Richard_Morrison

But then you ALSO have to create a new LAYER SET associated with that Anno Set. Pretty soon you've got six new anno sets and six new layer sets, which may be enough until you need another couple. This proliferation of layers sets and anno sets could be prevented with a very simple addition. Look, this ain't the end of the world right now, but it could be easier than it is. I'm not sure why you have such resistance to a concept that has been well established for years in other programs. And it should be clear that there is at least a chance of missing that a layer is inadvertently turned off (or on) in your office standard layer set, and that mistake may be there going forward. There is no reason to have to be so vigilant about maintaining your office standards.

Perry, why don't you do a quick video and prove us all wrong? Maybe you've found something that no one else knows about.

Okay, I'll give you an example. I'm working away on the electrical anno set, which has an electrical plan layer set attached to it. Oh, wait, did I get that light centered over the dining room table? So I turn on my furniture layer just to check. Probably better turn on the the framing layer, too, to make sure there are no conflicts there. Now the electrical layer set has two extra layers turned on. I need to remember to turn them off, or remember to re-import layer sets like Glenn suggested. I SHOULD be able to just double-click the electrical layer set, or press a "restore" button, to get my electrical layer set back to the way I usually want it in my ConDocs.

I would like it set up pretty much like Rashid mentioned. (Since we both have ArchiCAD experience, we already know how useful this is.) Once I have set up, say, a roof plan layer set, that arrangement should say exactly like that until I make changes and explicitly save the layer set with those changes. That way, we can turn a few layers off and on, and STILL come back to our original roof plan set. Right now, it is too easy to inadvertently make changes and have those flow all the way to the Layout. I have trained myself to switch to a "messing around" layer set before I experiment, which works fine until I forget to switch, and then have to use your method to get back my original layer set. I find this annoying since it doesn't really have to be this way. So, I agree that we have ways to get back to our office standards, but this is really only a backup for when we KNOW we have changed things.

You aren't missing anything. This is an incredibly annoying "feature."

I think the OP was asking about issues in switching back & forth between PC & Mac, not just moving exclusively to Mac. I have done this with very few issues, but you need to make sure that fonts are consistent between both platforms. If you can get the same fonts on both systems, I have had no problem with using the same file on both systems, but as DTCBuild says, there can be slight inconsistencies in versions which can throw things off. I've since just gone to exclusively PC, not due to any complaint about the Mac, just not spending time in the Mac office I was briefly working at. FWIW, I did find trying to master two slightly different keyboard systems very annoying (Command vs.Ctrl and Option vs. Alt, etc.) It takes a little key remapping before you stop making so many typing mistakes due to switching back and forth.

The metals don't seem to have a JPG texture associated with them, and so render black. I suggest downloading the bonus catalog called Metal Materials, and trying one of those.

For a new user just starting with AC, I think there are many more tools and palettes to contend with. Also, you are dealing with Model View Options, Pen Sets, Partial Structure Displays, Renovation Filters, Layer intersection groups, Floor Cut Planes, Priorities of Building Materials, Complex Profiles, vast numbers of parametric settings, and a host of other things that have an impact on the graphic representations, but which also can produce stunning results once you've mastered them. Chief doesn't have so many variables. Where Chief is not logical is in trying to get a non-standard project to fit into its "closed rooms" paradigm, and then trying to figure out workarounds. (e.g. when your window is between floors.) Most of the difficulty is in doing non-standard stuff, where there isn't a video or reference book. Fortunately, there is this forum. If you want to include "things that you want to do which Chief wasn't designed to do, but learning how to make Chief do them anyway" as part of the learning curve, then I'd agree that a longer learning curve for Chief is warranted.

The problem with this discussion is that "better" or "superior" is not being tied to any measurable criterion. Better for what? Certainly AC is more powerful (can handle bigger projects) and has more features. (And a much steeper learning curve.) But this is like saying that a 747 is "better" than a single engine plane. If your business is crop-dusting, it isn't better for YOU.

Tile patterns have always been a problem in Chief. I'd suggest that you just show things diagrammatically, maybe with a vignette of the tile pattern. I keep hoping, but maybe X9 will allow us to define the origin of a fill on a fill by fill basis.

Graham, I guess I was meaning "sync" in only a fairly generic way. I'm a little nervous about just copying calibz files, thinking that there may be some supplemental files required.

So I have an office desktop, home desktop, and a laptop. Syncing the USER library on Dropbox I've been doing forever, and no problems. Does anyone have recommendations for making sure that the Bonus and Manufacturer catalogs are the same on all systems?

Mike, You shouldn't have to upload folders. It does this automatically. (Which is the whole point of Dropbox.)

For X1-X7, the X-icans.

This is a problem. The minimum required RAM is listed on Chief's website as 2GB. However, they also list a number of compatible devices that have only 1GB. (Like the iPad Mini 2) Which is it? If they truly need 2GB, then this app is useless to me.

I tried this 3D viewer out on my iPad Mini 2, which is listed in the app store as a compatible device. When starting the app, I get a message: "Notice. This device does not meet 3D Viewer's minimum memory requirements. We recommend running the app on a newer device." Oh, okay, then I'll rush out right now and get a new tablet just so I can run your app. Please figure out which devices actually work, and skip the message. (The app ran just fine, BTW.) I find this to be is an incredibly obnoxious warning message, and one I would not want a client to see.

In the far right menu there is a "Help" menu that is really quite good. If you go to the Windows chapter there is a section on "making a mulled unit," which has an excellent description. Also, I think most people here would appreciate a more accurate and descriptive title for the post. I was expecting a completely different topic that would have been more appropriate for the -- ahem -- Chatroom.

I don't intend to be critical, Dermot, but this attitude probably comes across to most architects in your marketing, as well as in your feature set. And It's sort of a self-perpetuating issue. You aren't going to get many architects requesting features until you have the architects, and those architects won't show up until you have the features that architects really need. So what you hear primarily are the feature requests of non-architects. That may be your primary market, though, and you don't need to change unless you want to up your game with architects. From your statement, I'm guessing you may not.

Wouldn't it be easier just to add blank layout sheets with those names? Or use a spreadsheet after converting the table to text?

If it's just the floor plans he needs, maybe export DWGs that he can import.

Good thing that these sadly mistaken persons are balanced by the judgmental, scolding people who understand everything!

Yes, it (mostly) exists in ArchiCAD's BIMx PRO, which provides a one-stop file for 3D and 2D plans.

There are no trusses that I can see. However, the rafters are simply following the lines of the roof. The condition where they meet the floor is simply the condition of the fascia at the floor, and is the way the model was built. You will probably be better off just making a p-solid for each rafter to get the cuts to be correct. (Make one and copy it.) I don't know of any way to get a horizontal flat condition at the fascia to get things to auto-frame correctly. A user-defined roof edge angle would be a good suggestion for the program, though!

Well, for example, in 2014, Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev. Inc., 754 F.3d 95, (https://casetext.com/case/zalewski-v-cicero-builder-dev-inc if you want to read the opinion) throws some ice water on the notion that if drew it, you "own" the entire design. No, you only own the "protectable" aspects, which may be far less than you imagine.

This publication is TWENTY years old, and much case law has transpired since it was written. I would be very wary of the information, and not rely on it without a copyright attorney's input. Here is something more up-to-date, and a little more thoughtful: http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/711/