Richard_Morrison

Sorry, Jim, I see that you were already doing this. Looking at what you've done, I suspect that the surveyor's field measure of the setback was done to the corner of the bay, rather than the corner of the house; he just drew it wrong when he got back to the office. Rotate Jim's plan a tad to match the PDF, and the left corner is within .2' feet of the stated distance.

It sounds like you are trying to do this in a plan view. Your case is exactly why something like this should be done in a CAD Detail window, using the Plan Footprint which you can drag around and rotate around a point.

Well, I figured it out after looking at a section. The wall was an existing wall, so I had defined it with an "air gap" main layer so that framing wouldn't build. As soon as I changed the main layer to "Fir", everything became normal. Here's how it builds with an air gap material. I don't know if this is a bug or not, but it's weird. Thanks, Perry, for that brick ledge trick, though. I seldom use brick, so I hadn't even noticed that.

I'm tearing my hair out (what little is left) trying to get the stucco to cover the mudsill. I thought it was a "build platform to this line" issue, or default wall height issue, but I guess not, since I've checked everything I can. Do I have to pull down every wall?

Certainly not ART. But could it have been MiniCAD or an early version of ArchiCAD?

What version of Chief? (Please add it to your signature.)

Another possibility is that the polyline solid is actually on the floor below. The "Elevation" height for a polyline solid is for the absolute elevation, not the elevation above the floor, like a countertop.

Sure. I think CSI works pretty well for classifying individual elements, like roofing. So it's good for identifying spec sections. (e.g. 07310 for Asphalt Shingles.) BTW, I'm still using the 16 division CSI MasterFormat scheme, rather than the 50 division scheme that's now current, which I think is overkill for residential. However, when you have a detail like an Eave, which might include roofing, gutter, framing, siding, etc., it's hard to put a single CSI number to it. Uniformat deals in grouped elements. (like Shell or Substructure or Interiors), so you could have the detail as B1022-01. Uniformat has different "levels" of granularity, so B=shell; B10=superstructure; B1020=roof construction; B1022=pitched roofs. [This last is a "level 4" classification] More information at uniformat.com. This is how it might be stored in your detail library, but when it goes on the sheet, you can call it any number you want.

Thanks for digging this up! It looks like a pretty good option for one-person firms.

Rod, My personal opinion is that the UDS probably lends itself better to projects that are non-residential, larger, and have numerous disciplines. I have tried this in the past, but it makes for kind of weird numbering if the sets are small. Chief's auto-numbering works pretty well for the A-1, S-1, C-1, L-1, etc. type of sets, which is what you'd expect to see in the residential world, and it's pretty easy to insert layout sheets, and have the cameras automatically update the layout sheet number. (I'm looking forward to a more complete solution from Chief for references, though.) Also, nothing wrong with A-1.1, A-1.2, etc., followed by a single A-2, where you want to keep all of the floor plans on the A-1 sheets, for example. However, for classifying detail drawings in a library, I like the UniFormat system a lot. Most details don't work well in the CSI format since there are often multiple numbers where they could reside.

Then it pretty much sounds like you could be misclassified as an independent contractor if you drew exactly what the builder told you to draw, with no independent thinking or knowledge on your part, and on an hourly basis. Any builder hiring you on this basis could be subject to big fines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees_as_independent_contractors.

Lew, this is not what I claimed. But anyone, including architects, can be sued for gross negligence, whether it is a valid claim or not. But if you don't know what you are doing, the odds of prevailing drop dramatically.

jon, Great link! I actually was a Chapter President of ASID (in a Chapter with about 500 members) and find the political position of ASID National untenable. Mostly because their ultimate aspirations to license interior designers would put about 2/3 of their membership out of business, if fully enacted. There are also many people advertising themselves as "interior architects" or "architectural designers" without having an architect's license. (This is an issue in every state that I know of.) They are living on borrowed time. So, paying attention to what you call yourself is important.

I would be careful about assuming that you are protected. Just as a court would probably find someone guilty of "gross negligence" if they read a few books, bought a scalpel, and started operating on someone to detrimental effect, the court might be equally inclined to find a party guilty of gross negligence if they read a few books, took a drafting class, bought a copy of Chief Architect, and opened up shop, then making significant errors on a project. You generally can't transfer your way out of gross negligence.

Here is a start: http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFiles/Publications/0C62DFD605F0471619ADF0E2E5576E98.pdf

Alyson, Are you trying to email a 2D document, or the Chief model itself? If the model (say, if you are using the Client Viewer software), then you should probably ZIP the .PLAN file, then send it.

Phyllis, I would take Lew's legal opinions with a block of salt, especially regarding transfer of liability through the use of unilateral disclaimers.

The space planning tools are a huge time-saver if you know how to use them properly, and allow you to discuss various room arrangements with clients without getting them focused on details like doors and windows. I'd definitely like to see a custom-naming feature. This tools works well with additions, too. It would be great to have a video done by Chief that shows how to use this tool productively.

Okay, Doug, I have submitted this.

Ding, ding, ding. Give that man a kewpie doll! Thanks, Dan. Turned out my laptop was set to 100% and my desktop (with the 30" monitor) was set to 125%. Setting the laptop to 125% made them match. Whew!

No, this is a third-party TrueType font. (like Arial) The kerning should be built into the font.

I've been working on a project in Win8. When I opened the project in Win7, the text blocks are just SLIGHTLY larger than the Win8 version. (In length, not width) Longer text blocks are proportionally more "off" than shorter ones. I don't know if the difference is in the line spacing or the fonts themselves, but it causes some longer blocks to go slightly over their grid line boxes in Layout in Win7. These are exactly the same font files. (I know since I copied them from the same files.) Anyone experience this and have a fix? Tech Support had no clue. I have tried text blocks on layouts started in X5, as well as X6 native layouts, and the behavior is the same.

Might look at allnetic.com. Don't know how well it works in Windows 8, but then again, I have no idea what platform you're on since it isn't in your signature. (hint, hint.)

Thanks, Tommy. Guess I'll have to do this.

No.