RodCole

You might try using roof planes and set the pitch to degrees. Then set the angle you want. Rafters should work for the legs. Never actually tried doing a sandwich board, but I think this might work. I certainly agree with the other comments regarding Chief's weakness in this area. That is why I still use other cad and will continue to do so for quite some time it appears.

Yes, rotating, copying, and a section in defaults to preset elevation cameras would be very helpful.

Thanks for the info. I pretty much came to the same conclusion myself. But, the emporer is still holding court, and will be for some time to come unless someone happens to point out the obvious. From what I can tell, most of the high end architectural modeling programs are mostly adding GUI features that have been around in the high end CAD world since the early 1990's. Funny how that works, so long as no one is really looking that is. What I would like to see is a better file exchange and symbol insertion capablity between Chief and traditional CAD programs and solid modeling apps. That IMO is where the real power is to be had. Oh well, there I go, talking to myself again.

Here is a generic U3D file that I made up recently in Chief and then converted to a 3D PDF file. Just use fairly late version of Adobe's Reader to open and view the model and then use the mouse to fly around. I like to use either the illustration or the shaded illustration render mode for viewing the model in the reader. I also see some potential for the transparent mode as well. There are serveral apps that can convert to U3D What I am considering is using the U3D file for structural models only, although architectural surfaces will work as well. I am trying to get a quick turn around for importing text and dimensions into Chief, and then out to the U3D format. It can be done now, it just needs to be streamlined a bit in order to be more practical. I would actually like to use the Client Viewer for architectural viewing, but not if I would have to send out the entire file. Still looking into ways of doing that. Edit: BTW this appears to have a great deal of potential for 3D Wood Construction Connections such as Simpson hardware. That is what I am currently working on. This is actually a doable thing, it is Chief's symbol import process that needs a little work. Chief File Converted to U3D.pdf

I use TurboCAD Pro Platinum as well as Chief. TC has a very similar feature to what Perry has shown on the Snagit clip. In TC it is a called the Selection Info Pallette and it can be set to open automatically when an object is selected, opened from a docked position along with other pallettes, or opened in a floating position with a hot key. Very powerful feature. Not dying on the vine from anything I can tell. I am finding more and more ways that I would like to use the power of TC along with Chief. From my perspective it is not one or the other, it is Chief as a central player and all the rest in their respective roles. Not Cheap though, but I believe they offer a substantial discount as a competitive upgrade. I am pretty sure Chief qualifies. At least they used to offer this. V22 should be out before too long also. Not saying that I would not like to see Chief clean up the clickity clickity click thing though. It is just that I already have other apps that I can use for specific purposes that already have these features.

What I see here are some very good points being made by all those involved in this discussion. Where I am coming from personally is not so much the need to revamp Chief's interface so much as to make it even more friendly to using additional software. Ideally that would be through an API, but for now file exchanges will have to do. I hear what Doug is saying about a measured approach to any major GUI improvements. But, as far as the newer interfaces being only a small improvement in productivity I am having a hard time agreeing with that. Take for instance Octane Render, granted, it is new and should be cutting edge, and comparing Chief to a newly developed app that is highly specialized is not exactly fair. But, to say that using an interface that allows for instant feedback of rendering progress, GPU processing, and immediate access to settings is only a minor issue for productivity is not something I can agree with. That being said, I am still more inclined to see Chief's interface move forward in a rather measure manner, but the access to those best of breed applications should be more than a passing consideration IMO.

Very interesting topic. As a consumer of computer software myself I would have to agree that having a nice looking and efficient interface is a pleasure to behold. But, when you take this issue to the next, and I hope obvious level, then I can't in all honesty agree that a nice GUI is or will be the deciding factor in the survival of software companies. I actually do agree with the above statements, at least in the sense that this is the way things have been for a long time now. Big fish eat little fish "businesses" and the better at marketing a company is the more sway they will hold in the marketplace. I would even have to agree that those in the construction and design industry are rather set in their ways and therefore rather resistant to change. However, trends in the consumer marketplace are indicating that the winds of change are blowing, and rather briskly at that. I saw a statistic very recently that predicted that within the next ten years only ten percent of brick and mortar businesses will still be standing. Whether they will go away entirely or simply be eaten up by the competition is yet to be seen. So then, where is the business going then if not brick and mortar? Not a hard question to answer really, so I will attempt to answer it myself "It's the internet slash economy stupid" as Clinton would have put it. But, and this is the crux of the matter, and why I do not see things continuing as they have in the past. The new internet based consumer economy is predicted to not be driven by the influences of powerful marketing companies, but rather by consumer prefereces and information gathered through social media. The catchword tossed around these days is absolute value. Kind of sort of meaning that with adequate and trustworthy information consumers will decide for themselves what products and services they would prefer to purchase. In this environment traditional marketing mechanisms are actually being resisted, not considered to be trustworthy, and alternative sources of information are being considered. So, what in the world does all of this have to do with GUI interfaces and Revit and Chief and or software in general. Well, we are consumers, yes, but only if our customers see the value in the services we providel. My point is that this perception of value is changing, and rather rapidly. Customers probably won't care what software we like the look of, or how many extra clicks we have to make. We certainly do, but they probably won't. I can't see why they would want to deny us a nice interface to work with, but it probably won't be their primary focus. What they will care about is how efficient and cost effective your services are, and how well they think they can trust us as service providers. Not the wild west anymore, there is a new sheriff in town and he is the consumer, and it is about time IMO. My own personal thoughts are that it will be more about the quality of the experience we can provide to our customers in the sense of visual presentations that will matter. This may not be very popular to those who want a brand new GUI more that anything in the world, but those software companies who intend to be left standing will be those who can meet not only our needs as software consumers, but those of our customers as well. This is a big part of why I keep going on about file compatiblity issues. If there is a better sofware out there for a specific purpose, that means that it better meets what I see as my customers needs, then I fully well intend to use it. I would also like a very nice GUI as well. 2 cents.

From what I have encountered, if the layer is used by some type of default routine and it cannot find it then a new layer will be created. I am not exactly sure what goes on in those situations. I just try to avoid it as much as possible. I thought about calling tech support to get a better understanding of what does happen, but I never did. If I understand your question correctly, yes, the system knows which layers are system layers no matter what you name them latter.

One for the plan file and one matching setup for the Layout file. I used to use multiple templates, but do not find a need for that anymore.

I tried using the CA supplied AIA layer names, but it did not work out for my purposes at all. I now use a combination of Chief's layer names, which if nothing else are at least recognizable, and a coding system that precedes Chief's layer names. The AIA names are mostly for 2D naming standards and have not worked well for me when working with a 3D modeling program such as Chief. In the process of reworking my set-up for X7. What I am shooting for is a code that at least loosely follows the Construction Document Sheet Numbers system and the AIA layer naming disicplines, along with my own adaptations. If you are looking for something that really works for your needs, you will probably have to work out your own system. A few guide lines would be: 1. Should work well with the layer filter option in the dbx. 2. Needs to be able to add new layers to the correct group slash discipline and in the correct order. 3. Should be short enough to read entirely in the status bar. 4. Filter should be able to show multiple disciplines grouped together in the dbx. A good layer naming scheme should also serve as a framework for organizing all aspects of plan production.

I am pretty sure that is just the way it has been, The anno set on the Plan tab is new for X6 though. I don't even try to make sense of it all. I will leave that up to you.

I would also like to point out the Align Distribute along Line option. Not so much for this circumstance, but rather just as an FYI that this tool can be a very good solution when the ordinary methods are not appropriate. Just thought you might like to know about this as well for when you may need it. I use it a lot myself because it allows me to choose the points of reference by placing the line start and end points.

I am considering something very simlar myself now. What is different is that I am looking into the M.2 drive option. Don't really know enough about it yet to make an informed decision. Your selection looks like a winner in my book. The next step up in processors is double the price, and it is hard to determine whether the added expense would be warented. If you don't mind, would you please provide an update as to how the new computers work out with Chief. Thanks.

Cinch-a-reno

Exactly, mine are very detailed concerning structural elements and framing, and also how I like to work with these types of settings. I rather like the flexibility of this method, but it may not be for everyone and even then the particular settings are personal preference.

Just send a view to layout then select the Open Object icon on the Edit toolbar. In the Layout Box Specification dbx select the Plan View tab and choose the anno set you want associated with this Layout View. Next go to the Layout Box Layers Icon on the default toolbar and select the Layer Set from the drop down box. Drag the borders of the Layout View so that nothing is showing on the Layout Page and then position the view where you want it. I like to put these working views on a special working views layer in the Layout. That way I can use Layer Sets in the Layout to control multiple settings with one click from the drop down. That is the essence of it, but the hard part is getting the settings set up the way you want them. My settings would probably not mean anything to you Lew because they only make sense for the way that I like to work. You will need to experiment with your own settings in order for this method to make sense and be an efficient working system.

There you go again Lew, trying to make sense out of this stuff. Not a windmill I care to tip. I am not really into the Jacks and Kings thing. I just prefer to use the pieces Chief gives us in a way that suits my working style best. For me that means Layout views and the Project Browser working together. I tend to think of it as a form of Dashboard. One that I can use to steer my way through the needed settings in Chief. One thing that I requested a while back was to have folders to better organize the groups in the Project Browser. That would be a big help in keeping the lists of such things as Cameras and CAD Details more manageable. What I am also trying to tell you Lew is that you can have any number of these working Layout Views that can be preset in your template plan. Each can be set to fit a particular tasks requirements. They do not need to display anything on the Layout Page itself. I have Layer Sets in Layout that turns the borders of these working views on or off as needed. So that you can picture it a bit better. I keep them rather small, sort of like an oversized Icon. I just need use them to get to the settings I want. You don't have it quite right yet Lew. When you use the Layout View and then select the Open View icon on the Edit Toolbar, you are opening the plan view with the anno set and layer set associated with this view in Layout.

To clarify, I am speaking about the new features in X6 Layouts. Anno sets are now associated with individual Layout Views. Layer Sets were already associated with Layout Views, but now they both are as of X6. This opens the door to some interesting pre sets IMO. Good luck Lew, and don't hesitate to PM me if you need any help. I don't check it all that often, but go ahead and give it a try if you would like. I prefer preset working views, others may prefer to make settings on the fly very quickly. It appears that is why you are recieving resistence to your take on the "Current CAD Layer" dbx issue. IMO it is a losing game to try and remove something that others are using to advantage. 2 cents

I don't use the current CAD Layer tool much at all. I have been using working views in the layout for the various work environments that I need for specific settings. That way both the layer sets and the anno sets are working together to provide the settings I need for specific tasks. I keep the project browser open and assigned to a hot key so I can close it quickly if needed. I keep the plan at the top and the layout at the bottom and the pages open for viewing and selecting. I have found that it works better for me if I keep the layout tab at the far left and keep a minimum of windows open. Layout, Plan, Others. I have to move them around every so often, but it keeps things a little easier to follow that way. I also set many camera defaults to use Active Layer Set which works out fairly well using this methods. That is so long as you do things consistently. I am still finding new ways to use this method, and I also change things a bit from time to time, but I do like it very much in general. Does take some time to set it up and to get used to it though. Lew, glad to hear your project is doing well. Cad companies are often quite reluctant to do away with even the most useless of features for fear that someone might still be using them. Sounds to me like it is time for you to learn about Layer Sets, Anno Sets, Layout, and the power of working views. Hardly worth it, over and out.

Couldn't agree more Ed. Basically it is a save as process from the other app I am using. Where I see this as becoming a very powerful means of communicating the design and engineering intentions is when the foundation, hold downs, and shearwall framing are all organized on layers in the same U3D file including dimensions and text oriented properly on their respective workplanes. I am not really that far from having that working. Mostly needing to organize things a bit differently and find ways to do the file exchanges better. I also like that once the file is in the U3D format it can be printed to 2D pdf quite easily and viewed on any number of portable devices. Like I have been saying, this is really not that far off as far as this end of the BIM spectrum is concerned IMO. Just needs to have a few things fixed that really should have been fixed years ago. From my particular background, I am not so much interested in facilities management as I am managing the construction process from the ground up. To me that is the first area to focus on for improving efficiency. I am particulary interested in using the transparent view capabilities. Chief's viewer is ok for some things, but a royal pain for the most part. Again, parts of the process are not that bad, others are unnecessarily difficult due to the lack of file compatibility that has existed for so long now.

From what I have heard, the latest version of the adobe reader may be required. It also does not seem to work well unless you download it rather than just view it. That is what I have been told anyway.

Very nice work. Thanks for sharing.

Here is a U3D file containing the lower floor framing for a project of mine. I have ways to arrange the framing members on layers, but I am still experimenting to find a more efficient method if possible. So, this file does not have any layer arrangement so far due to the way Chief Exports 3DS files currently. The U3D file was created by another app that I use for 3D modeling. This is just the tip of the iceburg as far as the potential for deliverables using a combination of apps cooperatively. Try a few of the various render types to view the model. I tend to perfer the shaded illustration myself. Note that the file size is not all that bad either. I will get after this a bit more seriously by next week I am hoping. Chief Framing to 3D pdf.PDF

From the floor plan view select the Orthographic View Tools icon. Next select the Orthographic Full Overview camera icon. This will bring up a full overview of the model based on the layerset assigned in camera defaults. If the correct layers are not displayed, then make whatever changes are req'd so that the items you want to export are visible on you screen. Select File, Export, Export 3D Model (DWG,DXF) then select the options you want from the dbx "dialog box" that appears. I have found that the 3DS file format works quite a bit better than the DWG format for many 3D objects. Hope that is helpful.

Have you considered U3D or better known as 3D pdf files? They work great for many types of modeling information such as foundations and framing. Not sure why you would need X6 in order to view and coordinate the design to your specifications though. The free Chief viewer and the latest pdf reader will go a long way to meeting your needs. None or your requests are at all unreasonable, in fact if the model is done correctly you are most of the way home on the CD's. Your interior decorator would probably love working with the visuals Chief and other rendering apps can provide. I use the latest version of TurboCAD Pro Platinum for my 3D solid modeling app because it works better than most other apps for integrating with Chief. If you are interested, send me a personal message or just request that I give you a call as a reply to this thread.