HumbleChief

Just had this happen. I copied the post, closed the reply then pasted the text to re-reply. I've had it happen quite a bit.

I thought there was a setting for that already? Not at my Chief computer sorry.

OK uh - thanks?

Hey Chopsaw, What's your name?

I think you're doing something other than what we are talking about above. Any plan file can be re-linked to a Layout at any time using very simple means and creating a new Layout from scratch using Chief dilutes all of the power within Layout Templates. The technique referred to above is very simple, just hard to explain in a forum. If your Layout Template is set up properly all elevations, roofing plans, foundation plans, sections etc. are automatically populated as you work on any new plan file, if that plan file is saved properly as explained by Perry above. Miss a step or get the order wrong then you have to proceed as Micheal and Chopsaw are suggesting above.

That's interesting Perry and very helpful, even though a bit counter intuitive. I think I got the order wrong and will try your technique.

That's pretty funny.

Hey chop, What is your name? Got the same image if that helps you any Scott.

This. I forgot to 'Save As' the As built as the Proposed with the Layout opened. When doing a 'save as' with the Layout closed the Layout could only reference the As Built plan. I fixed it by changing up and replacing the file names a couple times but it looks OK now.

Wow gotta bail for now getting all sort of assertion failures on Save As.

That will reference the plan but I already have saved elevations that are saved from the As built plan that will update with every change to the As built plan but not the newly referenced Proposed Plan.

Hope I can explain this. Seems like I've done this a hundred times but I'm not remembering the order of events. I have a Layout Template and a Plan Template within that Layout. I start a new job and name everything to the new client's name. Jones Layout, Jones As Built Plan. Reference the Jones plan to the Jones Layout close the Layout all is good. Elevations, roof, foundation etc. now reflect the Jones plan BUT they are reflecting the Jones 'as built' plan because I do mostly remodels and that's the first plan I create. I 'save as' the as built to create my proposed plan send that to layout BUT my elevations etc. still reflect the 'as built' plan and I want them reflect the new proposed plan so I don't have to send each view again. What am I missing? It looks like I should create the As Built independent of the Layout, then name the Template Plan in the Layout as the Proposed so it will reflect all the roof foundation elevations etc., then send the As Built Plan over later. Dose that make any sense at all?

That wouldn't happen to have anything to do with your smokin' new system would it?

I just updated my Chief computer to Windows 10 Pro from Windows 7 Ultimate about a 2 weeks ago and am very impressed. I already have it on 3 other desktops and a lap top and it's simply a better OS than Win 7 and I've noticed a couple of bugs that I had with Win 7, like constantly booting to the wrong (of 3) monitor is now gone and the boot times are very, very fast compared to Win 7. One downside is that my HP110 printer is not supported with Win 10 drivers but I usually print to PDF so it's a bit of a non-factor. I'm not one to ignore Microsoft's penchant for gathering information but I'm also not one to worry about a threat that doesn't exist. Example is the Windows defender app shown above. If you have it turned off and Microsoft turns it back on your risk of anything harmful happening to you from Microsoft is - nothing. Literally nothing happens but it might catch some Malware like Windows Essentials did with Win 7 so I am happy to leave it on. You have every right to be afraid of the illusion of what might happen but then you'd be missing out on a great OS. As far as privacy the only problem I've had was that after watching some porn I got a phone call from a nice young lady who wanted to 'party' but I was watching Jeopardy so it didn't work out but other than that no real problems.

+1

Here's an interesting thing I just learned about this technique. If you create a plot plan in a CAD detail you cannot convert it to a terrain perimeter as the video shows. If you want to create a terrain perimeter from your plot plan you must create everything in a plan file which goes a bit counter to Chief's advice of using a CAD detail for plot plans. Easy enough to do but it does switch up the techniques if you are used to using a CAD detail for your plot plan. I will probably just stick with the CAD detail method and create a pseudo Terrain region for 3D purposes.

Thanks Michael, That does control some aspects like decimal feet etc. but I couldn't where it controlled size.

I've been experimenting with a Chief facebook tutorial to create a site plan and can't seem to get the dims large enough to read. Where is the size controlled? See pic below?

I would actually prefer an experienced builder over an 'architect' on staff. I never liked building from an 'Architects' set of drawings. I'm putting 'quotes' around the word 'architect' because I've met many who have never driven a nail or cut a 2 x 4 and draw details that can't be built, or can't be built efficiently, and draw plans that don't match any real world construction. I would want them no where near the plans I want to actually build from. Builders like to build from my plans because I actually 'built' and I can draw a detail that really works in the field. Now all you 'Architects' out there don't get your panties in a bunch. I imagine there are a few good ones that actually know how a building goes together - maybe Chief could hire one of those.

Maybe this?

EDIT: I was actually confirming your theory Johhny and it was true in my early days of using Chief. When I first started using Chief I didn't understand ANY part of the paradigm or process that Chief employs. Nothing. I wanted to free hand shapes and get my designs from my head to paper as fast as possible and Chief literally made that impossible, with the way I was approaching it, versus the way Chief actually worked. So, so frustrating and I think if there were 3D tools that would have allowed those ideas to be created easier and more intuitively I would have been all over them and singing their praises. After learning Chief over many years I can now model ideas pretty quickly, using Chief's tools but it was a really painful learning curve because my brain wants to work much more free style than Chief allows. Like I posted above I don't use 3D stuff that much within Chief but I hope future versions help with your needs Johnny (and please keep requesting same) and maybe open up some possibilities I hadn't thought of.

Agreed there is lots to fix but the priority of those fixes will vary from person to person and that balancing act within Chief to change features is not an easy one. I've given up trying to change their list with my suggestions but instead of feeling defeated I feel pretty confident that they will improve the program in ways that will help my business. No doubt others will be very disappointed no matter which direction they choose to go.

Yes they are awful but I find I really need them very little in my work flow. I can clearly understand why you would want them improved (and so would I), coming from your background with Vectorworks but I just don't need them much in my day to day work with Chief. I'll need an occasional corbel, molding,bracket or symbol and I can use Chief to create those fast and easy using the tools as is. Took a while to figure them out (because of the awful mentioned above) and that's a huge downside in my book, but once understood - not so bad. I wonder how many people really need the tools to be improved, versus those who merely want them to be improved like myself?

Post the plan my brother

https://www.facebook.com/ChiefArchitect/?fref=nf