Richard_Morrison

I have no problem getting the siding pattern lines, so it is likely something with your Render Preference settings, but not sure which one.

You might look into exporting a DWG drawing into Chief and using the "CAD to Walls" tool. Probably will need some cleanup, but might save a little time if everything is set up properly.

Dropbox has been VERY fast, but I haven't compared it to Drive in a speed test. It would be worth finding out how long it takes for yours to sync. If it's working for you, then no need to change. But if you aren't happy with Drive, then no need to just give up on the concept of having the Data Folder in the Cloud.

Keep in mind that the speed of syncing with Dropbox may be very different than with Google Drive.

Alan, Huh? Seems to me he'll be LOSING five hours of billable time per week. At that rate, he probably won't be able to afford donuts.

The studs follow the curve, but the top/bottom channels do not.

I think there may be a problem in that if you upgrade your X6 to Beta X7, your Activation Code gets replaced with the new X7 activation code. So if you don't have a valid X7 license when the release is out, you may be SOL in trying to get back to your old X6 activation number. I find it interesting that people believe that with an SSA, they have some sort of "right" to an unreleased beta version, even if only temporary.

Glenn, Good find!

Kc, Get the angle from the front property line, and use the Transform/Replicate tool to rotate the property lines. Or put the site plan in a separate CAD detail and rotate the Plan Footprint to match the front property line.

I am liking the public beta pretty well, and it seems to be very solid. However, I just wasted an hour or so trying to figure out why some CAD lines were displaying properly in the live elevation, but would completely disappear when sent to layout. Turns out that any CAD drawn on the layer "Cross Section Lines" will not display at all in layout. Maybe this will save someone some grief. I have reported this, of course.

Well, even the X7 documentation only talks about "polyline-based objects" having holes, with no reference to 2D or 3D. It never occurred to me that a simple fill was a "polyline-based object," I guess, thinking that this phrase referred to a polyline solid. slab, countertop, or even a landing. Maybe this will help someone else who is a victim of unclear documentation.

I just discovered that you can cut a hole in a selected 2D polyline fill using the "Create Hole" tool on the Edit Toolbar. I THINK this is a new feature, because I recollect only being able to do this with 3D objects previously. Even better is that you can take the 2D fill with a hole and convert it to a polyline solid, say, and the hole is already there. The fill appears to calculate area correctly taking into account the removed area, too. I like this a lot, and would be very sad to learn that I missed it in X6, but better late than never!

Not a finished elevation, but threw some fill on an elevation to show you the effect. Elevation.pdf

This is now one of my favorite features. One of Chief's shortcomings has been the lack of an easy way to "gray down" distant parts of the building in an exterior elevation, or to show an addition vs. existing. Throwing on a white semi-transparent fill on a distant garage, say, really makes those elevations "pop"!

In an elevation, the X, Y, and Z axes stay the same as the plan view. So it's possible that when you think you are transforming left to right (you may be assuming an X-direction), you are actually transforming in/out (y-direction in plan) without realizing it. (also, trying to transforming up/down in an elevation is actually moving in the z-axis) This is very confusing behavior, and I wish that Chief would fix it. Or at least give a visual cue as to the actual axes.

I'm having the same issue as Glenn. I can't tell where you are running into trouble, or why you think there is a problem.

Bob, If you are just showing for the exterior views, you can create the summer house in a different file, take a 3D view, and save as a symbol. Then insert the symbol onto the topo as you will, raising and lowering as necessary.

Well, my point is that if you don't have wall breaks, you don't need to rebuild the wall. That seems like the hard way to me.

Been playing around with this, and it's coming back to me. The main problem with breaking walls to get a siding change is that any windows or doors spanning the break create problems. The wall material region resolves this issue nicely, since windows cut it just fine.

I considered that, Perry, but have had issues of losing room definitions and other weirdness (which I can't recall right now). It seems safer to keep it as a single wall. I usually do the same if there are multiple patches in plan. I use multiple wall hatching entities rather than break the wall in multiple places. Could be this issue is fixed now, though.

I find myself needing to model an existing house that wraps siding around the corner. (See 2nd floor, attached) I am guessing that a wall material region is the way to go rather than a thin polyline solid, but is there any reason to choose one vs. the other? Or some other approach? (BTW, I hate "stage sets" like this with a passion. LOL)

Julie, If you are in a relatively urban area with significant regulatory controls, I encourage you to engage a local architect to help expedite the process. Such an architect would be available to make site visits during construction, too, when issues come up. BTW, it is illegal in every state that I know of to offer "architectural design" without actually being a licensed architect.

Probably ceiling break lines. Try turning off that layer. Roof is probably "Roof Overhang Area." Turn that layer off, too.

You can change the upper cabinets to be transparent, too.

Architects generally sell a SERVICE, not a product.