HumbleChief

Was playing this morning and Chief X8 also does not behave like the version Dan was using (X2 - didn't realize the version for the video was so old) in another way. At 4:50 Dan shows all the new rooms reverting back to default and only one room remaining with the proper settings. X8 no longer behaves this way. All new rooms are set to the height set in the original room. No need to match properties any longer. MUCH needed and welcomed change. Something I was unaware of through the many iterations of Chief over the years. Another small note - even though the stem wall height WILL now drive the concrete floor up when set to '0' (unlike in Dan's old video) if the ceiling height (which is also '0' now) is simply set back to its default the slab/floor will drive the footing back down, tucked neatly under the slab without doing any (simple) calculation to get the slab/footing in the proper location.

Yeah I might revert back to this method as using the Layout Labels seems to have its own set of limitations.

Thanks. The biggest and only problem is when I use the plan view name %view.name% to label i.e. an elevation and then have to turn off or suppress the Layout Box Label when it gets to the Layout as it then becomes redundant. Very easy to do but I am constantly using a combination of the 2 methods and it's just a bit awkward.

Concur. As EXCELLENT as all the CA videos are this seems to be a really big puzzle piece missing to get people up and running with the least amount of confusion.

That's a great option and I go back and forth between this and Layout Box Labels.

Curious about others' uses of Layout Box Labels. I'm using them more and more but sometimes find them clunky and only able to use one text style for everything can be a bit limiting. What about you? Do you use them? Or label separately using a different method?

Couldn't agree more, but finding out how Chief "is meant to be used" can be a very arduous counter-intuitive adventure into uncharted and unexpected paradigms of software programming. Once you understand how Chief works, it works great, but that understanding can be very difficult to grasp for many people and embraces no standards or expected ways of working with design software or even common building practices and norms.. BTW I also love Chief and am beginning to really learn its ways and features. Well worth the steep (for me) learning curve.

+1 but don't be afraid to work for free - once - to get the experience and gather contacts.

Decide by trying something - anything to get the job. If it's your only job then you better get your pricing just right but if it's the first among hundreds of future jobs who cares? Get your first pricing wrong and you'll soon learn where the sweet spot is for your market.

My advice - Jump in with both feet. Buy a copy of Chief (or rent to own) and get a job - literally any job, knowing you will find a way to get it done. When you run into a problem, know you will be able to figure it out. I started out by copying other plans because I had absolutely no idea how to create a set of construction drawings. If I can do it, with all your experience, you can do it as well. Again just know you'll find a way - and you will. But how will you cost your first job? Wrong of course, that's why it's your first job. How will you run your new design business? Badly at first, but you'll get it figured out. If it truly is a passion of yours, start today. You will not regret it.

Yeah thanks Michael, Those details are probably why I give up each time I try. SIGH...

Old, old, topic and it seems I've just gotten used to a bunch of unused and unwanted Layers from years of creating them and thought I might clean up my Layer mess but can't delete unused Layers that I have created. Is there a trick or are we stuck with those unused Layers forever? These are not Chief system layers, but custom layers I've created and are no longer needed nor 'used' in any plan views either.

...would that be a good check box addition to the he!! box - oh wait - I mean the structure dbx - "snap to underside of current slab" ??

That was a good catch Richard. Didn't know Chief changed this in X8.

and conversely it could be SO much better as well.

Good post, your example is very clear.

Not true at all - I can be convinced very easily but I need to first understand the logic and it simply escapes me at times. I can now see that changing the ceiling height of a basement should change the floor height of the basement and not 0,0 of the floor height above but why isn't that explained clearly - anywhere? Why do you not change the floor height of the basement floor instead of changing the ceiling height in order to to change the floor height? Let me repeat, you change the ceiling height in order to change the floor height - that's just crazy on its face. Why isn't there a clear tutorial on how this structure dbx works and why? I am not convinced it is that horrible but I am convinced it is horribly implemented and confusingly presented.

I personally really like these discussions. I learn a bunch. Why do those who don't like these types of discussion feel obligated to comment? Seems it takes more effort to say some people shouldn't participate in this thread than to ignore the thread and get on with your day. Whatever. Happy New year all.

Great post and I think makes the point about how confusing the whole floor dbx is. Dan has one method that seems clear, 'power users' have another that seems clear as well. So which do you use and why? And when? Has Chief created the most flexible and useful floor dbx tool in the industry in that many users can use many methods? Or is it a confusing mess that needs cleaning up and changing? I really don't know the answer to that question but it seems some simple changes would make things easier for everyone, except perhaps for those few 'power users' out there.

That's a great video explaining how Chief actually works, not how one would assume that Chief should work, but how it actually works. In this case I think the term counter-intuitive just barely touches on the paradigm Chief has chosen. Absurd might be a better term and even that is being kind. "Once in the basement ignore this setting (@8:15) it doesn't matter shouldn't even be here, just ignore it." REALLY? Then why the #@#$% is it there? Really, why is it there? Just because it's been there for years it should stay? Crap. If it's not useful it should not be there - period "In a basement changing the ceiling height raises and lowers the concrete floor." (9:12) Good to know but who in their right mind would or could ever guess this is the case? And why isn't that made clear in that godforsaken confusing beyond imagination dbx? And why does this confusing floor/ceiling paradigm and dbx make its way into each and every version of Chief. Is it EVER going to change? How much ranting has to be done to get it to change? Sigh.

Agree. Been fighting the floor structure dbx for many, many years.

I assume you've posted that in the suggestions forum?

Pretty good advice but I haven't seen too much of the "true loyal followers" on this forum.

Your passion and points are again well taken but it seems you might be ignoring a very large portion of the user base that you and I can know nothing about and that the changes you (and I) think are important are also important to that user base, both new and existing users. Again I happen to agree with your sentiments that Chief seems to simply pick the low hanging fruit for each upgrade (X9 seems to reflect this observation) but you do not know their customer base nor their market. You simply can't know their market, or their business model, or their mission, or their profit margins, or any other important aspect of running THEIR business. You (again, and I) can only know what you'd like to see in improvements in Chief and I and most likely others respect that and probably agree with some of the changes you'd like to see but I think facer has some good advice. Perhaps e-mail Greg Wells personally again and again until you get a response. I'd be surprised if he addressed any of your concerns directly because that's not what a good CEO would do but perhaps rattling his cage might bring about some needed change but again, we all have to remember our version of needed change may not be the change really needed in Chief to make it the best it can be. It might be the best we think it can be but that single view ignores way too much of the business reality that we are not privy to, to have any real word merit. That business reality (of which I can know nothing about from where I sit) is what has caused me to accept Chief for what it is. Am I "Genuflecting before the executive priesthood?" Perhaps. Maybe I should post every day in the 'Suggestions' forum about the need for change in the floor spec dbx (which I did for a long time BTW). Maybe I should make videos clearly showing my confusion with terms used in the same dbx and how defaults aren't really defaults and how floor heights can change without clear user input and how when you get to the monslab floor there's an actual dbx for ceiling heights etc. etc. etc. (which I have done BTW) or maybe I should join a select group of 10 in a user group and meet with Greg Wells and all of the Chief staff in Idaho to go over specific user wants and desires (which I have done BTW) and so on and so on. But like I said or implied in an earlier post - I'm done. Chief will simply make the changes they see fit to make. This is not a theory. I've watched features come out of the blue and wondered where they came from but each one has made Chief just a little better as I think X9 will be even with all the useless fluff. Do not get me wrong. I do not think that user input is ignored, but it seems to be secondary to another set of priorities set by the those who make such decisions. Perhaps that makes your point jonnoxx? That those priorities and decisions are incorrect? Maybe you're right and maybe Chief has blundered its way into a very successful (again I think we must assume) business. But it's possible you (and I) are wrong and every 'incorrect' decision they've made has actually been the best decision for the company and has cemented their business into a more stable, profitable business than we can ever know. Please do not stop with your requests as I think a poke in the eye with a sharp stick is good sometimes but you have to remember not every one wants to see the same changes and making those decisions is really hard when you're actually in the position to make them.

I personally know of a company that has about 12 licenses and runs a successful business run by one the best Chief users out there. Just sayin' that just because you cannot see it don't necessarily make it so. Can't argue with what ease or issues there might be, but it is being done.