HumbleChief

...and I think it would depend entirely on the nature of the remodel. I'm adding a second floor to an existing craftsman with a lot of detail so the concept ideas will be pretty straight forward and the as-built is a necessary 'evil', I'm working on it now, but I like creating all the details.

Not the worst idea - at all - and it seems feasible on some level. Hard to wrap my brain around the how but that's usually best left to those who would actually know how. I'm usually committed to the as-built from the beginning so it's not that much extra work or inconvenience but I think your idea has merit - but what if at some point you don't like it any more? BTW Nicinus I'm not sure iteratively means what you think it does. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iteratively or at least I don't understand the context you are using it within.

+1

Yeah and I hate correction lists from the city, and I hate dealing with uncooperative l clients, and I hate creating ConDocs and I hate, etc. etc. but whatcha gonna do? Really. Are you asking Chief to eliminate a necessary process you, and other architects you know, simply don't like? Seems a bit narrow minded and not something I would expect Chief to find a way to deal with - but maybe it's possible - and desirable. And getting an intern to create an accurate as-built might be the perfect solution. Been tempted many times myself.

Interesting points and I have found that "create(ing) a detailed as-built before I can start experimenting with design" to be a necessary part of the design process and have structured my contracts to specify a charge for that single scope so it's not an onerous task and just part of the process. It sounds like you just don't like it but it has to be done at some point, and only once, so I'm not quite getting the problem. If you just can't wait to get designing and dreaming up new ideas that's understandable but the early investment in a detailed as-built pays off in the long run - for me. As far as working on simultaneous models such as the as built and various 'proposed' plans I'm not sure there's a way to do that that isn't software programming magic. Maybe the programmers can comment but that seems a very difficult, if even a desirable task. New construction is an entirely different apple (orange?) and obviously an as built isn't needed but the freedom to 'play' in Chief without deep knowledge of the program is limited at best. Personally I'd love to see some sort of massing tool in Chief (beyond the existing room planner) that would then convert to Chief's floors/walls/roofs, but again is that even possible given the programming paradigm Chief as chosen?

Or this.....

You can also save any 3D view as well as noted above. Also in the project browser.

Yes, open the 'Project Browser'

Rob, There is a 'Save Active Camera' selection in the 3D drop down menu. Will that help?

When I first started with Chief I would start by trying to 'sketch' out an idea but quickly ran into Chief's learning curve which was mainly comprised of learning how Chief works and learning the "particular logic based on choices the programmers made". Alluding to your list above I didn't realize that roofs always cut walls, or that walls will always rise to meet roofs, but room heights/ceiling won't rise when roofs are raised, plus a myriad of other 'choices' made by the programmers. Did not fit my way of thinking - at all. Gradually I learned the "choices made by the programmers" and can now sketch out ideas rather quickly. Like sketching out the idea presented in the VectorWorks video above would take very little time and with the proper skill set in Chief that exercise would be in no way daunting or limited by 'defaults' or any other constraints. There's no push/pull equivalent but there's no real lag in the model creation, given adequate knowledge in the way Chief works. That last statement is key, of course, and I personally have spent many, many hours learning how Chief 'thinks' if you will. There are still some "choices made by the programmers" that make me nuts and that seem to embrace no logic I can discover, so I adjust the best I can, but overall Chief has become a really good tool for even rough sketching and creating many different model types without too much creative interference. After that initial model creation is complete sometimes getting that model to 'behave' with proper floor heights/sections can be another, sometimes daunting, adventure and that's where knowledge of Chief's ways must be understood or you can spin your wheels for hours trying to grasp the "choices made by the programmers" or bail out to the forums for help when needed. Chief is unique in its approach and I think that can be a severe detriment in fully grasping its capabilities. No other program uses similar terminology or approaches design in a similar fashion. Push/pull is a decent example. Everyone knows what that is but you won't find anything similar in Chief - but - when you draw a wall or create a room it is a 3D wall/room with all the attributes you assign and if you understand (again big 'if') the "choices made by the programmers" it can be a very powerful and creative tool. EDIT: And thank you all for showing the videos of other software and how they work. I don't see any real benefit to learning any other program and watching an expert leaves me with no impression that any operation is 'simple' in any of the design programs. I'll repeat, it's simple with many hours of experience, but nothing will substitute no matter which program you choose.

Dave, Cntrl 'P' Upper left drop down menu - Save As PDF.

Try the 'All on' Layer and see if they show up.

Yeah pretty close Joe but over it for now and have moved on.

Thanks Joe, Jonathan, Jef. Go it to work OK with a lot of effort. Like I say in this last video I think if Chief had a contest, and offered unlimited prize money, to come up with the most complicated, unintuitive, and obtuse method for dealing with 3D symbols there would be no winner - because they have already accomplished that objective.

VERY helpful!! That thread was great.

It all kinda sorta works but still creates a 4" thick window (no matter the thickness of the original p-line solid) and looks good in almost no view. [sarcasm]Other than that it's great [/sarcasm]

Me too especially with such a simple example as the OP proposed.

Tried it 5 times still appears as an 4" thick piece of glass sitting on the outside of the wall. Missing something.

Thanks Joe, Jonathan. I've created a thousand symbols and just did it again in this case and it worked OK. I should be able to just get the window on a schedule for T24 and not worry about the 3D views, which have been approved a long time ago. Was more wondering about the best approach - symbol it is. Didn't set the 2D block to none, I'll see what effect that has. Thanks again

Jonathan I see the import .3ds dialog box in your post but I don't see a way to export the p-line solid as a 3ds object. Oh I think you mean as a separate object in its own plan file? Yeah I can create a symbol from there pretty easy I think but I got distracted a bit. Will try it now.

It will need to be/remain rectangular with the rock notched to fit the shape. I was watching a video by Glenn re: electrical symbols and it seems I might be able to create symbol as a window or at least specify it as such in a schedule? Here's the video reference. I'll try and create a symbol - don't have any other options I can think of. http://screencast.com/t/C4xaJPDtE2Q9

to add to a schedule? I have a pretty unique couple of windows that occupy a corner and will be notched in to a large granite boulder. They are currently simple p-line solids but I need to add them to the window schedule to modify the Title 24 calcs here in California. What's a good strategy to get them on the window schedule? Convert to Symbols maybe? Thanks

Yes Mick, the last video actually has the solution within it, but you may have to listen carefully. The distance that the camera is away from the structure creates/solves the problem. If you see the artifacts the camera is too far away. You can move the camera in closer by hitting the 'I' key, then scrolling back out with the mouse wheel. It really is as simple as that. For some reason the distance of my camera was too far away, by default. Don't know why but just moving the camera in closer by pressing the 'I' key solved it. Brad_M is actually a Chief technician and he spotted the problem right away but I didn't learn about the 'I' and 'O' key till I got a response from Taylor at tech support suggesting I try that. Thanks for your help Mick, and I hope that answers your question.

Not bad

To offer another point of view, please don't get beyond the comparisons, I really like to see how other programs treat similar circumstances. I agree Scott, about the perceived 'simplicity' of any program someone's used for many years. One person's simple can be another person's work around nightmare. My own personal opinion from watching videos from Revit and Vectorworks is I see nothing simple in either program. IMO it's only years of study and practice that will make any of these program seem 'simple' but again I really like to see the way other programs work..