LightHouse_Doug

1 hour ago, TeaTime said:

Yeah. I totally get that.

 

Interesting issue I can't say I've encountered before.

I pulled your Beams away and the original Framing dimension followed it like I'd expect, but when drawing new angular dimensions I see two things happening:

1) I can still draw a dimension to the "center" of where the beam WAS - which appears to be the railing above, even though it's not displayed AND the dimension defaults are set not to even locate walls.

and

2) as long as they're away from those hidden railings, a new angular dimension does attach to the sides as expected.

Kind of a pain but you can pull those beams out, dimension them, them center-align them back into position.

 

Also, are you aware that those railings on Floor 1 that these dimensions are snapping to are uh, for lack of a better term, subterranean?

Ha, thanks for catching that. This model is quite messed up from lots of changes that I haven't had time to properly fix. Deleting that railing seemed to fix the issue. The strange thing is that railings are turned off in that layer set...

2 minutes ago, TeaTime said:

Well, for what it's worth, it looks like you already have a dimension there working how you want it to, on the Dimensions, Framing - Floor layer.

Thanks, but the problem is that I'm trying to create a new saved plan view for structural steel that doesn't have all the floor framing dimensions on it. 

Thanks, here it is. 

8-15-23COPY.zip

Yes, X12. If I edit area and copy it to a new plan, won't that plan have all different settings? The plan I have the question about is an old plan that does not have all my current defaults etc. set. I can't seem to get the file small enough to attach here, even zipped. 

Hi, 

I'm having trouble with the angular dimension tool. Trying to dimension two floor beams (see attached pic). The 90 degrees is correct, but why is it not snapping to the edge of the beam? My locate objects settings are also attached, and are set to locate the sides of framing. They are steel I beams, not that that should affect anything... 

Thanks. 

39 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Are you perhaps changing the text style for the Post's layer instead of changing the text style for the Label's layer?

Thanks, I thought that the text for posts was on the layer "Framing, Posts" but I guess it is actually on "Framing, Text." 

Hi,

I can't for the life of me figure out how to get the text size of a label for a post to change. I have tried editing the text style that it is assigned to, and it does nothing. It does not change the text size of the existing labels or new ones that are created after I make the change. 

I hope someone can see the very obvious thing that I am missing  

Thanks. 

16 hours ago, robdyck said:

We're on the same page here Doug. Those types of details are usually at a larger scale and not part of the model, so a CAD detail is quite normal.

For a section camera, I'm referring to a building section view, usually at 1/4" scale (or similar scale to the floor plan); a more general drawing, not overly detailed. I never have any issues dimensioning in those views and I don't think I've used a cad section drawing in probably around 15- 20 years. Gotta love it when you start referring to time in decades...

Hmm, maybe I need to play around more with dimension settings in live section views and try to get it to work better. In general, we're trying to move away from creating a million pages of chopped up details, and instead just create highly detailed complete sections. On projects we build, we have our computers and monitors on site and this makes it very easy to zoom in on and print whatever detail we need at the moment, while being able to see it in the context of the whole section. We are trying to also have contractors learn the program so they can access the model in this way too. 

17 hours ago, GeneDavis said:

Start building a file called CAD Details. 

 

That is all the file will contain.  You only need the CAD details when producing con docs, so your file is only open when needing to send a detail to layout.

 

The progress photo raises a q with me.  Was this started years ago as maybe a one bed tiny house with the intent of later adding on to make it a 4000-footer with all the other spaces?  Because why would there be construction progress with you still working on the plans?

Thanks for the advice Gene. I don't think we can be quite as disciplined with the design process as you suggest, but I appreciate the general strategy.

The project is in two phases- we actually built that finished part as an addition to an existing house that the client was living in, then he moved into the new addition (a "guest wing"), we tore down the old house and are now framing the main house. He wanted to be able to stay on site during the whole project and live with the finishes he chose for the guest wing before making decisions on the main house... you can imagine the fun logistics involved  And we do have crickets in the places where a roof slopes toward a wall, and on the butterfly roof, they just didn't all make it into the model.  

18 hours ago, robdyck said:

Without getting too long-winded here I'll provide some basic observations.

For almost every 'plan' view drawing, you should use a Saved Plan View that is accompanied by a coordinating Layer Set and Default Set.

For almost every Elevation and Section View, you should use a saved Cross Section camera and add any CAD work, dimensions and text to these camera views. These would be located where you currently have section callouts.

CAD Details should then be reserved for supplementary informational drawings that are not necessarily part of the 3d model and for your own sketching / planning work.

 

Hi Rob, 

This is actually a very old plan (the design started 7 years ago, believe it or not...). We now use all of the features you mention extensively- saved plan views tied to layer sets and default sets are a life saver!  This plan was just too complicated and we were too time crunched to re-draw the whole thing correctly once we started implementing those features.

However, the one place where we still find it necessary to use CAD details extensively are sections. I have tried to keep the sections tied to the saved cross section views, but in x12 I haven't been able to do the level of detailing required. If this is something that has changed in X14, I would be very happy to hear it, and would make upgrading worth the cost. 

The problem I have found with using a live cross section view is mainly that dimensioning is a huge pain (won't dimension to the right lines, laggy compared to CAD detail, especially in a complicated plan), and that there isn't the same kind of detailed control over fills. 

I  have attached a couple examples of the kind of section detailing that we just can't achieve in a live view, at least in X12. Is this kind of detailing possible in X14? We need to be able to show the actual aluminum window extrusion, fills for all the wall layers, etc. 

Throwing in a current progress pic  

6 minutes ago, robdyck said:

This is correct. A bit of investigation into this file reveals that you don't need assistance with design (the house looks great) but you could use major improvements to your workflow within Chief. Altering your working methods to suit how Chief is designed to function would drastically improve your computer performance and probably cut your time in half, conservatively speaking.

Thanks  How would you suggest better managing CAD details? For the most part, they are all needed for this plan. I could keep them in a separate plan, but that is a bit of a logistical nightmare.

12 minutes ago, KenL-sdd said:

Here you go.

Ah I understand, thanks. 

25 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

I’m just going to add something that is often overlooked with respect to performance, and that is the right pixel density of your monitor (ppi).

 

I improved the speed of my little MacBook immensely when I ditched my 27” 4K monitor for a 27” 1440p monitor. 
 

The reason is that both Windows and MacOS need to output to a monitor of either 110ppi or 220ppi, or you are going to be unnecessarily burdening your system. 
 

A 1440p 27” monitor has a ppi of 110, this is optimal for performance. 

Interesting, thanks, so your monitor had too high of a PPI? I calculated my laptop monitor to be 143 PPI.

4 minutes ago, KenL-sdd said:

I try not to send walls with such complex patterns to a cad detail. Keep them as walls.

Not sure I understand-  which CAD details are you referring to? 

1 minute ago, KenL-sdd said:

Go to cad details under the project browser.  You can delete all at one time or each one on its own.

Well, that seems to have solved it. Thank you very much Ken! It presents a whole other set of problems to have to keep CAD details in a separate plan, but it's good to know that there is at least a solution to the slowness. 

9 minutes ago, KenL-sdd said:

Doug,

I believe the issue is the plan size due to the Cad Details. Your plan file is 326 meg as you posted it. Deleting the cad details it becomes 82 meg.

Since all of your cad details are lines and pictures, you may consider having them in a separate file.

Hi Ken, thank you for catching that! How did you delete all the CAD details? The only way I can seem to delete them is one by one in the CAD block management dbx, which would take a few hours... 

Hi everyone, 

I have read a number of threads about dealing with slow plans, and have tried the following: 

1) deleted all non-chief objects (furniture+fixtures) from both the plan and my user library and emptied the trash

2) set my undo/redo setting to 4 

This may have improved the performance a tiny bit, but not much. It's still very slow and laggy in plan when doing common actions like moving walls, adding doors/windows etc  . I have uploaded the plan to google drive and linked it because it's too big to zip and upload here. Any ideas? Thanks!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_xB67MbXV3OuxVWC3B8Pm5Bb9Xpkzd8f/view?usp=sharing

EDIT: I should add that I don't think it's a computer problem - it handles most plans fine. Specs here: 

HP Omen laptop

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10750H CPU @ 2.60GHz   2.59 GH

16.0 GB (15.8 GB usable)

64-bit operating system, x64-based processor

Intel Optane+477GB SSD

7 hours ago, rgardner said:

Use a custom molding profile on your shadowboard setting.

Thanks I will play around with that. 

Any way to accomplish this kind of sloped fascia without making everything out of solids? Thanks.  

18 minutes ago, Chopsaw said:

 

If you cut a section of a natural terrain condition it is quite likely that you will have some "ground" that slopes away from the camera and some that slopes toward the camera.  If it is sloping toward the camera you should see a continuous section line.  If it is sloping away from the camera it will appear transparent since you are looking at the underside of the surface. Try it on a simple slope with a camera facing each way.

I see what you mean. I guess I don't understand why you wouldn't also be seeing the "top" of the terrain at the point closest to you, if it is sloping away, but the mind of Chief is beyond me  I will make the suggestion. Thanks. 

Thanks for the replies. That trick should work, but still annoying.

Chopsaw, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean - if I take a section perpendicular to the contours, why would I be looking at the underside of the terrain? 

When I take a backclipped section through terrain, the top of terrain line is always discontinuous. Sometimes I can get around it by increasing the depth of the section, but ideally I am taking the section through a very small area so I can get an accurate picture of the terrain at that specific point. Not a layer issue, I have turned everything on. 

Example screenshot attached. Happy to post a plan but this has happened in every plan. Maybe it is something to do with the terrain not actually being a solid object? 

Thanks. 

On 7/19/2021 at 1:46 PM, Dawn0310 said:

Hello!

I'm trying to build an elevated, split level deck off the back of an existing house. No exactly sure if I'm on the right track. The larger stairs will change. But having trouble with the platforms. Basically, this is not my wheelhouse and could use some guidance. 

 

Much appreciated!

What problem with the platforms are you having exactly? What are you trying to do? 

On 7/9/2021 at 8:55 PM, glennw said:

Might be a lot easier to do with a 3D Molding Polyline.

This will do the mitres automatically and on the whole should will be a lot easier to control.

Here is a very quick one just to give you the idea.

I have left the moulding away from the roof so you can see what is happening.

 

Or, you could try using a Frieze which would be even more automatic.

 

 

Having said that, and without going any further, I suspect that this is one of those situations where even a compound mitre will not give a clean junction between horizontal eaves and raking eaves.

Similar to this....maybe?

Thanks for the idea, Glenn, I will give that a try. 

On 7/10/2021 at 6:07 PM, Alaskan_Son said:

I would likely be modeling that lying flat.  Then it would be much easier to use moldings, extruded faces, or solids.  Then once you're done, rotate back up into position.  Very quick down and dirty example....

Sloped Soffit Test 2.plan 5.61 MB · 2 downloads

 

In the attached example, all I did was:

1. Convert the original scene to a symbol
2. Rotate the newly created object so that it was no longer at a pitch
3. Draw a molding profile for the soffit
4. Draw a molding polyline shaped to fit the flattened roof
5. Converted the molding polyline to a symbol
6. Rotated the new soffit symbol to match the original roof pitch
7. Dropped the new soffit symbol into the original plan and re-positioned as necessary. 

If this was my own project I would have taken a little longer perfecting things and would have likely used solids instead of a molding polyline, but the basics remain the same.  I would have worked on a level plane and then rotated.  It's not totally necessary when working with solids and extruded faces, but its a heck of a lot easier.

Thanks Michael. I don't have X13 so I can't open your test plan, but I will try using those steps.