RodCole

In the past there has been interest in ways that topo lines could be displayed in 3D views. Here is a pic of the what it looks like using section cuts from another app and then importing the symbol back into Chief. I found this file when I was doing some cleaning up of my user library and came by a model of terrain with a section cut that I had experimented with a while back. The reason I posted this is just to show what can be done using Chief along with other apps. The section cut was done in TurboCAD, but made from terrain created originally in Chief. You will have to imagine what the entire thing would look like if completed regarding the steps produced using sectioning tools in TC. Once I saw what could be accomplished I have moved on to working with realistic excavation cuts and trenching. That was a request from the engineer on a recent project, but it will have to wait till time permits. This is part of my project regarding 3D pdf files created from leveraging CA models in relation to BIM. At least my version of BIM. Some of what I like about this method is that it does give the appearance of a fairly clean topo line. Once exported the terrain from CA can be maniputated in ways not easily accomplished in Chief. I also like that the angle of the steps can be set as desired. Mostly personal taste, but I do like it better with a slight slope to the verticle edges. What is shown was produced using a 90 degree draft angle, but it can be set however you like. I also like that you can subtract geometry without having things go all wonky near the building and at the edges of the terrain. Not a big deal, but it can have its advantages. What I don't like is that it is tedious to do. That is part of why this was never finished. That and I need to figure out how to get excavation cuts and trenching to work together with the steps. At least I think I do at this time. I will know better once I get back to this more seriously later on. I also find it difficult to combine Chief's library items along with the terrain imported into Chief. I have not worked much with this yet, but my goal is to see if I can get the best of both worlds. Many have posted their comments regarding other methods of producing a similar effect. Just thought someone might be interested in other alternatives that are available. Edit: Part of imagining would be to imagine the entire site along with the building model as a single color similar to cardboard models. My personal favorite is to view the scene in clay model mode in Octane Render. It is not an actual physical model like a paper model, but it can provide a very interesting alternative.

A little off the beaten path, but I have found that if you create dimensions in a symbol as 3D objects they will display in section views. You can not alter them in any way, or even turn them off without turning off the display of the entire symbol. How this applies to the OPs question is that there are many ways to accomplish what you are after. If I can get the dimensions I want already set up in a symbol, then I don't need to mess around with dimensioning in the view itself. Not easy to do, and Chief by itself is not really set up for this. But, for things like engineered hardware with standard dimensions it has some interesting possibilities. This will not work with a wall detail. It requires the use of an elevation camera to be able to include the symbol in the view. Very slick if I can get everything to work, but you will still need to dimension the hardware item itself to some reference point in the camera view. From what I have found so far, as mentioned above, you can dimension to the cut portion of the foundation, but not to the part of the symbol itself that I want to dimsension to. A line like Perry mentioned will work, but it is only close and a bit tedious. In a situaltion like this i would like to get it exact if possible. This is one of those times that using CAD Detail from View could be helpful. This is something I learned recently while setting Chief models up for 3D pdf export with dimensions. More info on this in a thread I started in the Chatroom Forum for those who may be interested. Not all of the details are there, but a bit of background. Chief's camera views can be very powerful tools.

Best would be if framing could be easily and consistently dimensioned in an elevation camera view. But, if the framing moves the dimension associated with a line do not update either. You still have to move the line. There have been quite a few inconsistencies in how the camera views work IMO. It works now, but for quite a while you could not use the ALT method for drawing in camera views. I am moving toward having most of my framing views in layout produced from camera callouts for a number of reasons. Be nice if they put a little more work toward making camera views more usable.

Bit of a pain, but if you really need a dimension to be accurate you can give this method a try. From your elevation camera view, select CAD Detail from View. This give you an exact copy of the view, but now all of the lines are cad lines that can be dimensioned any way you want. The next step is to select the dimensions only and then choose copy from the edit tool bar. Now return to the elevation camera view and select Edit Paste Hold Position. This will place your dimensions at the same location in the elevation that they were in the CAD Detail. They are not connected to the framing members, so they will not update, but you do get an accurate measurement. Trying to place a line that can be dimensioned to over the edge of a framing member works too, but it is not really all that accurate. Often times it is not a big deal depending on the accuracy your dimensions are set to.

I got caught the other day by not saving the plan file when I closed it thinking that saving the layout that I had just used to open it would take care of it. I new better, just got in a hurry and forgot. I was warned and everything. Just a reminder to save both the plan file and the layout. Part of why this caught me is that I mostly use the layout to open plan views. One of those note to self things, don't do that. It was also the last plan view that I had open, not good, lost about 20 min of work, no auto backups or anything that time.

Note on the video. It is not about making the engineer unhappy. The requirement for nailing a blocked edge is 3/8 of an inch from the edge at full thickness for the rating to be valid. An easy fix would be to nail blocking onto the hip and then hold the sheathing back as required. That way you would not have to bevel the sheathing to what looks like half it's thickness.

I agree with what Bryce has said regarding using Chief tools. I would add that you can also model structural features like this using other 3D modeling apps and then import the geometry into Chief as a symbol. I have attached a pic of a project I did a while back that was done using a combination of both Chief and another app. BTW this model was done using CA X5, but not much has changed regarding the 3D tools. Edit: As I understand it, the condition itself is refered to as an overbuild or overbuilt situation. From what I understand the California part comes from laying a member over the roof sheathing and then framing to that rather than the traditional method of providing blocking under the sheathing. Therefore, how I have heard it refered to is a California Overbuild. I don't think there is any real technical definition involved here, just what some folks call it.

Larry Is your pavilion a gable roof, or are you looking to make it a hip roof? I agree that the rule of thumb for top cord pitch to bottom cord pitch has been 1/2. The reason I ask about the roof itself is that you will probably end up with one direction of the hip, if that is in fact what you have, being a girder truss with the other trusses bearing on it. If this is the case then I am not sure that the rule of thumb would apply in this situation. Just what you wanted to hear I bet. There's always something!

Chief does do referencing, just not oob "Out of Box". Chief's camera callouts will reference anything that you want, so long as you go to the trouble of setting it up. Not so sure I want them to change anything. What we have works, they just need to make working with what we have a little easier. There are two basic things that have me taking another look at how my Layout Sheets are set up. One is to better organize how I have my referencing set up. Still working through that. The other is to see how, or maybe better if, I can set my drawing sheets up to industry standards while using X6's automated layout features. Since I could not find industry standard conventions for live 3D views much less how it relates to CA I set about making my own setup. As I am sure most Chief users are familiar with. I still would like to keep my drawing sheets at least somewhat recognizable for those familiar with UDS and other supposed leading standards. Richard, if you don't mind, could you fill us in a bit on the UniFormat system, and the CSI format as well. What you like and don't like about these as it relates to CA. Classifying detail drawings is something that I am still working on since my goal is to use a two character code a dash and a two digit code for the top line of the camera callout. I think I have it, but it would be good to see other existing standards to compare to.

Curious how many Chief Architect users are setting up their Drawing Sheets according to the UDS standards? I am using parts of it myself, but there are some things such as the sheet type numbers that seem a bit redundant to me. I suppose that is mostly because I use a code in the camera callout that does pretty much the same thing. Also interested in knowing if you are using the auto numbering feature in Layout, or are you manually numbering the pages. I like using the auto numbering feature in X6, but it does not really lend itself to inserting pages according the UDS conventions. I can see some advantages to being able to insert pages with a dot extention, but that has not really been much of an issue for me so far. Just need to be carefull setting up the sheets from the outset. I am also a bit puzzeled as to how to implement the revisions according to the UDS standards since any change to the model would potentially effect all existing views. Seems like the UDS is geared primarily for 2D standards, with a little 3D thrown in for interest. Kind of muddeling my way through this now since I am revamping a few settings in my Layouts. Edit: I just did a quick test of the dot extension page numbering convention using Chief X6 and it seems to work. Probably need to add a note to self in the Title section so I know what it matches up to when the auto numbering changes. But good to know it works. If anyone has experience with this feature please add a few comments about how this has been working out for you. Thanks

Joe How are you setting up your working Layout views? Sliding a full view off the printed area? Just a small view that does not display anything? Or, are you using another page, and if so, how are you organizing the pages? Just curious. I am using the small view with nothing showing so I don't have to deal with any other issues. The reason I ask is that I am looking at revamping my layout layersets that I use to control borders and such. Not a layersets or anno sets person. I prefer to set up the Layout views and control everything from there. Everything is a bit of an overstatement, but I am working in that direction.

Check to see if you have Ceiling over this room checked in the structures tab of the room dbx "dialog box" of the fireplace itself. I am assuming that your fireplace is difined by walls that create a room. I run into this sometimes around stairwells, and it can be quite frustrating to figure out what is going on. Hope that helps.

Barton is correct that the free version of SketchUP can probably meet all of your modeling needs. You asked about TC, and there really are some features related to the ACIS solid modeling engine that are very powerful, once you know how to use them. I would not think that this would be that important to someone just starting out though. BTW many excellent modelers use SketchUp exclusively. Just depends on the type of things you intend on doing whether TC would be important or not. It really comes down to the tools a particular application has, and whether you need them or not

I have been using CA since V2 and TC Pro Platinum since V8 and each has it's strong and weaker points. For my work it is not really one or the other, but rather how to use both to advantage. The more you use both programs you will start to see what I mean. TC can do some amazing things once you get the hang of it. An example being the creation of solid models that can be used in CA as symbols. CA has some solid modeling features, but in comparison to the ACIS modeling engine TC is far more capable. To be fair, the same can be said for CA regarding model creation, presentations, and construction documents using X6's Layout features. TC is ok, but CA is far superior IMO. The short answer is TC for traditional CAD and Solid modeling, and CA for most of the rest. Both are very powerful programs. To really be able to take advantage of the most powerful features of both programs takes quite a bit of effort. Not for everyone.

If you can not find any pre-made symbols that you are happy with then I would recommend a book that I have found to be useful for comming up with your own design. European Style Kitchen Design by Tina Skinner. Published by Schiffer From what I saw there is quite a wide variety of designs that qualify as Tuscan in regards to range hoods.

Not any way that I know of to do this in Chief. Maybe someone else may have some ideas. You could try converting the contour lines to polyline solids and setting the elevation and thickness. Quite a bit of work to do this I would think, and you would end up with verticle edges instead of sloping, which to me looks better. Come to think of it it might be worth a try to set the elevation and only give the polyline solids a very small depth. Just make sure that you close the loop on the offset polylines. Who knows, it might just get you what you are after. Probably a few hoops to jump through to get the contour lines converted. You need closed polylines to be able to use the conversion tools. A lot of programs will allow you to add thickness to a single polyline. I can't think of anything in Chief though that can do that. At least not right now I can't. I have done something similar by exporting CA terrain and then converting it to a solid. From there you can section and extrude steps using a custom draft angle. You could supperimpose the contour lines as well if you wanted to keep the terrain smooth. I have actually found that I like the terrain imported back into Chief a bit better after converting it to a solid. Maybe a finer mesh? I agree though that it would be nice to have a little more definition to the terrain. The highlights don't print very well from my experience. Edit: I like Bill's idea of using sidewalks in Chief. Should be a lot easier than making all of those closed polyline solids.

Use the Edit Object Parts icon on the Toggle toolbar that is located to the right of the screen by default to sever the connection between lines. There are edit tools that allow for Filleting and Chamfering lines. Best just to read up on how to use those.

Kind of low tech, but what I do if I really want to inspect things before printing a Layout page is to set the scale of the views and then zoom in on a corner of the page to a level that is comfortable to see the level of detail that I want then use the arrow keys to move around the page. Nothing special, but I catch things this way that get away from me otherwise. Another way to to this if you find the arrow scrolling too tedious is to use the Aerial View window and drag a window around an area that gets you the view you want. Then right click in the Aerial View window to move around the page. Both ways work for what I need, but the Aerial View method is a bit faster and less tedious.

The method I use takes a lot more effort than should be req'd, but if I really need the correct truss profile I can usually arrive at the configuration I need. Get the truss as close to what you want as you can. Then pull a back clipped cross section of the truss and then use the CAD Detail from view command. In the CAD Detail I use offset lines to represent the sides of the members and then create a closed polyline for each member. Once this is done you can copy the members and open the original cross section view and use the Paste Hold Position edit command. From here you can convert to polyline solids with the correct thickness. There are a lot of undesireable issues that arise from using this method, but you can get the correct configuration. You can group the members together by creating either an Architectural Block or even converting to a symbol. This does group the members, but plan display in combination with walls is not correct. A 2D CAD object will generally fix the display issues, but very annoying to have to deal with constant work arounds to solve what should be common issues.

When you get a chance to play with this a bit more, you might try a few things that are a little less known, but can be useful at times. First off, the 3D Box tool can be sloped using the width vector settings. To say this is not quite intuitive is being kind, but it does allow for a few options that can be difficult to produce otherwise. Next is the 3D Face tool, it can be used to extrude a face in 3D space. Create the face and then select the item and then chose the Extrude Object edit button. You can also explode solids to get 3D Face objects that can then be extruded. Another thing that can be done is to to pull a cross section camera view and create a face there and then extrude that in 3D space. Often times I have found that if you shift select the object a second time it will bring up more editing options. I have not seen this documented, but it is very helpfull since the main edit options are very limited. Something that I have found to be very useful is to use the Library molding profiles and right click and choose Place Molding Profile. Place it, F6 to find it, then select it and choose the Convert Polyline edit tool. From there you can convert it to a polyline solid and then use the Convert to Solid edit tool. Select it and now explode it. You now have faces that can be extruded. What I do is delete the unwanted faces and then select the desired face and you can extrude it in 3D space. I have used this method for things like handrails that extrude in 3D space. Admittedly this is convoluted at best, but Chief seems to insist on placing hoops to jump through to do the most common of tasks. I have pretty much given up on using Chief for 3D work until they fix the 3D interface. Edit: These are intended for general information regarding working with Chief's 3D features that may come in handy at times and not anything specific to this particular problem. Bill appears to be handeling that quite well.

Also try some of the older versions of SU for importing CA DAE files. It seems that Chief may have been working with SU 8 when developing the DAE export file format. I get a clean import into Blender, not so much into SU. As others have mentioned, if you need SU in your work flow, it may be a good idea to look into some other means of converting the files into a more useable form.

For the time being until Chief lets us convert terrain into solids this can probably be done by exporting to another app that can convert surfaces to solids and work with it there. I have been doing some things of a similar nature with terrain by importing into TurboCAD Pro Platinum and then converting to solids there. So far I have mostly been working with things like trenching and sectioning the terrain into slabs. That works fine, but I have not actually checked to see if the entire terrain comes in correctly as far as depth is concerned. It would be nice if Chief were to allow us to convert terrain and also framing items into solids. Maybe some day.

I made a post in the suggestions forum regarding this a while back. It seems there are a few other items that other users noted are not working as would be expected either. I don't recall any response from Chief at the time. I agree, this would be nice to have working. Maybe we just need to provide a little more squeaking, or maybe Chief should at least acknowledge this and let us know that it will be addressed.

Another thing that I would like to see is the ability to have structural hardware items that would be hidden to be displayed as dashed lines. I do this with other applications and then import the views into Chief. Some of the things that I have learned from going through this process is that hidden lines as dashed as typically implemented in CAD programs does not really provide the view that we are really after. When the feature is used you get all hidden lines as dashed, but usually you only want certain items to be shown as dashed and the rest to be simply hidden. Too many hidden lines as dashed is just to confusing, and is not actually the way technical drawings are presented. This can be remedied by combining views, but that agian is a big waste of time if you really only need to display certain items as dashed. What I would like to see Chief do is to add some capability to have select items displayed as dashed, and this should be incoroporated into a back clipping feature such as is being discussed regarding framing items. From what I have found, you not only want just certain items displayed as dashed. You also generally do not want to see more of them than would be req'd. Similar idea as discussed regarding trusses, but with items such as anchor bolts and SSTBs. Some of this can be done now in Chief, but not anything truely hidden by a surface, and not by a secondary back clipping plane. I find Chiefs camera and back clipping tools to be some of the best available, but lacking in some of the basic requirements for technical drawings "hidden lines as dashed".

I have been using CAD programs for quite a while now, and the stretch command and offset are very usefull tools to be sure. Since CA does not have an Offset command as such, what I do is to select the item I want to offset then choose multicopy from the edit toolbar. This will present a smaller toolbar that has an option for Mulitcopy Interval. If you select this Icon you will be presented with a dbx "dialog box" with two options. The top one allow you to set the Offset Between Copies when Dragging. The setting you need to change if needed will be highlighted. Enter the offset and then drag to produce the offset copies you need. Once you get used to using this process it is really very quick and actually works fairly well for my needs. For a long time I was reluctant to use this tool because it was not exactly like the offset tool I wanted, and I was also a bit concerned that I would mess something up if I changed the settings. Now I just change them to whatever I need at the time and go.