HumbleChief

Check the Home Designer forum but I think HDPro only 'Renders' and does not 'Ray Trace' which will give you a more realistic view. Not many controls in render modes but try the HDPro forum they might have some good tips.

The structure dbx, which I refer to as the He11 Box, has many many pitfalls and land mines, all of which I fall into, and land on top of, constantly. Some people actually understand it, I think, although whenever I watch a video no one seems exactly sure how it works but we're all able to GET it to work - not the same thing of course. I was working on a simple 2 story plan the other day and my roof kept drawing on what looked like the first floor instead of the second floor. I looked everywhere and finally discovered that somehow my first floor had changed to 1" high. For real, not making that up. User error? I'll always cop to that but it's happened way too many times to be just user error. The problem is that the structure dbx drives the ENTIRE model from top to bottom and from start to finish. If it's not set up in a clear, straightforward manner then what chance do you have of creating a stable model? It needs work to put it mildly, and IMO it needs a complete re-work.

I'm really new at YouTube and have no idea why/what YouTube chooses for the next video. I watched that video through to the end and it went to a video that was, I think, in Thai and something really off the wall. There was one video in that collage that I had previously watched on Revit but the others? No idea. Would LOVE to know how to change that default, it's kinda disturbing. Must be in a setting somewhere.

Didn't change anything and just said ignore about the texture. I'm not much of a Ray Trace guy any more and certainly don't know all the ins and outs. I present almost all of my projects with video now and the few (crappy) RT's I do seem to be more than good enough for my clients. I've got my Xeons Overclocked to about 3.2 Ghz, that may be the slight difference in our Ray Trace times.

Same scene. 1:39

Great thread and some very cogent thoughts and ideas but I wonder why Chief can't supply BOTH 4 or 5 very simple macros for doing basic plan submissions AND allow for greater access to the underlying code that the Ruby experts can use to create great single purpose macros.

First off I think there has to be a will to change things and then a method to execute that will. I so wish that the Chief guys would tackle such things because I think they have the imagination and skills to pull of some great things. I remember when Annotation Sets were just a dream and all I wanted was a way to have text remembered on a Layer Set. Then CA came out Anno Sets and I was blown away with the thought and execution. Not perfect but way beyond expectations. I think the same thing could be true of the current elevation/live/Layout paradigm. If they decide to tackle it I'm sure it will be very, very cool but I am not sure that decision has been made or when/if it will be. AND I think some of your suggestions are brilliant Yusuf.

Hey Greg, Check the video again. I added the text 'Area =' and 'SF' in the TEXT BOX not the macro. The macro reads 'referenced.area.round(2)' no quotes . When you open the Rich text box with the leader line you select the macro and enter that text before and after the %macro% text box reads 'Area = %macro% SF' Hope that helps AND remember I've presented the absolute simplest macro, and as you can see by the rest of the thread there's much more to it and I am still failing to keep my interest up but the simple stuff seems quite useful as is.

You and I'm guessing everyone else. I just don't see it on the horizon, which is a shame because Chief has so so much potential in this area. Must be a programming bear.

Yeah, but old dogs don't like new tricks It took me a while to find that .round(x) thing and make it work but it's pretty sweet. Did I say thanks?

Thanks Yusuf. I had no idea there was a brightness setting for pictures. Very helpful.

This might be even easier - please don't tell Joe I'm using this one

For those following any Snagit tips, I can't upload to YouTube within Snagit because of a bug in Snagit 12. Can upload manually but not through Snagit - at least on my computer. Tech guys are working on it. PIA. I just got off the phone with tech support at Snagit and I had to install Microsoft's Frame.net version 4.5.2. latest version and it now works. Hope that might help someone

I'm curious, do other programs create elevations with color/shadows with more ease? Like the OP picture. Are they live? I always wondered why Chief doesn't have this as a feature and have never heard any noise or inclination to add shadows/color to elevations.

Been looking for something like this for years. I used Corel Draw for many years and the ease with which freehand shapes can be drawn is amazing. Nothing like that in Chief - or even close.

This is a great thread. Thanks to all for the tips. I think using Rauls' settings and Scott's/Wendy's method one can get some pretty great looking elevations with shadows. Not live but pretty good looking stuff.

Sorry for being so brief. I tried your settings and thought were great but I think the exercise or question on the table is how to get that same great look to scale. I'll check the OP and thanks for the tip.

Another method - https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/1835-x6-sending-elevation-to-layout-in-colour/

Nice job Scott, Looks like the knowledge base has a similar technique. http://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-01270/

..to scale?

Way to hang in there. That's not an easy task in Chief. Well done.

All true, and sad, they could actually be a pretty useful tool given a little more thought. Or as I think Scott suggested, make 'vent' an option in the window drop down dbx. then they would have the options of a window plus you could drag them from the foundation floor into the 1st floor without having the first floor plan messed up. Or just label windows/vents as vents then all should be OK? I wonder.

Ah, slow to catch up sometimes. I see that was probably the reason for dragging it up in the first place? Square footage is 1'4"(16") x 4" = 64/144 = .6667 or /.67 SF (not 14" x 4" = 56)

Adjusting vent offset shows no movement in 3D, only in plan view is what I discovered. I also discovered the vent area is not correct nor can you use the schedule area for the air movement calc needed in vent calcs. Where is that area of a 14 x 4 vent coming from? Uh...maybe try 1'4" x 4"?