RodCole

I have just started using PDF2CAD from Visual Integrity. Since I have not used it that much yet I can not give much of a run down on it, but so far I am very impressed with the output I am getting and intend to use it much more in the future. I have not used it much at all with Chief files. What I have been using it for is when I print a PDF view of structural members exported from Chief into TurboCAD Pro Platinum. Why I do this is to take advantage of the Solid modeling tools in TC and the ability to show hidden lines as dashed and also dimensions and text in a hidden line rendered view. Like I said, early stages so far, but impressed with the output. What I am working with now is TCs ability to save a 3D model as a 3D PDF file. Still working out the basics on how to make this all work, but it is really opening some doors as to what is possible with interactive 3D modeling. All I can say for sure is that PDF2CAD has not been the limiting factor so far. The only gotcha I have found is that dimensions come in with a box around them that can not be deleted without deleting the dimension itself. What I have been able to do though is to change the line style to invisible and the box goes away and the dimensions are still visible. Edit: I am using version 10, which has just been released. No experience with earlier version.

Just a quick thought, has anyone tried using the 3D Face tool and extruding the profile? As mentioned before, it would be nice to be able to see what it is you are trying to do in order to be of some assistance. This tool is a bit different than the other Solid tools, but it does have some capabilities that other Solid tools do not. In general what you do is to create the face profile and then select it, then from the edit toolbar choose the Extrude Object icon and enter the Delta perameters in the dbx. Hope that is helpfull.

I would also add that Terry Munsons new book on X6 would probably be a very good investment for getting up to speed on the basic functions of Chief as well as many of the more advanced topics as well. I don't have the X6 book yet myself, but I have purchased books from him on X4 and X5. Check out his web site for the details.

You could also put a numerical code in front of the names so that it will sort the way you want. Kind of a pain to do that though, but it does work if you really need the list sorted the way you want.

The displaced walls looks like it might be a scene from Revit, if that is what you are curious about. The rendered images look good. I would add the rendering engine from Blender into the mix as well. Cycles is free, and so is Blender, but not really any thing like a CAD program IMO.

This is one area where Chief does not really have the tools needed to do this type of work efficiently. For example, in TurboCAD Pro Platinum you can take the terrain exported from Chief as dot 3DS file and convert it to a solid and then it is relatively easy to subtract the foundation volume. One thing I have been tinkering with is trenching for utilities. I have a project now that I will be doing this on in the next week or two. Another very interesting thing that can be done with terrain is to slice it horizontally in and then extrude the profile in order to get a stepped terrain like you would get when building a cardboard model. This is also a bit tedious to do, but it can be worthwhile for the effect you get. Remember, this is not just a rough approximation of the terrain, it will slice the actual contours. For those who may be interested, I am refering to this a slice because that is what it is, but technically it is done using sectioning tools. Once this is done you can then import the modified terrain back into Chief as a Symbol if you want. I am finding that there are also many other interesting things that can be done with some good solid modeling tools that are currently available in other applications.

From what I have seen you will get the file as exported. Then you will need to explode the geomety and then select the items you want. If you want to organize the objects into meaningful layers for things like returning to Chief as a symbol or for other purposes you will need to either create the layer names you need, or import the layer names from another file. All of this to get the very same layer names that you started with in Chief. Edit: Now I get your question Lew, and yes you can, but typically you are not after just one object but an organized arrangement of objects. This means you would need to save a separte file for each of the objects you need, or more practically for a group of objects that you will probably not need to separate in another application. I am looking into this as a possiblity for importing portions of scenes into Blender. In theory it should work, but I have not had a chance to try it out yet.

One way to get at the individual geometry you are after is to explode the the geometry into it's component parts. Then use a utility such as select by and use a filter such as color. That way if you export the file with a layerset that is color coded you can select the objects and place them on the layers you want. Not saying this is the way I would want it, but it is a way to get things done currently. I think one of the issues with layers not being supported is due to the collada file type's use by many graphics programs such as Blender and others. There does not seem to be any standards among the graphics applications as far as layers are concerned. On top of that, graphics programs and CAD programs typically handel layers very differently. IMO BIM is not being afforded an opportunity to grow the way it should due to the lack of realistic standards. TurboCAD Pro Platinum Version 21 now supports the IFC file format. This format looks like it has some promise if it actually covers the things we need for interactive file exchange not just marketing hype. Architectural visualizations are poised to make some profound improvements in the not too distant future due to the advent of GPU rendering. I actually like a lot of what Chief can do with rendering and ray traces, but that is not to say that I would not like to be able to use the other applications as well.

On the edit menu select Default Settings, then Window from the list in the dbx that pops up. Once Window is selected choose the Edit button at the bottom of the dbx. This will bring up the Window Defaults dbx. Choose the General tab at the left, then look under the options section where you will see the option for Minimum Separation. Adjust this setting to your needs and you then should be able to move the windows closer together. Hope this is what you are after. If this does not do the trick, then we may need a bit more info from you.

Very interesting question Joe. I have recently started reading a book on Revit that places a great deal of attention on leveraging 3D models early in the design process for use in other applications. Even with all of the networking capabilities of Revit, they recommend the use of caution regarding having mulitple users working on the same file. Not sure yet what they do recommend. My main interest in Revit is to gain some insight into industry trends regarding BIM and particularly interoperability between programs. My focus now is on getting the Chief file to the point where I can export structural geometry to be either presented in an industry standard manner, and or returned to Chief as a symbol. What I am working on is to use CA camera callouts as the means to import drawing files that have been exported by other applications.

I was having trouble importing dae files into TurboCAD as well. It has been a while now, but if I remember correctly I had to use Sketchup 8, not the latest version, and import the file. My guess is that CA developers probably didn't do much checking beyond the then current version of SketchUp for file compatibility. I have found that Blender does a good job of importing Chief's dae files, and it has quite a few options for export as well. You might give that a try and see if it works better than going through SketchUp. You also brought up a few things regarding exporting files in general that are quite annoying as well. For me the lack of support to export layers as we have them named in Chief is a major deterent to working efficiently with other applications. One of the major advantages of BIM modeling is to leverage 3D models early in the process in order to take anvantage of the feature sets available in other applications. This is IMO a major flaw in even the most basic sense of the term interoperabilty. More like recreating the wheel. Hopefully more developers will move to provide file formats that really are compatible with other applications.

Thanks guys. It was the OP's statements that I took to mean that page 0 was the only page on which templates could be created that had me wondering. I do follow what and why you are doing what you are doing. I just use a few separate templates that meet my needs so far. If I find the need for more than the few I currently use I will give your method a try.

Ray You got it. Seems a little confusing, but that is how it appears to be set up. For every template you need a drawing sheet size to match, and yes it will not relate to the various templates you have to set it manually. I am curious why there is talk about layout page 0? Unless I am missing something it does not matter which page you choose to be a template. Also curious why the need for anno sets and layer sets on page 0. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just that inquiring minds like to know. How are the macros effected when using layer sets? In the upper right corner of the forum there is a box you click to start a new thread.

I am not quite sure that you are understanding how the layout works yet. You can set any page as a template and associate that template with the printable pages of your choice. The part that is a little hard to see right off is the way drawing sheet sizes are dealt with in X6. Even though you could have any number of Templates with borders set to various sizes of paper, that will not have any effect on the actual printed paper size until you change that setting. Go to the file menu and select Print, then drawing sheet setup and make the changes here for the actual size of the printed paper. Play with these settings and change to the various templates you would like to have so that way you can see what is happening. Sounds like you may have had some previous experience with programs that set up Paper Spaces. That does not appear to be how Chief is doing things. Don't feel bad, I went through the same thing recently, even called tech support because I thought things should work the same way that you did. Not so with Chief. Select the template you want and make the Drawing Sheet setting match the paper size you want. This will help you place your borders on the page as well. Hope this helps.

Curious if anyone from Chief would care to comment as to how the use of Cameras used as Callouts effect system resources. The reason I ask is that the CS views ability to automatically update the Layout page # is something that I would like to use whenever possible. Even floor plans sent to layout should have this capability IMO, but for now we have to trick the system when using this approach. So, the question is, what are the potential drawbacks to using camera views as callouts as far as system resources are concerned.

The width of the drop down boxes for Layer sets and Anno Set only used to update when Layout and Plan view were switched as well. Don't know if that was fixed, I kind of doubt it. I don't really know if this would be considered wrong as such, we have always had to close an app and reopen for certain settings to take effect. But, in this type of situation where views are assumed to be interactive, it just does not seem or feel right. I guess you could say it is not in keeping with the way someone would expect the aerial view to work.

Yes, I can see how that would be very good for doors and windows, but for standard Detail Views having a callout would be helpfull as well. What I really like about this is that it is not just for paper prints. Say someone in the field using a tablet clicked on the schedule field in question and opened the detail view. CA can do this now with a camera or a Layout view, don't see why this would not be feasable. That is one of the main reason that I want a circular reference. In the old days of hand drawing it was fairly common to have both page numbers on the callout. Now with the new coding requirements that is not at all practical. Say you were in the field and all you had was a tablet to work with, you can no longer hold one hand on the callout page and flip to the detail in question. From the detail view page you would have no clue where to look for the callout. Not that far fetched IMO, be here sooner than we think. That is why I am organizing things they way I am now in anticipation of this happening. From what little bit I know about SketchUP, providing automation through the use of custom macros seems to be the way things are heading. Chief needs to provide better access to the information we need so we can accomplish these sorts of things. In my case though, it may just be a lack of experience on my part. In the other thread Bill said he is using a similar concept for his detail drawings using the camera views.

I just had an idea. Don't know why I never thought of it before, but here it is. Rather than Sending to layout directly from a CAD Detail, why not create a camera view and convert to callout. The details could then be placed on the CS view and sent to layout from there. This would allow for automatic labeling, and you would only need to place the details that were actually need there. This also provides a plan callout that gives the page the detail is located on. What I am trying to organize are the various types of drawings that CA can handel. First are the live camera views. CA X6 has some impressive tools in this regard as far as Layout is concerned. But, as good as the modeling in CA is, it is also far behind the rest of the crowd where it comes to solid modeling and the related views. Then there are the generic CAD Details. I think of this as live, aux, and dead. That is CA cameras, supporting apps that can add meaningful detail without importing the geometry as such, and the obviously doornail CAD Details. Each has a valuable role to play so far as I can see. What I would like to do is have all of these various drawings under one system of drawing details that follow basic industry drawing standards. Seems to me that using the camera may be the way to go. Just an idea, have not tried it yet, but it does have some interesting benefits.

That is in a round about way what I am working on now Joe, but not related to CAD Details as your other threads tend to indicate. This has to do with camera views that are converted to callouts. In principle it seems very similar to me, but the means to accomplish them are quite different. This process is my way of organizing live camera views rather than a great many CAD Details. Not an easy proposition, but it is kind of like the hoops I had to jump through to get the Layer Filtering to work. Once I had things working the way Chief intended it works great. In essence you need generic Anno Sets for standard scale and LS or Large Scale Views, and with X6 the callouts automatically update. The CAD Detail approach does not have the same auto updating capability, and it is not a true representation of the live model. This gets back to why I want to see the Layerset when working, but not print. Takes up space and is not relevant to anyone but me. But, I do want it for what I call bookkeeping. If I understand you correctly, then, what I call generic layerset will work for any Layout Views that use those exact settings. In my way of looking at it there is no reason to copy and rename the layerset in Layout unless you need something different. That is why I want to see the layerset that is assigned to the Layout View. That way I know instantly if it is generic or unique for that view. The Layout Box Label is actually working better than I thought it might. Just needs to be set up initially and you can window around a whole page of views at a time and switch from an automatic label to specific. What I am working on now is in essence a paper trail, or circular reference relating the converted camera to callout in plan view to the label on the Layout View. This is actually working for what I want with the exception of having to edit the \ A-## after the pages have settled in. In my mind it is worth it though, but I would much rather find a way that this was automatic as well. edit: Your question regarding unchecking the copy Layersets when sending to Layout is correct. Send the generic to Layout, and then copy the layerset and add some type of identifier code. But, as you pointed out, this should only be done when req'd. I don't like the copy thing where you get Layout blah blah blah. I often don't really know if I will need a unique layerset when I am sending to layout. I would much rather have the generic for the reason you point out, and when and only when I have a real need for a unique layer set, then copy and edit the name. Then make whatever changes are needed.

Just in case someone else was interested in this topic I thought I might add a bit more info. AS KT noted above, you can use the Layout Box Label. But that is not exactly what I thought I wanted. In the mean time I tried out a few things and found that I can use the camera name as needed with the LBL set to automatic and it show as desired. There is an option to Specify the Label that allows the %layer_set% to be appended to the end of the Label. That way I can quickly see that the layerset is correct when working on the plan. This works, and it is live as well. I do have to uncheck the Specify Label for each Layout Box Label, but that is ok if there are no other options. Thanks again for the help, much appreciated. Gerry, I will have to give your idea a try later. If it works like I think it should, that would be the way to go.

What I am wanting to do is have a live text object that displays the current Layer Set of the Layout Box. I want this to be on the layout page next to the Layout Box. Yes, I would place this text item on a separate layer so I could monitor the status while working on the plan, and later turn it off for printing. I already use the Layout Box Label for what I refer to as a circular reference. That is, I place a \ S-# for the location of the callout in plan view that a particular detail view was sent from. One of those old school type of things that I can see some value in when plans are viewed electronically. As in, no sheets of paper to shuffle through. I suppose I could append the text macro to the Layout Box Label, and then delete it when the project is ready to print, but I would really rather have it as a separate text item that I can use later for quick reference. Any ideas on how I would go about setting up a macro for this purpose. The Text Leader Line would be perfect, but the %layer_set% is not in the list of available options in the layout group and I do not see a way to add a custom macro. Thanks for the help guys.

Does anyone know of a way to have the Layout Box Layer Set show on the Layout page next to the Layout Box. I do not want it to print, I just want it to show the Layer Set for informational purposes while I am working with the plan. I intend to turn it off when printing. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Right, but that begs the question how do we get there. Do we have to wait for Chief to develope all of the tools that are already available in other more specialized software now. Or, can we have both, Chief for productivity and what can be produced by other applications for more specialty items? It seems to me that you are pointing out how painful it can be waiting for Chief to get around to things. My question is, how long will it take Chief to get around to providing what is already avialable by other means. I was taking it that the OP was refering to features that are mostly done using solid modeling applications that use the ACIS engine or other proprietory methods. My point is that if we are to get the tools and features we would like to have it might be good to explore all the possiblities. File exchane formats don't appear to have changed much since the 1980's. They were of limited benefit then, and even less appropriate now. Great that we have them, but I would like to see some improvements in this area that would make Chief that much better. Can't really separate good 2D CAD tools from powerfull 3D modleing capabilities. From my experience it is not a one or the other proposition, you really need both, and the better programs out there already do have both now. What is needed is a way to seemlessly integrate these features into what Chief can and does do well now, as well as what it can provide in the future. A lot can be done now with the current tools Chief has for integrating geometry from other programs. There are also a great many limitations presently that exist due to the use of out dated technology and a lack of industry standards for future developement. I do hear those that say they do not want Chief to become one of the BIG players, with all that comes with it. It does not seem to me that it has to, we just need the ability to integrate what other apps are doing now with what Chief can do. That has been Chief's position for a long time now, just time to tweak the interoperability issues a bit.

If I am understanding the comments the OP is making, it is more of an admonition for CA to step up to the plate and either provide better tool sets, or better integration of geometry from other more specialized applications. The title of the thread is a bit misleading, if I am getting what the OP is after. I can relate to what is being said here, but I would like to point out a few things as well. For starters, I am not at all disagreeing with the OP's position, just wanted to add a little background. I personally have not come across any one program that has all of the tools I would like to have, and if it comes close on the tool sets, they typically fall short on productivity issues. CA has put a great deal of effort lately into improving productivity, which I for one am very pleased with. It seems to me that the OP is pointing out Chief's shortcommings in it's 3D solids capabilities, which I believe CA has already admitted are in need of improvement. I am all for Chief improving it's 3D solids capabilities, but I for one do not want to be completely dependant on Chief for these requirements. My own 2 cents is that I would like to see Chief improve on 3D solids capabilities, but even more I would like to see Chief focus on taking advantage of what other more specialized programs can produce. Again, I do not see this as a Chief problem as such, but rather an industry problem that does not have adequate standards to allaw software developers to move forward on interoperability.

My guess would be any program that uses solids for all of the parts that are displayed as cutaways, but that is not the only way to do this. TurboCAD has this capability, and there are a few new wrinkles in their rendering capabilites that were just released. For that matter I have seen some very impressive work done using programs such as 3D Studio Max and even Blender for that matter. Takes a lot of determination to accomplish something like this the hard way though. If you actually do know how this was produced, please let us know. Seems like a lot of folks would like to know, if it was practical to do.