lookingforchange

Steve, Real time Ray Tracing is only supported under windows so not even a old Mac Supports real time Ray tracing! Unless Chief set out to completely restrict the new release from working on apple silicon I would imagine that it would work just the same as it does on a intel Mac only it is being translated/emulated via Rosetta 2. From what I hear a lot of programs work better on the M1 being translated by Rosetta 2 then they ran natively on the intel Mac. However, the blog says chief does not like to run emulated or virtualized so rosetta 2 translating x86 code to Arm code could be problematic. The M1 chip is super powerful (beats 9900k at since core) many big developers are making their programs/apps into universal apps so they work on intel and M1 Macs. The M1's integrated GPU is about the same power as an RX560 roughly 2.6 TFLOP and EGPU is not an option. According to apple it is really easy to make your intel Mac only software into a universal application that will run on both Intel and Apple Silicon. According to my buddy that works for Apple they did a lot of work to make the transition for developers as painless as possible. However, I am not a software developer so I can not confirm the validity of that. Fun Fact: All CPU these days are RISC on the back end, programs feed the CPU CISC data and the CPU decodes the data to RISC.

The difficulty is going depend on what software was used to write your Mac applications. If you used Xcode should be fairly simple. Apple is actually pushing for universal binaries rather than just M1. The longer developers use universal the longer the old Intel-based systems can continue to be used thus Apple does not have to take the heat for proposed obsolescence. A universal binary is native to both intel and M1 though the developer can continue to develop native for intel or just native for M1. However, Apple is pushing for Universal binaries. I would suggest to anyone doing any kind of cad that they need the 16gb version even if it is a Universal binary.

Hello Steve, Here is a sample room however, I think; solver has actually explicitly responded with the little video that he made. After fiddling around I realized that Chief does not use 3D solid models, it uses 3D edges/surfaces. So the interior ceiling is one line and so is the exterior roof surface but those two objects do not produce a line in the attic. The roof and the ceiling are not actually boxed as they are only represented by the interior surface and the exterior surface, not the two surfaces that would be inside the attic. Rightly so it does not exist in the real world when you build a house either you would have studs and between those studs would not be a line. Part of the problem is my lingo might be a bit different than your lingo what I call framing someone who uses Chief literally calls framing ie studs, beams, trusses, etc., and when I say model line it is not understood because that is not a term Chief people use. However, if you want to give it a go what I want is for my section in chief without loading all the wood framing to look like: The closest I got was by turning off the ceiling, and using a soffit as the ceiling; I am totally fine with using a soffit for a ceiling unless you got a better solution. Keep in mind that if you cut parallel to the direction of the roof rafters and ceiling joists the lines are correct. My best guess is the programming assumes because you are looking at the side of the rafter/joists that the second line would be visible. Sample Room.plan

It represents the bottom of the Roof Rafters, the reality is that line does not truly exist in an attic unless you put sheeting on the underside of the rafters or drywall or something. Just like the line on the top of the ceiling does not really exist in the attic unless you have a subfloor sitting on the joists. However, from a drafting standpoint, you would box the framing like that most other software I have used/tried show it as such. Chief has chosen to not show it boxed out like that and it is not the end of the world now that I know it is displaying as it was intended. Here is how a Revit section looks without actually putting the framing in:

My mistake I should have said the Cheif tutorials videos. However, you are right in your first comment that it was a floor with the ceiling turned off. There are a lot of differences between Chief then in Revit and the way the two different software display stuff. When I cut a section I expect to see the top line of the roof and the inside line also so it creates a box I also expect to see a top and bottom line of the ceiling. Similarly, as it shows here: I am realizing the reason I see this here in this way is I am actually seeing the wall rather than looking at the roof. I am understanding now that the top ceiling line and the bottom rafter line are just not there in chief when cutting the other direction because the framing will dictate that as in the real world those lines would not exist unless you had a plywood floor in your attic. It shows up in the other direction section because you are looking at it from the side rather than cutting it. As I see it I can fix this in a few ways one would be to turn ceilings off on the second floor and use a Pline solid as a ceiling, Try to manipulate heights and put the roof on a floor instead of in the attic, or simply turn it into a cad detail and manually draft those parts the way I want to see them. Thank you for taking the time to prepare that little lesson on how the software functions it helped me to understand some limitations and create an alternative method at least for myself. Below is what I want it to look like and I did this by following your first answer in that it was another floor without a ceiling then manipulating heights. I think the least problematic solution will be to manually draw lines at the end.

It shows a ceiling and a roof here is the full section from the video: I want roof rafters and the ceiling to show up and they do not in my section that cuts parallel to the direction of the ridge. Your section however shows the roof framing without the ceiling. The section I posted shows now ceiling and no roof rafters in one cut but does in the other. I have the flat ceiling box checked. In my settings but it looks like this: If I cut the perpendicular direction everything is fine. :-/

Not sure what else to call them but model lines would be something the model would display for you. My section cutting the same way as the ridge does not show ceiling or roof framing like in the video I watched on your site. Here is the image:

I have looked at a few of the section videos and tried to locate the information to rectify the problem. I cruised around click on different layers in the defaults etc. I am sure if I click enough stuff I will eventually figure it out but instead of frustrating myself for hours on end, I decided to bring it here. I know that the section can display the way I would like because one of the videos I previewed about sections displayed the section the way I would like. The section on the left is the one that is wrong to me as it does not show the Roof, or ceiling model lines. The section on the right does show the ceiling and roof model lines. I am sure it is something simple like clicking or unclicking a box

Sorry for the miss understanding I was not referring to your beam as stucco, only that a beam in a Very High Fire hazard zone would have to be stuccoed and that looks awful. Maybe I should have been more direct with my response.

I am new so I am no expert but I found two ways while I was practicing using the software. Solution 1: Click the beam and drag it up into the framing and then drag the posts up to meet the bottom of the framing Solution 2: Turn off the beam in the deck dbx and manually draw the beam, posts, and footings back manually with their respective tools. Maybe there is a more automated way to do it and an expert can help you out but if you are in a rush this could get you by in the meantime. I do a lot of projects in VHFHZ so open decks are not normally permitted and stucco beams are awful looking.

In my experience, you need to tape and mud all the seams to get final, the paint is optional. However, the best person to ask is the inspector generally you can request them to come out and walk to the property and tell you what you need to finish to get the final. The code is a good guide but the inspector is truly the final word.

At a price point of less than $500 is going to be very difficult right now because GPU prices are super inflated if there is even availability. I have even heard of people resorting to buying a cheap prebuilt system with a high-end GPU just to secure the card at a reasonable price and selling off the rest of the hardware. If you want to take full advantage of the next release of Chief you will need an RTX card.

Some stuff that I read suggests more like the G4 Cube in size however sticking with the form of the 2019 Mac Pro and reducing the PCI-E expandability. I think the reason that the M1 only allows for the onboard GPU is so they can work out the issues with the new chip without outside factors like an AMD GPU.

I know you love your Mac Pro Trashcan I loved mine also (12 Core Xeon, Dual D700, 64 gigs memory). However, after years and years of neglect from Apple, it was retired to the music studio where GPU is not important and I built a Hackintosh. The hardware came in at just under $1,500 for I7 8700k 8core, Vega 64, 64 gigs memory, x2 1TB m.2 drives later upgraded to I9 9900k and I promise that it kicks the pants off the 2013 mac Pro and even benches higher than 2019 base Mac Pro. The new M1 is a beast from a CPU perspective, it is only slightly underpowered when it comes to the GPU (2.6 Tflops) slightly more than the D500 has. The M1 is already more powerful than most other offerings from apple. If you bought the base 2019 Mac Pro with an RX580 in it, the new Mac Mini M1 would give it a run for its money. It is a shame that Apple chose to sideline AMD and not compile and activate the drivers on the M1 side. I know it is hard to stomach that a $1000 laptop can be as powerful as $6000 mac pro but apple really pulled out all the stops with the M1 chip. Side Note: AMD did a press release recently that said we are committed to working with Apple, and M1 is not the end of our relationship. I am hoping that Apple replaces their GPU with a Navi GPU in whatever the next iteration of the M chip.

In all fairness, I have 17 years of Revit experience I could pretty much build anything you could imagine in Revit so I had a really strong base. Then with all the videos courses offered by Cheif helped me to understand how things worked. The Crash course Bootcamp flattened the curve significantly the rest was just using the program. The chimney cap with vent was just a standard drop-in from the library. This was totally the answer thank you, like you said a little tricky as they give you a handle for each layer once I grabbed the outer handle success! I guess I should have asked for help hours ago instead of getting frustrated.

Hello Everyone, I am super new to Chief only been using it for about 2 weeks, and I keep trying to remind myself that when I started using Revit 17 years ago I was not a master. In my two weeks, I have vastly increased my skill set with the software learning the tools and how the software functions. Most of the time an answer has been fairly easy to find and in this case, also I think I found the answer but I am not sure I like it. Problem: I have two walls one stucco and one is siding on the first floor above the siding I also have siding on the second floor. Where the two walls join on the first floor the stucco does not end where I want it to and leaves me with a section of the wall that is stucco that I would like to be siding. I think the problem stems from an interior wall being right at the location where I want the split to take place. This interior wall is actually a stacking wall with the front wall on the second floor. Solution 1 I placed a corner trim hoping for the easy solution by covering it up but unless I make the trim larger than it should be that's not going to work. Solution 2 I remembered back when I watched the course on the Bachelor view project on the stepped wall a polyline solid was used so I tried that but it still leaves a line. I am really trying hard to use this software and step away from Revit after 17 years and in turn allowing myself to step away from windows as well. However, simple things like the ability to control where walls segment start and stop are killing my production. I am really enjoying certain parts of this software but some things just seem like a dirty hack. Any help would be appreciated. Thank You Scott