mthd97

One of the main improvements in X6 was the ability to specify header type and size for openings that don't fit the usual build framing tab to a general opening per width size. You can however in X5 and less as mentioned here open the framing detail and edit the header size or copy to add extra headers to that opening. I have not checked to see if it will report to the ML after you have asked CA to create a new ML after your editing but I think it will after what others say here? There are also more framing improvements in X7 regarding double frame walls etc. Please check it out.

Oh really, I can't believe you guy's what is more important the Icons or how the program works? I like it as it has a retro feel to it and things always come and go in fashions and sometimes old comes back? I think as Designer's we should all be aware of that and I like the colors but we all have different tastes.

I hope, Jim is the Man to give us a video on his master class techinque for 3d model checking?

Wow! Jim is the man, those model checking techniques are master class. I think we should all watch a video from Jim on how to test your model? I would say Jim would also be very valuable to Chief for a Master Class Video's Series?

That's nice, you guys already miss him!

Very Nice detail of how it should go MickeyToo. I gave it a try but I couldn't even find the SL symbol but I found this post by Larry Sweeny who tried the same thing with our buddy Scott doing another MITMV or Method In The Madness Video to help us. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/2183-skylight-problem/?hl=skylights Thanks Scott for showing how to place a skylight into a roof in this video. When the Ceiling Plane is not parallel to the Roof Plane you get the problems Scott was having but what would happen if it was parallel like in Richards case and is it any better now in X7? A feature like this needs to be carefully worked out before implimenting into CA you would think? Or Scott may go crazy from doing to many try fix it videos?

So to get this to work it looks there is more than one way to do this? And if we delete the roofs and reassign the walls types this should work with auto roof build? If the roof needs tidying up after auto roof build you go ahead and do that? I would first make sure that roof pitching point line has something to build from first even if a wall does not define this pitching point by even placing a temp wall in that spot and then delete those temp walls after the roof auto builds the way I want it. I use this method both in CA and other 3d CAD. I rarely need to clean up roofs for this method for relative straight forward roofs. I don't have much experience with shed dormer roofs and Cape Cod style roofs, I think we call shed dormers, eye lid dormers down under? Not only would I like to see Glenn do a video but I would like to see an advanced video in the training series to help with a problem like this in particular as this appears to be a common US style 2 storey home. I haven't tried this yet but if I was to place a skylight into a roof plane with a raked ceiling plane directly under it, would it cut hole into the manually drawn in ceiling plane? I guess it should if it behaves like a roof plane? Will give it a try in X6.

I think you might hold a very big key to helping Chief develop, since you are an Architect and have been around along time and have lots of experience in dealing with client issues that have helped allot of us here. Things like copyright and and other problems we encouter in dealing with clients has been very helpful to me in particular. I am a bit surprised that someone as experienced as you are in Chief to have had these problems with a relatively mild level of house customization. I would hope that you would report what would have made your job easier and faster in Chief for you, if you had some features from the other CAD we use incorporated into Cheif to keep it faster for us and others when we raise the degree of complication to a mild level as you have had with this design. Chief have listened to us in the past and will continue to do so and we have seen them add things into Chief that are good in other CAD programs. My main CAD language is in Chief and I am not so proficient in the other CAD as you are that's why I say you may hold a big Key for Chief becoming allot better for Architect's doing multi level houses with a mild degree of customization?

Hi Richard, I am curious to know about the advantages Chief offers you in modeling up a house like this despite the difficulties you encountered? Well done to you guys who helped Richard with these problems we appreciate your hard work to help other's. I hope I can follow your unselfish examples, I am not up to speed with X6 yet and we all have to watch X7 videos to keep up with X7, have fun.

Hi Richard, I looked at the floor plan pic and I could not see a raked ceiling plane in it? I know this problem has been solved but did you try and use a ceiling plane in your plan? Scott's method worked fine for your internal 3d clean up, did building a 3rd floor affect the exterior model?

To be fair the ML work is going on and you can see this with the ammount of Schedules that are available now and the labeling of more model components. All this will come in handy if the ML gets the attention it deserves to complete it in the native environment. I just hope they can give us access to formulas and the ability to set our own take off methods with the ability to add and edit the current list format table.

Is it too much to ask CA to make our ML better than SPSL? If I was a Builder I would prefer SL to ML from what I have seen so far but I am not so I prefer CA as a designer. If I was estimating and taking off quantities again for home builders I would try SPSL for simple home styles. I don't like Planswift, sorry Lew, I would rather draw framing plans from scratch in 3D CAD format that can be accurately taken off by the Native Program. I think I am going to leave CA out of doing take offs for now as I like automation and I value my off time. Sorry CA you lost me on ML, you need to put allot of work into this from now on to get the Builders more interested in CA and blow them away at a future Builders Show?

I think we need to test X7 out on a job or two and see how the ML fairs and what can be done to improve it in the future. All the best working Chief and remember we employ the softwafe and we want it to do the Job as productively as possible so we have less time to post and more time to play.

The problems come from when you go from a ML and an actual order list. Counting Drywall in real life is nothing like the way ML works it out right now. Timber cutting lists are the same as they need to be rounded up to the nearest foot. I get what Joey is doing, you can make it do an estimate with his 10% wastage factor built in but don't order that exact ammount as the actual wastage factor may only be about 7.5% in reality. In the end to get order lists you need to put in more work than you would for basic estimating. I am interested in finding how good SoftPlan SoftList is in doing the job and what the drawbacks are for using it to build a framing model? Maybe it might do a better job for quantity take off and costing out of the box but may not be good enough for doing an accurate model, who knows? Chief is there for Estimating but not complete for Quantity Surveying and Order lists just quite yet. It does do a good job in auto building framing and editing framing elements and adding framing elements. You can create an order list from ML but not without allot of data extracting and editing.

Joey that's cool you are a hard worker too, CA could use you on the panel for ML since you are a power user of this feature along with Glenn. CA could contract you to do some teaching videos on ML templates and Defaults as you are a teacher as well. What do you think about this Video and can we do things as easy in customizing formulas in the CA ML? https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/4106-chief-ml-vs-softplan-sl/

So to those here who are very good and experienced at getting the best out of ML, did you learn how to use ML from just the SSA videos only? I guess, probably not, it would have been a combination of experience and work arounds. Work Shop is a good I idea, yes. The expert work arounders who spend many hours learning them must have hardly any hobbies or suffer from OCD of some sort. So turn the OCD level down in your brain and let the programmers fix up Chief so it is easier to use and is more productive. Some of us here like to delegate the extra work to the program and not spend many hours tweaking a perfect model in order to say, look how good I am. You must have been brought up with no commendation for your good work maybe? Yes you guys are very good at what you do and you help others but dont hinder the development of Chief for the sake of OCD levels that are too high in our brains. Leave our old mate, Lew alone to toss laptops as the poor guy is very ill with cancer and I hope the doctors are helping him to feel abit better. I think us Designers and Estimators must have high level OCD and that is why we do this job as the careless would fail completely. Me I would rather do some tasks by hand with ML rather than create the perfect template only to redo it after each new version comes out?

What does OOB stand for Lew?I agree with Lew about the accuracy as I will do all my calculations manualy as well. As to omition of all tiny Items, thats when estimating comes in. You can always specify these inadequacies on you own disclamer an recomend a manual ckeck but I would think that any reasonable building contractor would do this anyway. We are still asking Chief to give us more control over the ML so we can get a more complete and accurate ML.

Johnny that's cool, I think you and other Architect's will help CA to deliver a better design product for all of us to use and hopefully get the AIA to take it seriously for residential work.

I would like to see Johnny, Wendy & Joe Carrick on the panel as Architects if they are available to do so. As their input on the forum has been very good and I believe that they may be able to help Cheif develop in the right way for the future of residential home design?

Thanks to all of the users who take the time to help others learn at their own cost and time. Some of you guys do allot more than others but it is all good no matter what part you play when it is to help others. I did not mean to forget you fellow Chiefers as I have learned allot from you all. Keep looking for the hidden gems in X7. All the best.

Thanks Bill. Revits basic UI works like Chief in that you can click on an object and a temporary dimension pops up that you can click on and imput the new value and the object moves into position. BTW Chief had this first as Revit is not that old. This thread is not a waste of time as it made some good comparisons with Scott and Son talking about their different apps and problems. Does anyone here know how Revit came about and what it developed from?

Old Timmer has a valid point. I see where he is coming from looking at the old forum I have been around for 12 years on these forums. Take for example our old friend Wendy Welton who came from Revit she is an Architect and was a power user of Chief. Last we heard she was caring for her aged father and I have not seen her post here yet, have any of you seen one? To me thier seems to be a small core group who dominate this forum and where they get thier time from, I don't know. They must have little sleep and not much of a social life and have delegated thier work to CAD technicians or something like that? Me, I am partly retired that is why I have time to post. I want many others users to post so we get a broader view. Back to Chief, my opinion is if you live in the US and do lots of houses use Chief for fast home modeling kind of like a sketch up tool but more specific for houses. Revit users who do houses in the US need this very valuable tool that we call Chief in thier arsenal. Sorry Glenn, OT was not talking out of his Back Side mate, at least from my point of view?

I wonder how our Australian codes compare with your American codes for Timber Framing and Bracing? Do your codes give you resistance values for Sub Floor Srtucture like Basement Structures to do calcs from? If so and if permitted by local authority you could do it yourself and get a trusted Engineer to certify it for you? But I would think carefully about legal matters first or find a Structural Engineer that specialises in that type of construction you mentioned above? I used to do it for one of my Builder Clients and we got it Certifed by a Trusted Structural Engineer in fact the engineer preferred we do it and they will check it And Certify it for us.

Architects on the new Panel may help change the view of the AIA? I suspect the AIA may not like the name Chief Architect as it has the word "Architect" in it? Chief Architect has the right to that name as they fought a battle over the 3d home Architect name with Broderbund in the past for software naming. Some Architects here in Australia are OK with us Building Designers to be Architectural Technicians, but that is another issue people waste time arguing over.

By all means have your say Old Timer I want to hear your view as well.