HumbleChief

Thanks for the vid Scott, I posted a suggestion in the suggestions forum. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/9588-would-like-additional-bottom-offset-setting-dbx-in-window-dbx/

Ah yes the old dog ear arch looks good but needs to be rotated 180 degrees...hmmm.

Well you know how thick I can be and I just didn't see the same window shape as the OP was looking for in that post #11. I'll wait for the video to cook and thanks as always for your help. BTW Video says This video is a duplicate of a previously uploaded video.

Symbols work great and their heights can be individually adjusted when importing into a 3D terrain so you can adjust heights relative to the terrain then.

jimmy, do you need 3D? It gets really simple if you don't, and won't put any strain on your computer..

Good advice David but I'd like to mention one more time that an option is to not do any 3D work in regards to the terrain and houses, unless your agreement requires that 3D. That way you can draw your 2 house plans wherever/however you choose, create floor plans wherever/however you choose, then just note the terrain/siteplan with 2D CAD as far as house locations, floor heights etc. Sometimes I think that just because Chief is a 3D program that everything has to be done in 3D but it really doesn't.

Great way to start any project like this is with the question you are asking IMO. If it were me, and not having the advantage of time to think it all the way through, I think I would have a Terrain Anno Set (or Layer Set) that had the terrain data shown and built (perhaps locked if you wanted to preserve it) and reading javtom's suggestion above set to NOT rebuild then start building your houses right in that same plan file. Check for floor heights versus terrain heights, throw in an elevation region or 2 for your flat areas around the house (obviously have to unlock terrain data to do so.) You can always use another Anno/Layer Set to show what you need for floor plans, site plan etc. but if you build right on the terrain data you'll have a model that actually works on the terrain, or at least looks like it works. Some of this assumes you will be trying to produce a 3D model of the floor plans on the terrain. If not then you could start a separate floor plan for the houses (or even each house) and simply draw in their locations with CAD lines on the terrain map, no need to get all fancy with elevation regions etc..

Thanks Scott, I was sorta thinking about this thread. One poster showed he could do it, but not how. Then another poster claimed it was easy peasy with still no clues as to how. I assume the OP found a way to get it done, but I for one would like to learn how, if possible. Thanks again.

I'm curious, when did the spirit of this forum change from, "Here's what I did to help your situation and here's how I did it, hope that helps you get your plan finished and out the door" to "Look I can do it, Oh yeah, me too, hope you can guess how, because I'm not going to tell you?"

Chief is probably being very conservative with their guidelines to prevent any data loss etc. but having typed that, I've never had a problem migrating older templates and haven't heard of any problems but I think Graeme's advice is probably the best, every couple or 3 years one should probably create a new template(s) from Chief's installed templates. Personally I've never done that but I can be pretty lazy sometimes.

In my personal opinion without a test done with 2 different processor setups on a single model with all materials, resolutions etc. exactly the same it's impossible to guess where the RayTrace advantage line gets drawn. Will a super fast overclocked 8 core i7, beat 2 fairly slow 6 core (24 effective core) Xeons in a RayTrace test? So hard to know. I have 2 Xeons, only because the builder had 2 used, low power and inexpensive Xeon chips laying around and I told him what I wanted (which was RayTrace speed) when he ran tests they moved more gig-flops (or some other mysterious computer measure) than the fastest i7 available at the time. They're still pretty darn fast and hard to match with an i7 unless you buy the most expensive one out there and overclock it, but it's doable today. For me if I could exceed the dual Xeon's performance with a single i7 by enough to justify a new rig, I'd do it (and will when the performance numbers work) because the dual CPU system is a bit of a pain. HUGE case, very complex boot process that doesn't always complete, dual coolers, dual everything and when I bought my system there was only one mother board that would overclock the Xeons which made these slower Xeons come alive. Not really answering your question but I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to which set up is faster for RT's.

Nice

The thing I like about the CAD method is the ability to move the foot print in relation to the Setback and PL CAD lines instead of moving the setback and PL CAD lines in relation to the floor plan. I find the latter a bit awkward.

Too easy on a single story, just turn on roof planes. Two stories you can stack CAD floor plans to show all roofs but it's not as flexible as true ref sets. Definite down side to CAD detail plot plans.

You can turn on/off any Layer and the ref sets will work in plan view but ref sets won't transfer over to the CAD detail. You can stack plan footprints (first and second floors) but it's not the same. EDIT though it actually works pretty good. Something I never knew/tried.

Good one Michael, thanks. I actually hadn't created a plan footprint in so long I had no idea how that really worked. Also in my plan template all of that is already done so I just change to the Plot Plan set and my Plot Plan is updated automagically.

Here's a quick tour of the CAD detail method for a Plot Plan.

It looks like you have a drawing sheet in your plan? Or is that a Layout picture? Go to >File>Print>Drawing Sheet Setup and turn off "Show Drawing Sheet In View" then send your house footprint to the CAD detail using the proper Layer and the scale should be OK.

I remember that there was a reason too Perry but somehow have adapted myself to the CAD detail method and like it now that I have.

I remember that too Scott and was convinced I would use the Layer method from that same discussion but discovered a couple cool features about the CAD method that I have adapted myself to. BTW the CAD detail method is live and you don't have use ref sets to show different layers. I'll do a quick vid.

Just so others know, using a CAD detail for the plot plan also allows for live updates of the floor plan and it's easy to show roofs, or any other layer for that matter, that you'd like to show, without reference sets. Not arguing for the usage of a CAD detail but it's good to provide accurate information for others to choose.

Not sure I understand. Do you use a CAD detail or a Plot Plan Layer?

That looks great Perry, please share your experience when you get it.

BUT... remember there are 2 schools of thought in the Chief forum community. One is to follow Chief's training videos and use a CAD detail, the other is to use Layers to set up a Plot Plan that turns on/off the Layers needed to create a Plot Plan. I've dabbled in both and have settled on the CAD detail method per Chief's suggestions. Others use Layers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Lot to learn regarding same. Re-read our post Roz. To duplicate a survey Chief's suggested CAD detail method may be best. Stay tuned for the smart guys and their advice.