HumbleChief

True. I was able to OC my Xeons otherwise they were too slow for the investment. For RayTracing more cores the better according to Chief. For every day use? Dunno.

Stock 3.0 5960x runs at 15,970. Overclocked runs at 20,810 - about 26% faster. Could one expect the 6950x to gain the same 26% and come in at around 25,000 on the passmark equaling the fastest Xeon out there? Just sayin' it could be smokin' fast. I've attached a pdf of a quick NewEgg cost for such a system - not for the faint of heart - but if you need some go power it's not that terribly expensive. As I mentioned, for me, I'd have to add $500 - $600 in new monitors to equal my current set up so it's pretty much a non-starter for my budget at this time but for a larger company with a larger budget that's about as fast as your going to get in a single processor desktop these days. 6950x computer.pdf

Yes, no doubt your choice was a good one and most impressive passmark score but we're talking outright performance right? Overclock the 6950x to 4.0 or 4.2 and is that performance (admittedly unknown) worth the $650? For me it would future proof Chief for a bit, but at what total cost? Dunno - yet.

This bad boy looks pretty impressive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117643 19,995 on passmark running stock 3.0 clock. That is getting interesting.

Thanks Ken, have built many myself but am looking for a genuine performance gain before I drop another $2500++ on a computer. Your system looks promising. Curious if you are up to speed on the latest and greatest in new CPU's? Is your 5960x still the top dog, without completely breaking the bank? Or are there newer chips that outperform it? I read recently that the newer chips were not that impressive for the cost. Thanks in advance.

Found the link thanks. Did you build yourself?

Would love to see those passmark results. Seems to be missing a link?

Good advice...

It's so hard to say how much computer muscle you need until you don't have enough. Dual Xeons is about as much CPU horsepower as you can get in a desktop computer but it depends greatly on which Xeons you install. As Perry mentioned my system has dual Xeons but they are on the low end of Xeon power and are quite power efficient which is one reason for choosing them. I installed them on a motherboard that allowed for over clocking which wakes them up pretty good and they still perform, as a pair, as fast as, to just a little slower than the fastest i7's available today. They are about 4 years old and it's a huge system with dual everything and an older 780 video card. I hesitate to upgrade the video card because I am running 3 monitors and 2 of them would have to replaced to run the HDMI/Display Port/DVI-D connections on modern video cards. Given those specs in my signature I experience quite a few slow downs just like you are describing when my single home designs get large. I don't think it's a video card problem as my 3D views are pretty quick so any speed improvements must be CPU based. Is there a computer power cure for Chief when you are designing 50 - 100 unit apartments? Can you throw enough CPU/GPU power at Chief to get it to perform with models that large? Unfortunately Chief gets slow as the models get large and complex and the only way to find out is invest in a fast, powerful, dual Xeon system and see what happens. Best case it works and you can complete those large models. Worst case you will be out $3000 - $5000 and have a screaming system for your every day single family homes and will have to begin learning otherCAD to get those 50 - 100 unit designs complete.

Just got a reply from the Win Line folks and the drivers for my HP110plus are $199. Not even close to worth the money, to me, as printing to PDF works fine but would like to have the capability to print directly from the 110 but not for $200..

Forgot about that...

It might even be easier peasier if more than a select few knew what MMRLS stood for and the potential it contains, then perhaps more people would make a suggestion in the suggestion forum and the much vaunted MMRLS would become a reality. I am personally not exactly sure what the acronym stands for but the essence (please correct me) is currently there is a single reference floor one can use and it must be used as defined and only as defined, i.e. first floor references second floor, or first floor references third floor etc. What MMRLS would do is allow for Multiple reference layers (that's what one of those capital 'M's stands for) so a floor could reference many floors at once, or show any datum on all floors for example. A no brainer and a feature that is long, long over due. Still trying to figure out the acronym...

Yes 17 is more accurate - 17 in planning; 17 in structural engineering; 17 in electrical; 17 in LDR engineering; 17 in Zoning; 17 in mechanical; and 17 who just want to mess with you

VERY interesting. My old HP110plus has no Win 10 drivers but will print to PDF just fine. Might be worth the investment to get Win 10 printing back for the 110plus.

And one more cynical, and perhaps blasphemous to many here, look at the whole ConDoc process - I don't even try and submit a complete set anymore. I get 95% of the bones there but in my (and Scott's) neck of the woods there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can know what the selected plan checker will want to see in any of the disciplines. So I submit and just add changes according to the current correction list in each discipline, of which the requirements are just a little different every time, then resubmit. There's no way there's not going to be some corrections (despite Lew's incredible skill and first time submittal success rate) so I don't waste my time trying to get everything just perfect because the target is always moving here in San Diego. Like I said pretty cynical, but I'm done beating my head against the wall trying to please 25 people who are constantly changing their minds and requirements. This story relates to the OP in that you may not need to have a perfect set of plans with everything in the right order and all the perfect notations and sections and details etc. Especially if you are first starting out just submit your best shot and take whatever heat gets thrown your way and submit a corrected set. You'l learn pretty quickly what your jurisdiction will want to see.

+1 Another note to the OP. Not every jurisdiction requires the same detail or layout of construction docs. There is a user here who does at least 10 times more plans than I could ever hope to finish here in CA but the city/county where he lives requires very little in the way of complete documentation. Joey has presented a stellar example of a complete plan set - for his jurisdiction - which would probably suffice for almost anywhere but knowing exactly what your city needs can be just as valuable.

+1

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.