Richard_Morrison

In X12, it can work like this:

Have an "Office Std. Details" (OSD) layout with all your details. You can store your CAD Details in the OSD Layout -- one detail per CAD Detail -- and then send them to the same OSD Layout. You can have all your eave details on one layout page, for example. So categories stay nicely organized and details are completely visual.

You have a Project layout, too. In X12, you can have two layouts open at the same time. Open the OSD layout and find the detail you want. Double-click to open. Immediately send to layout, choosing the Project Layout file. This is VERY fast, and keeps the scale of the CAD Detail.

BTW, if you want to create a new detail that's similar to an existing one, you can "Duplicate" the CAD detail in the project browser, and immediately start editing.

This is also one the improvements listed for X12. 

Are you making the CAD Block first? It won't work with just lines.

I have seen that Chief exports materials lists to BuilderTREND format, but I know nothing about it beyond that. Might be something to look into, though. 

5 hours ago, DH7777 said:

I downloaded twinmotion the other day and I'm having a hard time with it. First, the materials are extremely limited. Not sure if it downloaded incorrectly or what but I was expecting lots of textures and materials. I went to get a lap siding and there was one to choose from and it did not resemble any lap siding we and most of America uses today (hard-board) It looked sort of like a bad cedar lap siding. Same with brick. there was only about eight to choose from and only one looked like a normal size brick (and I didn't like the look of it) Stone same issue... Are we supposed to import more materials to TM because I was starting to think now I know why its free, its not the full version? I am willing to be corrected I am probably not doing something write. Any advise would be great. I need a better way to make a rendering look real. 

You can easily create new materials, and there are a number of videos on how to do this, e.g. 

Roof and floor elevations would be optional information, as would utility information. (see: http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/AIA-C201-2015-Free-Sample-Preview.pdf ) There are many levels of information possible in a survey, and it appears you have received a "basic" survey, which even includes information on adjacent property, and which is usually optional. So, while you may have been hoping for more, I don't see that the surveyor provided less than requested. On a flat lot such as this, since contour lines are usually at even foot intervals (and often at two, five, or ten-foot intervals), you might have one contour line max, which would be kind of silly. 

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

Aha - see if you can post 3 duplicate posts...

Aha - see if you can delete two of them.

43 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

I wish I could build and “decorate” the model in Chief and then send it over to AC for condocs and annotation. 

You can, and this is often what I do. You generally will have to recreate the model in AC, but tracing over a Chief-generated DWG is pretty fast.

13 hours ago, Michael_Gia said:

 

I was curious if any Revit or Archicad users would agree or if you would say that giving up total control over elements outweigh Chief’s automated features?  

 

FWIW, I think it is highly dependent on the specific project. Chief's automation can be a great timesaver, or it can be a major annoyance and a roadblock. For standard residential projects where you don't have split levels or unusual conditions, Chief is going to be much faster. When you get out of the mainstream, then the extra time that I seem to need to get every room to behave correctly in Chief would be better spent just doing the project in ArchiCAD without workarounds. There is much more that can be done with an ArchiCAD model in terms of extracting information, and the layouts are far more flexible. (Not to mention automatically coordinated annotation, renovation filters, etc.) As much as I like the many features of Chief, it irks me no end that after using Chief for twenty years, I still occasionally need to ask for help on getting models to behave. I have never needed to do that in ArchiCAD, even with very complicated and detailed models.

14 hours ago, parkwest said:

 

Yep!  It’s a miracle that the human race has survived....  with all these older homes just slipping off the foundations everyday due to lactating anchor bolts placed into the concrete by mere mortals.

The first photo happened about 10 miles from here 30 years ago, along with many other homes. Probably built by a contractor with your same attitude. High winds can have a similar effect, as the second photo shows. The human race will survive poor building practices, but many individuals don't.

2 hours ago, parkwest said:

 

We didn’t have those anchor holders back in the 70’s when I worked for a foundation company... I was thinking about placing the mudsills with the anchor bolts after the top had been troweled... you could stack all the sill plates, layout and drill mass production wise...

This is not really much different than the "stab and jab" approach that many contractors take with bolts placed after the concrete is poured, except that you couldn't really see if the bolts were fully embedded since the mudsill would block your view. Stab & jab is also a good recipe for a cone of laitance, which reduces the structural strength of the anchor bolts in pullout. 

On 3/28/2019 at 4:00 PM, EconBlueprints said:

          By the way, after building hundreds and hundreds of homes, having done who knows how many blueprints, having been to see a gazillion building inspectors....I still have not found one single person that considers a mud sill to be part of the foundation.  It is and always has been part of the framing.  Only Chief thinks a Mud Sill is part of the foundation.

Do you know where mudsills are specified in the building code? That's right -- the FOUNDATION section. So, I'd have to say that at least a few people (and code-wise, should be everyone) consider mudsills to be part of the foundation. 

On 3/29/2019 at 3:25 PM, parkwest said:

I have always thought it would be more efficient for the foundation crew to install the sill plate when they set the anchor bolts... even if the framers had to remove the plate later to roll out the sill sealer.  At least the anchor bolts would be set to the proper height and we could actually have anchor bolts within a foot of the end of the plates.  

This is what https://www.strongtie.com/anchorholders_anchorbolts/am_holder/p/anchormate is for. If there were a 2x6 or 3x6 mudsill in place prior to the pour, with a standard 8" foundation wall, you would be pouring concrete into a 2-1/2" slot, and make it harder for the concrete folks to trowel the top of the foundation wall. 

Sadly, no. Only the view zoom is saved. If they included scale, they'd really have something.

Thanks, guys! Interestingly, I see now where you can ADD a revision to multiple pages, but only when you initially create it. If you try to edit the same revision later, you can only edit it for that one specific page. This seems odd to me that you can add a revision to a page range, but only edit/delete a revision later page-by-page, but I can deal with it for now. I guess this will go into suggestions.

I was hoping to propagate a specific revision description throughout the set in the revision schedule. This would be something like "Owner Review", "Initial Permit Set" or "Permit Revisions". However, this doesn't work for adding a revision on Layout Page 0. As far as I can tell, you have to modify each layout page's information one-by-one. Am I missing anything here?

In the example, I was looking for a symbol (in this case, a garden window with a generated 2D block, and a sink placed in a cabinet) which normally live with continuous lines, to have a dashed linetype for a demo plan. When a 2D SUB-symbol is embedded in a 3D object, there is no way to directly explode its 2D CAD block and change linetypes, without creating a whole new library part. For a demo plan, this would be overkill.

In this case, Mick reminded me that I could just insert the 2D symbol BY ITSELF. As a standalone 2D block, you can change its linetype by placing it on a different layer, as long as "Linetype/Fill by Layer" is selected. Then, I just moved the newly placed dashed symbols over the continuous linetype symbols. It's a good tip, I think.

54 minutes ago, Chopsaw said:

2D cad blocks do not recognize line styles but you can always use individual line segments to build a cad block.  One I did recently was a three bladed ceiling fan to show the diameter and clearance as well as relocate the center of the insertion point.

 

Yes, they do, if you select "By Block Layer" for Line/Fill style in the CAD Block Specification, rather than "By Object." This can be quite useful.

You have to explicitly set the program to use the Nvidia card, or it will revert to using the lame onboard video card, which is not likely enough to use with Chief.

35 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

 

At least with the Sink , as I tested it ( Pic Below), you can insert the CAD Block, (via CBM) , explode it then change the Line Style and Colour etc for everything (marquee select) , then block it again.....however if you assign it back to the Symbol , that seems to cause the lines to go solid again, so just put the CAD Block over the symbol instead for plan views.... may need to adjust the Drawing Order, I didn't below...

 

 

 

M.

 

Thank, Mick! Just changing the block to "By Layer" works. (If the layer has a dashed linetype.)

8 minutes ago, misterwiley said:

A work around solution would be to

 

-draw a poly line box around what you want to be dashed,

-open the box and in X11, go to the Fill Style tab and select the hatch setting and give it the angle and scale. Maybe 45 degrees at 4" width

-make the color white and check the box to have a transparent background.

-you will then probably want to make the line weight in the FillStyle something a little bigger so the dashes are little more substantial. Something like 15 should do it

-go to the Line Style tab and make the line style blank for the boarder of the box to disappear

 

Now where ever that box is located on the plan everything behind or underneath it will be dashed. You might have to turn on line weights to actually see the effect. This might not be the answer you're looking for but I thought it might help solve the immediate issue

 

You mean kinda like this? (See especially post #3): http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?26332-Foundations-below-grade Maybe, but I was hoping for something less of a workaround.

I am trying to change the garden window 2D block and the sink block to a dashed line type. They are both currently on a dashed layer. I can find no way to explode these or to put these on a "By Layer" setting. Any way to do this short of a View to CAD approach?

Scott, could you please fix the thread topic? Renee is a woman's name, which Rene clearly is not. This probably bugs me more than it does Rene.

Every project I've ever done in Los Altos has used the Planning Dept. definition for floor area, and I would certainly go in with that attitude. However, interpretations change, so there is seldom any certainty. Technically, the Code says that a "substantial improvement" (which would trigger the upgrade) is any addition that costs more than 50% of the "market value" of the existing structure. However, "market value" is pretty nebulous. Some building departments use 50% of floor area, but I've also had building departments use a depreciated value for the existing structure so that even a kitchen remodeling in a small, old house would trigger the upgrade. Welcome to the Bay Area. 

Joe,

This is a very nice format! However, you should be aware that you need to deal with Net Free Areas (NFA) of ventilation, not actual sizes of the units. It is seldom (never) that a 14" x 22" gable vent, say, will provide 2.13 SF of ventilation. The NFA is usually listed in the manufacturer's specs.