stevenyhof

Right now my Polyline Solid defaults to concrete. Is there a way to make the default Brite?

Thank you!

4 hours ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

Personally I would suggest waiting a while, get X13 on your new system and see how it functions. So far the only real need to go for a very high end graphics card is if you feel a need to Ray Trace for potentially improved reflections. Your RTX 2060 is capable of doing this so you will be able to evaluate it, if you think it's great and need it to be faster then go ahead and upgrade. Just be aware that a quality rendering is not just determined by whether or not a rendering engine has the capacity to real time Ray Trace, there's a lot more to it than this one feature.

That is a great idea. And perhaps the 3080 being out of stock is a blessing. 

Side note, the other reason is that my son and I love to play Wreakfest together (he is a little better than me but I give him a run for his money), and I gave him my old computer and he is complaining! haha. So he can get some new things and move my 2060 over and then I can upgrade. But it will have to wait. Thank you

10 minutes ago, DRAWZILLA said:

good luck finding one right now.

Yes, that is what we are finding out

So I figured this will raise those who helped before. My son is looking into fixing up my old computer (noted above) and so I was thinking of putting my new RTX 2060 in that, plus he will upgrade some other things.

I am looking into the RTX 3080 now which seems by the tests I have seen to go twice as fast. With x13 around the corner and the talk of needing a fast video card, I thought I would look into it. What are your thoughts on the RTX 3080? There are faster but the price is going up fast too!

18 hours ago, Ridge_Runner said:

I think they already have that with their Home Designer products. I have used CA for many years and it has always been a "love-hate" relationship like so many other areas of life. I appreciate the work CA does to bring us new or improved features with each new upgrade. But I certainly do not envy them for the position they are in trying to control their Business Model and Business Direction and try to please all (some) of their Professional users - what a dilemma! My hat's off to them!

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I should look for a forum on here where I can share my journey. Love-hate for sure, but more amazed than anything else. Just yesterday I had to go back into ADT to complete a job that I started before I got into Chief, maybe 8 months ago, and man was I forgetting my commands and forgetting to hit enter, plus using Chief hot-keys in ADT and waiting for something to happen. I was not so friendly at first with how the tools of Chief worked, and I still say some can improve, but I am not liking having to go back to ADT over Chief.

So when I raise some issues and suggestions, there is an often unspoken "amazement" and "appreciation" for the developers and Chief as a company.

Nevertheless, on my walk this morning... Oh! and make sure to get out and vote!! .. I walked past a house where the column trim came flush with a 1.5" conc. overhang on the foundation below. Flush is not cool! So not only did the designer fail to make this clear on the print, but the builder also followed the print instead of knowing there will be a discrepancy in the final results if they are built to line up.

Anyway, I can hope that offering some suggestions now and then, and gaining the support of this community, that regardless of how we come across as negative or complaining at times, we do appreciate those working hard on the software. 

21 hours ago, rgardner said:

but it would also complicate the dbx more to the point that you would need to be a more advanced user to understand it and use it properly.

As I continue to learn, and have learned other CAD software and numerous programming languages and developed software myself, one thing becomes clear... The journey to simple "anyone can do it" solutions for CAD or any software that grows to become what the complex world demands always falls short along the way. It either splits into "New User" and "Advanced User" or dies or expands to meet the needs of it's users.

I have found many work-a-rounds to doing the job and keep things moving. Yesterday I watched Chief's video on materials - there is nothing simple about materials and many of Chief's processes until we learn them. As I learn and go back and watch videos I used to learn Chief, I now understand much better what was being conveyed. 

Bottom line is that Chief was a great price and frankly the most amazing software outside of gaming I have used. I am hoping that Chief's desire to remain a solution for the "new users" does not fight their community of advanced users who are ready for more advanced tools and technology to design their plans and kitchens without these continue roadblocks to what I see are simple options or additional tools. 

I honestly think a split for "New Users" and "Advanced" may be an option, or multiple of options as new users become more advanced.

Let the stairs work as it's designs, but in Preferences, Advanced users can check an option to show more options in the dbx.

Moved to Suggestions..

2 minutes ago, solver said:

This seems to be a suggestion, so it maybe it should be in Suggestions?

Before I put it into suggestions, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I will move it there. Thank you

I was drawing a house the other day that required a deck and stairs with a railing for the front porch. I always use a room to start with and post to beam.

As I continue to use Chief I begin to learn how things work related to how rooms can connect at a 0 edge (no overlap). I'm putting this out there because some of you veterans always find other unique ways of doing things I am not thinking about. But more importantly, for Chief to offer a few more added options to what I think is a standard practice in building.

I have watched a number of videos about how to extend a concrete porch far enough to extend past the column base trim. So I do that and recently made a slab to look like a deck and works great on the sections as well. I would go so far as to say I have at times seen someone build a porch in real life where the trim overhung the porch/deck edge because of miscalculation or unskilled carpenter (which would start with the framer). I say this because Chief in trying to be a simple tool is suggesting that all posts and columns have no base trim or that base trim exists inside the room boundary. (Yes, there is a style that keeps its trim and crown molding inside the beam boundary - I cannot remember the last time I used it nor does it fit the history of columns and beams.) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? I don't find it beautiful.

As shown in the picture, when a stairs is added there is a gap between the end of the stairs rail (where it meets the room boundary) and the railing centered on the columns. This gap exists because the edge of the porch or deck needs to contain the trim of the column - plus an inch or so. I made a stairs rail into a symbol to fill this gap, albeit not the most beautiful in short time.

So, two things. But one (1.) more important. 

1. Add an option in the stairs dbx to extend the stair railing - even to allow the relationship of the joining railings to be disconnected (no relationship) if wanted. Kind of like how we can control the stairs skirt board that allow us to extend beyond the width.
2. Add an option to extend a room floor beyond the room ceiling - allowed only where no other room is connected - like a porch. (I understand we are drawing what can be constructed and therefore in real life rooms do not overlap). Every house I draw has some form of a front porch and most have a rear porch. These spaces/rooms are typically connected to other room spaces by one, two or three walls. Which means there is always the possibility to have one to three edges extend beyond the ceiling boundary into space outside the house - allowing the column trim to rest properly inside the porch or deck edge.

Thank you,

Steve

32 minutes ago, joey_martin said:

I keep a dashed door, made from CAD lines, in my library to use for cases like this. For a "future" door...just use a doorway and drop this from the library into the opening.

That is nice if I do not want to add an opening. I typically add the opening in support walls so that the headers are installed. 
I assume you save it as a block. Thank you Joey!

4 minutes ago, rgardner said:

If you just want it as a CAD item and not to show up in 3d add it as a regular door then use CAD Detail from view, erase everything in that view around the door to make it easier to work with.  Select the components of the door change line style to dashed and whatever color you want.  Then Copy it, go back to your plan and Paste in place (ctrl+Alt+V or CMD+Alt_V for mac.)

I'll remember this for 3D. I needed it only for 2D now - Thank you Ryan!

11 minutes ago, LevisL said:

Easy peasy! Make a new layer. Call it ‘Doors, Future’ and give it a dashed line type.

Works just as I would want it! Thank you!

Thanks guys!

Is there a way to change the line style on a door to a dashed line so I can show it as a future door?

1 hour ago, rgardner said:

Just an FYI that doesn't actually get the boost to suggestions.  Recently the Suggestions department clarified the best way to get a suggestion advanced other than having something unique that they feel is a great suggestion themselves is to have good support from others but not simply an upvote or a +1 rather a +1 with a fairly detailed reason why the user is in agreement and how it would help in their circumstances.

Yes, I remember that. I actually started that post  I just want more Votes - it makes me feel important  Seriously though... Votes may not help, but more users on a thread having a conversation about the subject I think can help get their attention... maybe - Thank you!

While I am still learning Chief, I have several decades of Architectural CAD experience. I do bring up subjects now and then that are important to other users. Please click that Upvote button next to my posts and others engaging in the conversation if you think the subject is worth getting the attention of the developers. Thank you!!

12 hours ago, solver said:

 

I briefly read the above comments, and did not watch this video again, but see if it gives you an idea.

 

From this thread

 

http://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/25172-framing-display-issues/

 

 

 

 

Watch on YouTube: http://youtu.be/pOY84lS_I6M?hd=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  

Thank you Eric! I'm going to give it a try! 
I just got done putting different Plan Views together using the Reference Layers, and this, while a bit of a work around, seems to be a solution... For now. 

And then with floor surfaces turned on, it should be quite fine. Helps with the foundation space so the walls are setting on something. Now it is like walking through a house once it is framed up.

This was one way of doing this that I think will be ok. It will remove the foundation from the pony walls, but it keeps the framing which still shows more of the framing. Hopefully this will be addressed some day. 

I made the Pony walls, Walls, Daylight and turn them off with the Walls, Normal layer. The foundation wall will remain. The bearing walls are also Walls, Normal now so the framing shows us, but the footing is off - not cool, but ok. Thank you guys!

3 hours ago, joey_martin said:

Make them normal walls rather than foundation walls and see if that gives you what you want. You can still specify that they are bearing, and contain footings, but I think the problem is they are FOUNDATION walls and not NORMAL walls

 

Making them normal allows me to turn off the Wall, Normal layer to expose the framing, But Michael is right, it is with the Pony Wall. Ideally, a pony wall should maybe allow us to maintain or control the walls within the pony assembly. I want to keep the foundation and footings on the walls.

3 hours ago, SNestor said:

if you could create a "simple" view you could try using the surface delete tool, save the camera. But - it's a time consuming process on a large complex view. 

Steve may have the only answer at this time, spend the time to remove the layers and save. I like to upload a framing 3D model for the client to mess with on the online viewer. Maybe it is not so bad that the pony walls remain with its materials. The main focus is on the framing of the floors and trusses. Maybe another version will address this. I'm not sure when Pony walls were released, but with all new things there are always ramifications that need to be addressed.

3 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

The problem lies with the Pony Wall definition.  In order to get rid of the surface layers you need to turn off the wall layer.  Turning off the wall layer turns off the concrete portion.

Yes Sir! Catch 22! Thank you

2 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Sorry if my post was confusing.  I wasn't actually offering a solution.  I was just trying to explain what is happening.

I always like to know what is happening also

2 hours ago, SNestor said:

@stevenyhof - quick example of your plan...

 

Very nice - and that is with some layers turned off - ok

7 minutes ago, SNestor said:

@stevenyhof - if you could create a "simple" view you could try using the surface delete tool, save the camera. But - it's a time consuming process on a large complex view. 

 

I will do that. I was doing that at first but then figured the walls must be wrong somehow.

16 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

The problem lies with the Pony Wall definition.  In order to get rid of the surface layers you need to turn off the wall layer.  Turning off the wall layer turns off the concrete portion. 

I will mess with layers first. Would rather fix it that way than recreate my walls. But it does not take long to recreate the walls.

26 minutes ago, joey_martin said:

Make them normal walls rather than foundation walls and see if that gives you what you want. You can still specify that they are bearing, and contain footings, but I think the problem is they are FOUNDATION walls and not NORMAL walls

 

Ah! I will do that. Was wondering about that.