PMMully

There will be a lot of new buttons :-). I learn something almost every day. I do suggest you hire one of the great trainers on this forum. Time is money, frustration is pain. The product is very full featured, and you have to know when to quit and do it manually. But you also have to know when you are doing it wrong, and the downstream impacts to doing it, or not doing it,... the "chief way". It is pretty cool though, my clients love what they see.

My 3070 is noticeable. I have an ibuyPower and it has 4 fans in it. you nailed it :-). This is my first foray into this type of power. The kids are all used to it with the gaming setups.

I just installed X13, and I noticed that if you have a PBR screen open, the GPU works overtime, and hence the fans work to clear the heat while it is active. Its not like a CPU raytrace where when you stop it it chills out. Mean-time-between-failure comes to mind, everything can wear out.

Check. I installed X13 this AM. I already posted my first X13 question in different thread.

Great commitment to resolution. Nice job everyone!

I must say, the PBR stuff is pretty impressive. In this video below, if you look at about 10:47 into it, after the adjustments, the rendering looks pretty amazing, in 30 seconds with a medium card. https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/10251/real-time-ray-tracing-setup-optimization.html?playlist=139 I imagine mastering settings will take quite a bit of time, just like being a photographer, how you set the camera, lights, etc. Same with the standard, not as many settings, but it would be good to know if any of them relate to each other between rendering mechanisms? For example, setting sunlight options. But my core question here is CPU Based RT on the icon on the top, versus PBR. When to use each, pros/cons? Would we ever go back to the CPU method? Or is it just there if you do not have PBR available via the card? If you look at this video, it seems to talk about standard RT, and the results are also impressive, but the results are different between X12 and X13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VgAoVEJlSA

The new rendering engine, and reason for change, is explained very well in the video below. You will see at about 7:29 into the video, differences like you show between X12/X13. This is also clear in interior and exterior scenes. While this is all about Raytrace, I suspect the standard 3D will follow. The fact that the rendering is now platform specific, and leverages GPUs (and most likely drivers under the covers that are card specific), I think you can just expect some difference. This may show up between the Apple/Windows, and even between AMD/Nvidia. the mobile app guys have similar issues between iOS and Android. I imagine CA is leveraging the Nvidia Lray/DirectX12 Raytracing API. Raytracing is the key in the gaming industry. The materials and lighting will be even more important in X13. I suspect that there are lighting and material issues that will plague us for a bit. It is just the whole way these engines (card/software) work. Here is a link to the Nvida site to learn more: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-visualization/solutions/rendering/ If you really want to dive in, look at the DirectX/Nvidia Lray stuff for Windows (I am sure a different link for Apple): https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/introduction-nvidia-rtx-directx-ray-tracing/ Here is the CA video that shows the same sort of differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VgAoVEJlSA These are just pictures. Different film speeds gave different results in the old days, same with the digital camera picture capture, some better than others. I suspect there will be some interesting tweaks coming out in the next year.

@Dermot can you guys access a share drive that one might setup versus FTP?

I am just now getting ready to migrate to x13. Given I was new on X12, and now really moving along pretty well, this sorta spooks me. Would it be possible to reproduce it in a "sanitized plan" (no client data) so we/I could play with it and make sure I get all set? It would be great to see if this could be shown just using the out of the box plan template as a baseline. I would really like to know the details before I jump. @Kbird1its hard to tell from the example from a resolution perspective, but the one on the left looks like it is picking up on a line that may be actually 1/16 thicker? That is what it looks like on my monitor. It looks like the 2-10 1/2 is picking up on the inside (right) of that line and the other on the outside (left)? Would be interesting to see if this happens on a fresh X13 as well, or a migration issue. I would do it myself, but I am not sure I am clear enough on all the setting details that could cause this.

At first I thought it would be cute to add the approval codes as a custom field to the windows and doors. But I would advise against that. If the builder needs to swap out due to supply that technically is a plan revision that needs to be submitted. However, I did add the wind +/- as custom fields, that seems to work pretty well in some cases.

The more I learn is it will be problematic given one of the core strengths of 2020 appears to be fast quoting. So keeping pricing for take offs may be ugly. DwG may be ok, but have to.trace it all or hope the conversion is solid. I think this is a non starter for me.

Clarifucation: Have someone who wants to work with me but also wants to share drawings between there current 2020 kitchen design package. There whole staff uses 2020 but they recognize more complex remodels would be better done in chief due to all the wall, electrical etc required for jobs that will be permitted. It is apparently pretty popular in the lower end markets. The ask to me was if I could import or export drawings between that software and and CA. I have not found any info yet but since my original post. Here is the link to that package if interested: https://www.2020spaces.com/2020products/2020designlive/

Wow, great comments, love the humor!

I have now built a plan view that I call "Internal Working Set" that has the default set & dimensions set correctly. So far it seems I can switch between the two allowing for the measurements the interior dimensions to alternate based on the work I am doing on a single plan. I have learned to not use the kitchen/bath plan view unless it is strictly that in a plan, which I do about 30% of my time. @Gawdzirayou got that right, as I am moving in a direction to support multiple builders and moving away from field work eventually, I need to set up for "lowest common denominator" of field worker. In all new construction its simple, in the mixed mode not so much. I can see the need for a Note to call that out. In my layout border I have the VIF so its on every page. I have one PE that says I put too much detail in, "our plans are for GCs, not Ikea buyers". I have another that likes the detail core correct. I pick between the four of them now depending on the job complexity and customer. It is mostly the old school hand draw guys that are the the former. Most cad guys like the detail. But in all cases, too much detail can be detrimental.

I am just completing a plan on an as-built 70's two story house for a kitchen remodel and two first floor additions with roof modifications. There was an existing print but there were at least two undocumented additions/modifications from the original blueprint. Typical for the era and area. I am looking for best practices on handling a scenario like this. What I learned from this from a CA perspective is: Forget any existing blueprints unless the customer agrees to it being the bible. Nice for a visual reference, but so many things could be off. Leading with the existing blueprint is trouble. Normal CAD work normally defines the external reference points (i.e. Datums) as the constraints, and you work from the outside to the inside. This led to trouble for me in several areas, especially using the blueprint as the initial reference point. I now believe the best practise to be the opposite and the interior wall layout is the holy grail. Using walls type baselines can create surprises unless you check every wall. The definition can affect your core measurements. There can be cases where some walls are shimmed, built-up, or what to make things match up on modifications. Best to measure all interior walls dimensions as best you can to set the baseline wall type options. Standard measure practice, find the longest dimensions to eliminate accumulative error using a reference wall. These become the critical measurements. Set any dimension defaults for internal measurements to the surface. Set any dimension defaults for structural/truss work to the main layer. Mixing an interior kitchen mod with structural changes in other areas on one plan requires different dimensioning defaults (i.e. 5 and 6) I could see how creating a new plan view could assist in this mixture, etc. Also, set the snap settings very tight? Any experiences that might tighten this up?

Well, I did the same thing, edited the room floor structure and it shows up just fine. So your post was extremely helpful. I should have noted in my original post that this whole plan is on a monolithic slab. I do not think I have done a plan this way before (putting a laundry room in a pre-existing garage addition). But it seems based on both of our experience here, if you choose this route, adding floor structure detail is the key. I suppose the other method is to make it a standard room, and drop the floor, probably more advantageous now that I think about it. In the older houses in FL, it is very common to have the laundry in the garage. That is even still done today in some lower ended starter homes in some areas. These "laundry areas" often get closed in at some point. Another common variant is the garage was originally a carport, with an enclosed laundry room, but still with a dropped floor. I just need to develop the best practice to address this due to its commonality in the area.

It was not on in plan view, so I turned it on. In the camera view layer set it was already on. It is on in the camera view, and the rest of the interior rooms flooring is showing correctly. If I toggle the layer the interior flooring disappears as expected. But in this one room definition of garage type, the material is set to white tile, it does not render.

Doing a plan with lots of modifications to an existing structure. I modeled a pre-existing existing edition as a garage room type to get the auto-dropdown of the floor. A portion of that preexisting addition was converted to a laundry room with the floor drop from the main house. I went in and changed the flooring in that room to a white tile but it is not showing up in the 3D views. It captures it in the materials section of the plan just fine. I looked in the docs and did not see anything jump out at me regarding garages. Should I have created this a just another interior room and drop the floor?

RIP

Update: I have solved this by searching around this forum and finding a member post about drawing tightly connected landings together. It is all perfect now. It was yet another great lesson in when to stop trying to make it work one way and trying another.

Here is the other plan file, it was causing an error for some reason. stairgames.plan

Attached is a plan that shows some odd behavior. Here is the situation: Attached Stairgames2.plan/pdf On the left is a generated staircase with a winder calculated by CA, and a generated stairwell. All is well. On the right, this is an existing staircase I am trying to model that was built in the 60's. It has 11 treads on the straight section, and 3 in the winder, manually set by me. The winder looks fine in plan view, but if you look at the winder in 3D, one can see the incorrect generation of the winder. I did not generate a stairwell here to focus on this one aspect. No matter what I have tried, I can not seem to get this to generate correctly for this real-life situation. Suggestions on how to get around this other than with than all CAD work? Attached Stairgames.plan/pdf On the left is the same generated staircase with a winder calculated by CA as above. But notice the hole in the stairwell, this is only happening when I generate the right stairwell. If I removed this generated stairwell on the right staircase, it all goes back to normal. On the right stairwell, all things look to be off kilter. Aside from the incorrect winder molding, when I generate the stairwell it appears to ignore the winder being attached to the wall, and generates railing, etc. The first floor view has a odd wall segment, the second floor view seems to have generated a stairwell that is in the attic. In the plan view, it shows a stairwell on floor 2, and not the attic (the reference display shows the stairwell from the attic), so that is normal. I really have no idea what is happening here, but I am sure it is probably a setting I am missing. I imagine I am just overdriving the system with this "odd tread configuration? The workarounds might be: Make your own stairwell versus having one generated Use cad/polyline solids to "fix" the odd generation in 3D Listen to this forum to point out something I have missed :-) stairgames.pdf stairgames2.pdf stairgames2.plan

@Dermotthank you for the detailed explanation, it helps a great deal. I will do as suggested. But, since we went this deep, under what conditions would it be correct to have Connect Island Rooms" turned off? Moving along I did your suggestion of "or here" earlier today, and it indeed went away. :-)

That was it, uncheck "connect the island" and it went away.

OK, so this is a 60's house here in FL. The way the plan is drawn is the way it is actually built today. They either knocked out the block for the frame-wall addition, or there was a massive slider, or whatever, but the frame wall with opening is correct. The current owner has the reversed prints and it shows a SGD. It is interesting because there is a second story along that wall line. The owner is a structural engineer so he is investigating the setup. We can only assume they built a girder truss setup in. After I sent it in, I did extend the block wall and put a door opening in there but it had no effect. @glennw I will try your suggestions. Thanks all!