kwhitt

I can't image there'd be any more hit to the performance than the manual method you describe. 

Can someone tell me what the difference is here?  Are there pros/cons to each?  I am creating a light rail molding that will require a face profile and a return allowing the installer to attach to the bottom of wall cabinets (2 piece molding).  It appears I can add to Library either way, but in this instance which is the preferred method?  Technically it is a stacked molding.  Thanks!

31 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Its calculated in Object space so you should only need 2 symbols.  

Thanks Michael!

That's inconvenient.  Mark - when you make the axis change, does CA calculate that in object space in relation to the door panel or is it a world coordinate setting?  I ask as I won't bother if I have to have different symbols for each leg (run) of my kitchen.

19 minutes ago, MarkMc said:

Specify the hardware for the offending door in the face configuration.

It's not your door symbol it's the hardware symbol causing the problem. When you get around to your own custom hardware be sure to test out the symbol origins, in particular on appliance handles. 

Thanks Mark.  I didn't realize you could even specify hardware from the face config.  That's handy.  I'm running into another problem where the hardware is not resting on the recessed panel inside the drawer.  Any workarounds for this? 

I searched the forum and was unable to come up with a solution for this.  The hardware on a full height cabinet is not behaving correctly.  I have two doors, one over the other using the CA Core tubular pulls.  I am using a 3.5" offset from the edge of the door.  The top door places as expected, however, I am unable to get the bottom door's pull to locate that same 3.5" from the top edge of the door.  The door/drawer fronts are ones that I created myself if that makes any difference.

On 9/12/2019 at 7:48 AM, MarkMc said:

I create all my symbols in Chief, only use SU to break up found SU symbols. To make that out of faces first make a psolid, size to suit, convert to solid, then to faces. Faces allows you to have different grain directions.

I make ALL my own door symbols so have no idea if any have shorter horizontal rails though I'd guess that there may be some. There should be a post somewhere I made in Tips? or Symbols on how I make door symbols that includes some parts to get started.

Basically I start with a wall cabinet, 3/4" deep, framed construction. Set rails and stiles to desired width, back and sides as opening, side panel inset for the panel.

Clever.  I think I'm getting the hang of it.  Thanks again!  Kevin

Mark - thanks again.  You've given me plenty to work on this weekend!  I really appreciate all the help...  Kevin

Mark - thanks again for the explanation and the .plan file.  It has been very helpful.  I spent some time studying the plan this morning.  So, in order to use this method, I need to add your door symbol to my library (or create my own) when building new cabinets?  I'll need a custom symbol for each depth I want to represent?

Where did you create the door symbol?  Within, CA or SketchUp?  I ask as it has three different materials assigned, so I'm guessing it was built out of faces in SketchUp?  Or can this be done in CA?  My apologies for all the questions, but I'd really like to start using this method.

Another thing I can't seem to figure out - why doesn't CA have a top drawer front with reduced height rails?  I've looked through the core catalogs and other vendors and I can't seem to find one.  This isn't so needed with Shaker style fronts, but quite necessary with raised panel.  We usually reduce the rails on smaller drawers to 1.5" in lieu of 2.25" to give more room for hardware.

Mark - and you're right, I couldn't get away from 20/20 quick enough although other designers around here use it.  I ended up using FormZ modeling everything from scratch and exporting elevations to AutoCAD for layout.  I was hoping CA would be a more automated solution.  Looks like it can be with some workarounds.

Mark and Mick - thanks for the workarounds.  I think these are both clever ways to go about this.  I understand Mick's solution after seeing the .plan file, but I don't follow you Mark when you say, "Then use side panel inset to place separations in the back so the openings are correct".  Are you saying configure the back of the cabinet to get my stretchers and partitions spaced as I want, thereby, omitting the back completely?  Sorry, I just don't follow.  Kevin

9 hours ago, Kbird1 said:

Basically CA doesn't care about the Door or Drawer Size , the Cabinet Module in CA is based around the (Parametric) Cabinet Boxes instead and it then auto applies the reveal you set to the Doors and Drawers sides and in between those items, when they are shown in Elevations etc, unfortunately as Mark pointed out that Reveal is the same on all sides ie under the countertop and between items gaps will be 1/16th ( or other set measurement ) same as the sides not 1/8th. The Reveal is also applied to the bottom of the Door.

 

So basically you would just set the "Boxes" up like your LH Drawing and the "Shop" will know the real sizes.......CA does not do Parts lists or Cutlists etc for Cabinets, though many would like that, they are forced to use other software for  "Shop Drawings".

 

CA does do things "differently" in many regards to other Programs eg ACAD , that is one thing you will need to "let go"  or you will feel like you are constantly battling CA.

 

M.

Mick - I appreciate your input.  All I am really looking for is an accurate elevation for smaller jobs.  I usually list the door/drawer sizes for the shop as I'm a stickler for having all door/drawer fronts in alignment.  I have noticed there are quite a few things I need to "let go" of as pertains to CA.  You aren't the first to tell me that.

10 hours ago, MarkMc said:

Chief doesn't do variable overlay which is what you are asking for-it only does reveals. So sanely working with it you can have either accurate reveals OR accurate boxes. The only way to get both is hacking the cabinet per the attached. I no longer bother with this and settle for accurate boxes which is what is needed for production. In the truly rare case (like once every ten years) that a client gets antsy about reveals I'll then show that for them with inaccurate boxes-not with the attached hack. Want both- pay for it, use something different, see someone else....

cabinet reveal and box match.plan

Mark - thank you very much for the file.  It helped me to understand what Chief is doing with all the components in layout.  Still seems strange to me that is was programmed this way, but at least I now know how to get the door/drawer fronts the correct size.  

12 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Chief is not the best tool to use for part sizing.  

I would suggest KCD Software for your use.  It's pretty inexpensive on a monthly or yearly basis.

Joe - thanks for the reply.  I checked out the KCD software.  Looks like they thought of everything.  Not too sure about their touchscreen design function as it looks cumbersome. Our company already has ProKitchen and 20/20 - both of which I can't stand to use.  I was hoping I could create all my visualizations in CA with very little importing from other apps.

We have a custom cabinet shop and I was hoping to use CA generated cabinet elevations for shop use on smaller jobs instead of AutoCAD.

The first attachment (image left side) shows our standard full-overlay frameless box construction w/ 3/4" sides, top, bottom, and back.  We use a 4-1/2" high toekick which creates a 30" high carcass for our typical 34-1/2" high base cabinet.  The image on the right side (same first attachment) shows the reveals we use for our door/drawer fronts on our typical base cabinet.  The bottom door is always flush with the cabinet box and there is an 1/8" reveal between the door and the drawer.  Above the drawer there is another 1/8" reveal under the countertop.  This describes our typical vertical layout (to use CA terms).  As for horizontal layout, all door and drawer fronts are held back 1/16" from the cabinet box at the sides, so when adjacent cabinets are placed, we maintain this 1/8" reveal everywhere.

I am having a difficult time achieving this layout in CA using the custom layout tools under the Front/Sides/Back panel.  As far as I can figure, they are combining the door/drawer fronts with the specs of the cabinet box and adding an automatic overlay of the fronts beyond the stretchers and cabinet box parts while subtracting the full-overlay reveal (1/16" in this case).  When selecting the fronts (whether door or drawer) you are actually selecting the box opening.  Correct?  If so, it seems backwards to me.

How is it possible for me to meet the specifications shown in the first attachment?  It would be nice to set the overall width and height of the door/drawer fronts independently of the cabinet box and have the box parts adjust automatically.  This is how it is done in any other cabinet design software I have used.  I have no idea how much the fronts are overlaying these openings.  Can someone clarify that Chief is asking for input on the box opening and if so, how is Chief calculating the door/drawer overhangs?  I have sent cabinet elevations to CAD layout to measure the reveals and am having mixed results.  Thanks!

1 hour ago, Kbird1 said:

 

You've probably found one of those little quirks , and there are a few with Stairs , that they are slowly improving year by year. 

 

It's one of those small things that needs to be reported though or they never get fixed unfortunately, so please send TS the Plan file for review.

 

PS  the KB Articles all have a PDF download too , under Tools on the right if you want to save a Copy locally.

 

M.

  Thanks Mick.  Will do...

32 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

 

Don't forget to check the KB  (KnowledgeBase) or FAQ for a lot of your Questions , it is a very handy reference with short Tutorials for common issues...

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-03107/creating-a-stair-rake-wall.html

Thanks Mick.  I read that article twice.  It didn't help with the quirky tip on the edge of the wall.  I ended up pulling the wall back to get the proper slope.  Although, not like the as-built, it will have to do.

Thanks Eric.  You are correct - they were drawn in separate views.  

I'm trying to put a hole in a polyline solid and I keep getting the error msg:  "No polyline of the same type found to contain this hole...".  What am I doing wrong?  I have also tried a boolean subtraction and that doesn't work either.

Baker_As-Built_09-10-19.plan

Thanks!

56 minutes ago, MarkMc said:

Check reference manual starting at page 758, railing follows stairs. 

Thanks.  The wall is not so easy.  I need the bottom of the wall to continue at the same angle - not turn parallel to the floor at the tip.  Also, the "railing" wall on the second flight of stairs does nothing with "follow stairs" checked.  If I pull the wall back flush with the bottom riser, I am able to achieve the correct look, however, the wall is not supposed to be flush with the 1st riser.  Any ideas?

I need to slope the front only of this wall in the direction of the arrow.  I've seen videos online where it can be done, but in this instance I do not get a grab handle.  Could that be since it is defined as a railing wall?  If anyone has an idea of how to do this, please let me know.  I will be adding stair railing on top to match the photo (2nd attachment).  Thanks.

Yes, it didn't take very long with a polyline solid.  I appreciate the input.

Thanks for the suggestions.  Alchemyjim - I tried placing an invisible wall to "bridge" the two brick columns.  When I did this, the end caps of the brick walls disappeared.

That said, my siding had a tendency to wrap over the slab, so I had to manually pull it up to expose the slab.  I hope it sticks.