening to us, believe it or not. I have to agree with Mark ... Chief has a great staff that really do care about the program and its users' satisfaction with it. CA is a small company that has produced a GREAT product that serves most of us quite well. Yes, it takes time to learn it, especially if your like me with not much computer experience. I look forward to future improvement in the program and REALLY appreciate all the other users who come to bat for us when we can't figure things out. Thank you gurus for all those "work arounds" and all the tech support you provide. Thank you for your comments ... hopefully you are or will be sending in your specific suggestions for improving CA and/or making feature requests.

My observations: 1. Get rid of the flat ceiling in the structure tab. 2. Get rid of the crown molding in the room. 3. Verify that all of your ceiling heights are where you want them. 4. Straighten out the crooked exterior wall as Michael said. 5. Assuming you want the bottoms of your sloped ceiling planes starting at the perimeter of the room, draw them there and then join the edges. 6. Square up your room dimensions if you want the sloped ceiling planes to meet at a single point. Check your results with back clipped section views. If you aren't happy with the way Chief places the bottoms of the ceiling planes, then put them where you want them using Chief's edit tools. Just remember that someone will have to frame it the way you detail it.

That does seem to be quite unusual as "I thought" once you created a new layer, that it showed up in all layer sets. If you have SSA, I would send your plan in to Tech Support and see what they say. Out of curiosity, I selected your CAD layer set and drew a CAD line. You have defined CAD lines to go on the Text layer. Was that on purpose? Maybe you need to scrap that plan and start over? You haven't done much with Anno sets so it shouldn't take you too much time to retry (redo) your layer sets.I think the gremlins are working behind the scene messing things up for you.

If you have an object selected that is on a different layer than mentioned, and you are only seeing the "active" layers pertaining to that object, then deselect the object and your other layers should show in the full or expanded layer display options table. That's just a guess ... I haven't opened your plan but seems like the most obvious reason you can't see the new CAD layers.

Here's a good video from CA from awhile back that will help you with your ray traces when you do them: https://video.chiefarchitect.com/?search=ray+tracing+tips+and+techniques A little over an hour long but very good information about adjusting materials types, materials properties, lighting, etc. to get good ray traces. Won't help you with render views but .... if you're taking the next step to trying to produce near photo quality images for your clients, this is a video you should watch.

I haven't seen this nor have I seen any discussion of such a change in any of the construction magazines or construction related emails I receive regularly.

You're most welcome ... have a fantastic day.

At the very bottom of the ChiefTalk page is the "tiny" word Help. Here's the link what you can learn when you click on Help: https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?app=core&module=help Many users including myself have posted in other threads about posting images, attaching plan files, etc. If Help doesn't help, search the forum and you'll find many answers to your questions.

Michael: Yes, they are Chief's automatic labels. I agree, I believe that is something Chief needs to fix.

In the image below, you will see that I have a room label for my deck that includes the room name as well as the room (deck) dimensions. In the room label dbx I have given the room label a white solid fill and have included the box (border) around it. Please note that my dimension extension lines are over (visible) for the room dimension part of the label while the dimension extensions are under the room title. Is this the way it is suppose to work or is this a bug that needs fixin? I want the dimension extension hidden under the complete room label - not just part of it. You can also see in the image that the dimension extension lines are under the text box for my deck floor and ceiling elevations which is what I want.

Just turn on your Stair & Ramp layer for your Plan Footprint.

Chopsaw: Thank you for the symbol .... looks great.

It is too bad that the entry door E06 from Chief's library has such thick muntins or it would work: And if you think the Chief folks don't know how to size muntins, we have entry door E16 from the library with 8 lights which looks good to me: There's another similar one in the library (E02) with narrow muntins but a different glass configuration. I wish someone from Chief would fix E06 so it looks better. I have used it, but the render views would look more relistic with narrower muntins. Overall, I am very pleased that most of Chief's library symbols are sufficient for my needs and for the most part look pretty good in 3D camera views. I appreciate that we are receiving more library content on a regular basis. Thank you Chief Architect.

Lew: An interesting article on your ancestors. Thanks for sharing.

As far as I have been able to determine, you have to manually move your Chief generated deck beam to the outside of your deck, if that is where you want it. I have done many plans where I have a roof over the deck and the corner and/or other posts/columns extend through the deck floor framing to support the deck room roof beams (and the roof). This design option means the outer beams get moved to the outer edge (between the columns). To properly detail this takes a little effort and time but can be done fairly easily. Chief has the beam (or beams) hard-programmed to place where they do depending on the size of your deck. I was just playing around with this a bit using Chief's default Deck Support > Beam Spacing of 168" (14') and I couldn't quite figure out what that dimension exactly means. Chief added an extra beam when my deck depth got to 14' 9" (measured to the outside edge of the deck railing wall from the outer edge of the foundation wall). The distance to the inside edge of the outer beam, measured from the foundation wall, measures 13' 3-1/4", not 14' which is what I thought the default value should have exceeded before the extra beam was added. I did have a play with changing beam and joist sizes but still couldn't figure out how Chief has the beam spacing.programmed to work. Maybe someone else has figured it out and can elaborate. I didn't bother experimenting with other beam spacing values. I find it easier just to let Chief auto build the deck framing once I've sized the joists etc. and then manually edit the deck framing.

That SSD is just fine for Chief and everything else it does. See you have one as well.