Richard_Morrison

In thinking about this some more, I believe that this is a setting that I have not paid enough attention to, and could be the source of these issues. I have always just left this set to "resize about outside of main layer," because it seemed logical to not want to ever expand the footprint of the house, but on the other hand, when all of the existing dimensions have been taken based on interior finish surfaces, this obviously may not be the best choice. Thank you for getting me to think about this!

Okay, see the attached. When I finished the existing plan, both floors were lined up exactly. Now, while doing the final condocs, I see that they are out of alignment.

I have noticed that the fireplace tool is now a "legacy" tool in X13, and you have to know that it's there and that it must be added to your toolbar before you can use it. It is no longer listed in the menus. I have no idea why, because I find it is a very helpful tool in documenting older houses with masonry fireplaces. I use it all the time. I know that this has been discussed before and am aware of Chief's intent to deprecate it, but still find the logic behind that mystifying. Maybe if enough folks complain...

Michael, Interesting theory, but no. Over the past twenty-five (?) years of using this program, I have not used your method #1 even ONCE, except for maybe trying it out in beta. I have always moved walls by selecting the wall to be moved, since that was the only method available originally -- and old habits die hard. The usual placement method for me is by using temporary dimensions initially, and then by explicitly placed dimensions later. I am pretty confident that the initial placement is accurate. Somewhere along the process, dimensional creep sneaks in. However, it does occur to me that if the temporary dimension defaults accidentally got changed from surface to dimension layer in the middle of the project, this might introduce some compounding inaccuracies, but I'm not sure how this could happen. I think the best approach right now (which someone mentioned in a thread on measuring existing conditions) is to create room polylines as you go during the initial input, which then act as a "canary in the coal mine" when things get off, as Wendy put it. Adding a transparent fill to them really makes later discrepancies "pop". Now that we can select multiple rooms for group changes, I was hoping that creating multiple room polylines was possible, but it isn't. One of the few things I agree with Lew about is about how lame the layer locking system is. The lock only prevents a user from selecting the wall, it doesn't prevent the PROGRAM from changing it. In fact, you can select all the wall layers and lock them, and then change all of the wall dimensions and appearances in the wall type DBX.

At the outset, let me say that I love working in Chief for its speed. However, today I noticed that the final plan had gotten off from its initial measurements by a number of inches in a number of places, a couple of inches in some places, up to 5 inches in others. I take very detailed measurements at the start, and drew a fully dimensioned plan of the existing conditions. After some scratching of my head when things weren't quite working out after a number of design iterations, I redrew the plan in Archicad because of its renovation filters, using the same measured dimensions. I exported existing conditions in DWG format from each program, and overlaid the plans on top of each other. They did not line up in a number of locations, and Chief clearly was the one that had gone a little wonky. It's easy to say that I just didn't input things correctly in Chief when I first drew it, but this is not the first time its happened and I am pretty careful. I'm wondering if anyone else has had this experience, and has any insight as to why it might be occurring. (It used to be that Chief would move walls to align automatically with other walls, but I haven't seen that behavior in years.) Maybe solutions to preventing this? I hate drawing things twice.

Okay. PERFECTLY.

Thanks, Joe! That actually worked pretty well.

Of the three libraries of garage doors that Chief has, Wayne Dalton is the one that's closet to matching an existing door. However, they are all double wide. Just changing the width to 8' scrunches them up. Is there some easy way to go from double wide to single wide that I am missing? (Single to double is pretty easy, of course, and has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.)

Gene, you should also be aware that the REScheck thermal envelope numbers that Chief spits out are not calculated the way they are supposed to be. Chief uses the inside surface area of walls and floors, rather than the exterior surfaces that are supposed to be used. Therefore, your REScheck thinks it is a significantly smaller building than it actually is, and may fail projects that would otherwise pass with slightly higher square footages. In California, we have the HERS system that requires certified inspectors to come out and certify the energy features. I don't have any information to suggest that these folks never overlook an item or two, but the system is heavily regulated with criminal penalties for fraud, and there are plan checkers who are certified energy plans examiners, who actually do check all these numbers (or at least spot check them), and the approved energy calculations must be registered in a database. If Owners have purchased a killer mountain view, then they probably can pay for the incredibly expensive and highly-energy efficient glazing systems that may be required to take advantage of those views. At that point, you may want to have a mechanical consultant designing the mechanical system to maximize the energy efficiency there, in order to maximize the glazing. Annoying, but the current reality, at least in California.

Just FYI, California requires a 40 amp circuit, and some newer 40 amp chargers will require a 50-amp circuit. Better verify.

I was imagining a workflow like Edward's here: https://youtu.be/5HbsgUNQHAY . But hey, if that doesn't work for you, it doesn't work.

I would think the solution is to not have any CAD Details (other than those generated from the plan itself) in the Template File. Keep those details in a separate Plan file called Rene's Detail Warehouse.PLAN, which can be prelinked to your layout and put in your project folder if you want to keep it separate from an office detail library plan.

If you are asking this question, you are in WAY over your head. The software does not provide a substitute for professional knowledge.

I think you mean iPhone 12.

DETACHED ADU's.

I don't think Chief runs on an Android platform. You will probably need something more like a Microsoft Surface Pro. If it's just for field measuring, you might want to consider something like an iPad Pro with LiDAR and use it with Canvas.io or magicplan.app.

If you select the wall hatching tool, you can Shift-Select and only pick up hatches.

Let us know when you find the holy grail of BIM/CAD programs. There always will be features that another program does better. It may boil down to which program is least painful. I'd suggest whittling down the list to your two top contenders -- knowing what your deal-breakers are -- and then spending some time with each to see how the UI feels to you.

There are a couple of areas of difficulty: 1) Chief does not do slanted walls AT ALL. You can get something that looks similar with a polyline extrusion or a roof, but all openings will need to be cut manually. It's just not set up to work that way. Slanted windows that are fully scheduled in the construction doc's -- forget it. Archicad on the other hand, can do curtain walls, slanted or otherwise, without breaking a sweat. 2) Chief's CAD capabilities are fine functionally, but after you get to a certain point, excessive CAD use in the main file is going to start choking the program. Again, it's fine for "builder's grade" documents, but if you needed, say, 40 sheets of highly detailed CAD details, all referenced to the main file, it will be molasses time. Archicad is routinely used for very large projects, like hotels and office buildings, in addition to highly detailed residences. Chief has generic steel sections, but if you want a W8x36, you will find it in Archicad with exact dimensions for depth, width, flange and web thicknesses, etc. Here's an example of the level of detail possible with an old Victorian, that I really wouldn't want to try in Chief: Regarding the fanboy issue: Revit is more dominant in the U.S., so it can seem like it's more popular, but if you go to the international forums, the statistics change. Dominance does not equate to capability, and I think if you look at some of the more design-oriented firms, you'll find many that use Archicad. Again, Chief is the right tool for many projects, especially in the residential world, I just don't think it's the right tool for what you're trying to do.

I've used both Chief and Archicad for over twenty years. For the type of work you have displayed, I'd say Archicad is the best. It handles slanted walls like a dream and easily allows you to put doors and windows in them, and you can create your own very complex walls with any profile. I'm a big fan of Chief for mainstream projects, but what you are indicating goes way beyond Chief's capabilities. Revit might be okay, but I don't really know the program, and couldn't stand the UI when I tried it.

After playing with this, you're right. This does not work the way I remembered it. "Walls, Main Layer Only" seems to be just a toggle now, with no functionality to the line weight or color.

The "Walls, Main Layer Only" line weight will kick in ONLY if you turn the "Walls, Layers" layer off. This can be useful in a framing plan, for example, where you only want to show the stud boundaries. Similarly, the "Walls, Normal" line weights will kick in only if you turn the "Walls, Layers" layer off, too. This is useful if you only want to show walls as a two-line wall. BTW, I don't think you can enable the "Walls, Main Layer Only" with the "Walls, Normal" function at the same time. If you enable, "Walls, Main Layer Only," the line weights in the Wall Definition DBX are not controlling anymore.

Doors don't cut beams, nor should they. (If this is truly a grade beam.) They can cut stem walls, though, which is probably what you need in this location.

Make sure that the budget computer's power supply is sized large enough to handle a high end graphics card, which can consume a lot of power.

The keyboard is optional. But with it, you are essentially getting a new laptop. For about 1/2 the price of a new Chief license. In the overall scheme of things, with the time you can save, it's cheap. I love Apple. (And I'm a Windows guy.) EDIT: If you are dead set against Apple iOS, you could get a Microsoft Surface Pro with Windows 10. A low end model might set you back about $700 and then you could get Bluebeam Revu for PDF redlining. (about $350). I have a Surface Pro, too, and it's a nice machine, and you can run Chief on it (except for rendering, which is really slow without a dedicated graphics card) but Morpholio Trace might bring back the fun of architecture. That's worth a few hundred bucks, eh?