JonathanK

How are beaded inset frames not already a thing in Chief?!...I think beaded inset frames have been around just as long as inset cabinetry has been around!

Are you using three doors (one hinged and two fixed)?...and are the doors all set to 0" from floor to bottom before you mull them? The only way I can duplicate the issue is by setting the sidelites off the floor. If you have a plan that has the issue, zip it up and send it over.

You can apply to be on the Beta team as well...so you get the goodies just a little bit earlier

@Chrisb222 Wasn't trying to chirp, just more in that I can make anything look good...manually, right?...but how can I make sure that another designer of ours in a different store can produce the same results with less brain power. It's a big frustration to see that there are things within the software that "appear" one way, but it doesn't actually work... That's why I reached out...to see if I'm missing something.

@Chrisb222, yes I'm aware that there is multiple ways to manually adjust the lines, both in creating a new CAD Detail from View, and editing once we get into layout. But when I pull an elevation, and there are multiple layers for doors, drawers, countertops, moldings, etc... and I adjust those layers, but it does nothing to those items in the elevation view...I feel like that's not "working as designed and intended". If it were just me banging around in Chief, I can make it look amazing in multiple ways. I'm not challenging that. But it's not just me, and I want to setup our template so that our design team, can just switch it to a different plan set, or grab a different default set, and produce the same results.

Thanks, Robert. I agree that the elevations are acceptable, and even look pretty nice. My biggest question is that why are there different layers for these objects, but when you change them it doesn't actually change anything. I don't want to have to manually draw countertops to get the countertop layer to "work correctly". Or manually draw moldings for the crown molding layer to "work correctly". Why don't those layers work correctly with the layers as provided, on the cabinets as provided. They work in plan view...why not in elevation view as well?

So in my quest to provide a nicer, cleaner, more professional looking set of plans for our customers, I've started delving into the world of cabinet elevations. We provide cabinets, and back in the day I would manually draw everything. That is obviously not scalable, so now I want to get our template setup so that we can get this done "automatically". One thing that I've been noticing, and this is where I'm looking for help from the other kitchen designers out there, is that I want to be able to set my casework a different line weight than my doors, different from my countertops, different from my walls, etc... The nice thing is, is that it looks like CA has different layers for these items. But the problem is, is that the auto-countertops derive their line properties from the base cabinets; the crown molding gets their line properties from the wall cabinets; the doors and drawers get their properties from their respective cabinets. So even though you change the layers to be what you want...it's just one big blob that looks bad. Am I missing something here, or will we honestly need to manually draw all this stuff to work correctly? I've attached a couple of snips. One is where I'm at currently, the other is a little bit of where I'd like to head.

Have you tried a complete wipe of your system, and start with a clean install of Windows and your softwares? I would say what you have is a good foundation, but you might notice a major improvement by just upgrading a few components as well (if you're tech savvy). RAM for the redundant processes, video card for the 3D views and those kinds of processing. If it turns out that you'll need to upgrade power supply and other items, just get a new machine.

You bet.

I took a stab at it with Gemini and my prompt. Looks good, the only thing is it put the siding reveal at standard, instead of 2" like your original.

It's the wall that is dividing the room. So if you break the wall at the railing and set the "nook" segment of wall as "No Room Definition", and leave the stairway segment as-is...that should do it for you.

That wall is set to invisible, so it's showing as totally missing. You can do it a couple of ways, and it kind of depends on how it's framed. The easiest way that I can think of, would be to make that section of wall a pony wall. Set the top wall type as your typical exterior wall, and your bottom wall as your typical interior wall. Set the elevation of lower wall top to be somewhere near the ridge of that shed roof, and set the Display in Plan View as "Lower Wall". Then I'd place an interior opening (with no casing or jamb), and make it the width of the stairs and little nook area, and make it slightly shorter than the inside roof surface. There will likely be a lip or something in there for a beam...so that would accurately represent that area. Not sure if any of that makes sense.

It's your 2X6 walls that you have on the inside of your foundation. They are creating little micro rooms between the framing wall and the foundation wall. Anywhere they connected to the foundation wall, you had another room. They were locked as well, so you cannot select them. Once I deleted those, it looked better. I would add a new wall type for your foundation that includes all the layers of that 2X6 wall on the "inside" layer of the foundation wall type. Either that, or drag one of the 2X6 walls away from the foundation wall, adjust the room floors, and then drag it back. You might have to do that multiple times until you get all the "hidden rooms". It all depends on how you do your layouts, and plan sets.

Just above where it says "In from Baseline". It says "Upper Pitch". That should match the same pitch as your house.

For the record...you could have had this roof banged out, done, and moved on to other projects in about 15 minutes if you did it manually. And adjusting it later is easy as well...so I don't know what the hang up is. Just because there's auto-build, doesn't mean you should use it.

You need to adjust your "in from baseline" number. That's what pushes the steeper roof pitch back. Get it so that it lines up with your main roof. Either by trial and error, or by....well...probably trial and error will be the easiest. And make sure that your Upper Pitch matches what the main roof is. Right now it looks like it's shallower.

Make the pitch of the cricket what it actually needs to be. Don't make it 0.

I'm going to have to try this out...never thought of that.

Just quickly looking through, there is this option. If you know the pitch of your cricket (roof between gables), and you do some math on where it switches pitch, you can get it to line up correctly. But I'm still 100% on board with just doing this roof manually...

Whew...with auto is gnarly. Maybe break a little 3"-6" section and change that little section to hip? I would definitely draw it manual...not sure why you would HAVE to draw it auto. It would be easier to change down the road doing it all manual anyways. EDIT: Just tested it, and it needs to be a 6" chunk.

Definitely a point marker user...my only wish is that you could "snap" them to the corner of the structure. They will snap on elevations, but not on the floor plans. But getting close works as well.

My email and phone line are waiting for Chief to reach out I don't love the manual way either, but it's clear that our team needs to do something different. Funny how it's never really been a problem until I stop and think about it. Like...how would truss manufacturers know what heel height is?!

@robdyck, 100%! I have found even sometimes simple roofs won't show the heel height correctly...if even at all! I'm all-in for rocking the boat a little to make them think of a different and more accurate way to report heel heights. I would even...dare I say...consider getting rid of "Baseline Height" and only having heel height. For our company, and our industry, this would be an absolute game-changer. Being able to just show our truss suppliers what the heel height needs to be quickly and easily would eliminate many many potential issues. For the guys out there wanting to make stairs better...meh...they probably could care less about heel heights

Thanks all for chiming in. I actually emailed Chief, and got the same response. They will be logging a feature request. This would save us a tremendous amount of time and effort on our roof plans!...and eliminate errors for our truss manufacturers.

Just wondering if the macro guru's out there have a way of making a label for roof planes like this: Where everything is pulled from the roof plane itself, and not manually typed...