HumbleChief

The line that the OP was referring to is still there after you remove that CAD block - see attached vector view of the plan you attached.

ACAD (sorry don't know your name) you also have many many Layer sets that renamed each time you send a plan to Layout. Very few use this 'feature'. If you uncheck the box below you'll be able to mange your Layer Sets much better.

Can't find that CAD block Raymond and I think you're right that it might fix the line but the walls are not defined correctly to give consistent results - unless I'm missing something. OK I see custom counter tops on top of the wall? Still think the structure need to be right to get consistent results.

Once you have your default walls defined correctly double click on the exterior wall icon and select that newly defined wall as your default exterior wall, then anytime you draw an exterior wall your exterior and interior layers will be in the right places.

Don't know your name but check this plan I attached. Look at the wall definitions and compare to what you had. The walls are more accurately defined as real world as built walls with CMU block, stucco exterior and drywall interior with the exterior CMU wall as the main layer. Then I reversed the layers which you shouldn't have had to do but it got a single line instead of the 2 you had. I'm not sure what you want to do with the parapet wall definition so I left it alone but maybe the new definitions will help you define the parapet the way you want it.

Defining your walls correctly is a very important first step when starting a plan as well as defining your default floor structures. Walls are usually defined from the top (exterior surface) to the bottom (interior finish) with pretty much any material in between. You had all 3 layers defined as the main layers, with the top (exterior layer) as 7 5/8" stucco the middle layer as 3/4" air gap and the bottom (interior layer) as drywall.

Here's another way to define the wall that works better.

See if that helps

Wall Test NEW WALLS.zip

Gilles, Trusses will follow the ceiling planes and must be placed after the ceiling planes are defined. Also ceiling planes' pitches are almost always less than the roof pitch so getting what you're showing is hard with trusses, but possible.

I attached a plan that has 4:12 roof pitch, and 2:12 ceiling pitch, then the trusses are drawn. It's not a very good representation of real world truss framing but might help you figure it out.

Oh yeah to get the attic condition just add a second floor and apply the same truss/ceiling plane settings.

truss plan 1.plan

X6 will still miss a Layout update now and again and I almost never catch it until it's been printed wrong. Elevations, as mentioned need to be opened and closed and updated and if you have a stubborn plan view that hasn't updated click on the Layout Box Layers dbx and cancel out - it will update the view.

Way to go Chris. Nice job.

Better Dennis, I never have the patience to adjust all the RT stuff. It sure pays off when you do.

I'm not just sitting idle for those 27 minutes.

I click raytrace, and then go do something else....

I'm not losing money/time while my computer processes the image.

Yeah I know Chris - just ribbing you and I certainly wouldn't upgrade a computer till I was ready.

anyway 5 passes 1:41

Don't have all the texture either.

That looks much better but 27 minutes? You could buy a new computer for the time it would save you.

7 passes 1:28. Not great but you should be getting better results than what you're showing.

BTW I brightened it up using the Image Properties Slider

Nice work Robert - love this forum.

Val,

I'm no ACAD expert but I tried to open the file in Draftsight (an ACAD clone) and I got nothing. Same when importing into Chief - nothing I can see. No white lines, no nothing. There are settings and line weights in ACAD that can alter behaviors but I'm not familiar with them. Can you view the file in any other program?

Humble

I guess it's just me having that "everything must be perfect" thought process. Some call it OCD. Being a former Maring and still a pediatric / neonatal flight nurse on top of having a remodeling company I've always been expected to be as detailed as possible. Sometimes it sick but usually a good thing. Thanks for your input.

Yeah been there, done that myself. Don't mean to challenge your reasons just really curious to see what I can learn.

Does it matter why? We all work differently. We all have weird situations that pop up that require a lot of effort. Rob may have a very good reason to model the soffit framing, and it may require a long, detailed explanation that isn't relevant to the problem.

 

BTW Rob, I trained and served with many Marines off and on over the course of my Army career - you fellas are a breed apart. Thanks for your service, and a happy belated Veterans Day to you.

To me it matters why so I can perhaps learn something new and understand a little more about how/why others work the way they do and to improve my work flow when possible.

I tend to use the " Reference it to a detail method", I can get a pretty clean model but there are those little things that might take you a log time to model, so I reference it to a detail for those.

Same here Perry, still curious how/why others work the way they do.

Rob,

I'm curious as to why you wouldn't just create a simple detail and refer to it in your Con Docs? Would take a few minutes at most. Do you need the framing view for a presentation perhaps? Genuinely curious about the thought process because I struggle with the 2 methods (perfect framing model versus quick CAD detail) many times.

This thread has been a really great read. Thanks for the thought and ideas from everyone - very insightful.

Well I'm in my second month with CA so I look forward to the day when I can do that in CA.

 

The sections and details are quite easy in ACAD as I use LISP & dynamic blocks for lots of things.

And the Stretch command in ACAD is very easy. So changes are quick for me. In CA all cleanup efforts are lost when changing to a revised section.

 

I haven't found Web trusses and can't seem to figure out Drop ceilings but time will tell.

The issue I see with sections is that 3D to 2D leaves a lot of clean up requirements but that may be me too.

Webbed floor trusses are part of Chief's basic tool kit, just set the floor joist depth to the depth of the truss you want, but I couldn't find a way to pitch them for a roof structure. That would be a good question for the forum.

Do a google search for dropped ceilings https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=suspended%20ceiling%20chief%20architect quite a few articles, and there's a training video too #311 show one method.

"In CA all cleanup efforts are lost when changing to a revised section"

For me this was the hardest transition - working with 'live' sections. Once the model is built correctly (this is by far the most difficult part of Chief) the 'live' sections change with each change to the plan, no revisions are lost you just move annotation if needed and the sections can include any CAD detail you choose.

Yeah need more clarification. In the field or in Chief? In the field they are supported by any number of custom made brackets. In chief I would re-create those brackets by taking an elevation shot of the side of the cabinet. Draw your shape, edit and place in position.

You could also create a symbol in Chief then import that, place in position.

I see I am venturing dangerously close to defending Chief as a software program but believe me when I say i would have echoed everyone's sentiments about Chiefs limited CAD tools and limited focus a few years ago.

I couldn't build a proper model to save my life (still have troubles as this forum is well aware) and was stuck with Chief's 2D  CAD tools for a lot of revisions and hand work. Tedious doesn't even come close to describe the pain. Now I understand Chief and the reason the program exists it is much easier to deal with. A cursory glance will leave any ACAD user frustrated to say the least. A dedicated couple years and it's second nature and very good indeed for small residential and light commercial.

That looks like a commercial project. I think Chief is only recommended for residential and light commercial , like T.I. stuff, you will probably never like Chief if that's what you do. I would think the natural progression would be to use Revit.

Yes Perry but look at the ConDoc pages. Would you have any trouble reproducing those pages in kind? Didn't think so. And no one would be waiting around for you nor would the ACAD guy fly by you as you struggled with Chief's inefficient CAD tools.

One of my current projects is a one story office.

These details are ACAD while the floor plan is CA. I don't see myself doing all this in CA.

The sections have changed several times, so doing mods with CA sections when line tweaking is required would drive you nuts.

 

JMO

The details shown are quite easy to duplicate in Chief and the changing sections are right in Chief's wheelhouse. Easy to change and modify if you understand Chief's way of doing things and that's by far the key, IMO,  to this whole discussion.

You say everything except for the floor plans are ACAD? Does that mean that all the sections are drawn in ACAD - by hand? No one who understands Chief would even consider that - way, way, too much work and changes must be a nightmare. Chief cuts usable sections from a properly built model (heavy emphasis on 'properly') in seconds. Annotated in minutes. Change the model the section changes, adjust accordingly, sections changed. So, so easy.

Anyone who is proficient with Chief would have absolutely no problem recreating the pages you show and not fall behind a proficient user in ACAD either, might even be faster in Chief.. But, and it's a big but, you have to understand how Chief works. If not then it seems cumbersome and inefficient. If so then creating thousands of details and changing/modifying sections is a genuine no brainer - again if you understand how Chief works.

One issue is that Chief's focus is very narrow. I've done commercial plans and plumbing isometrics and the first plan I did with my assistant ACAD user he was looking for an ACAD tool and of course I had to ask him what he wanted to do and said, "Really, it's that easy? It's better than ACAD." Granted this was for only one tool but there's a thousand Eureka moments waiting in Chief when you discover how the tools work, which I believe was Jim's point above. And even though Chief is residential focused it's not bad for small commercial either.

Interesting perspective Robert. Not sure what I would do if I ran a large firm and had to make the software call. Not the easiest of decisions.

Another approach might be to get a copy, with the 30 day money back guarantee and use it for a month. See if it fits. Very interested in your decision.