HumbleChief

Hi Doug, I wonder if you might extend a small courtesy and let me know if the picture attached is not what you are looking for. If not, again please let me know and I'll stop trying to help or perhaps you can explain a little better what you are looking for? Best of luck either way.

Let me know if this helps. I THINK what I did was add another floor that the roof lives on then used Glenn's suggestion of adding a railing on the attic level, changing that railing to a wall, raising it up, then back to a railing wall with a "Raise Bottom" to clear the roof below, the adjusting height again. Apologies as I could not really duplicate what I did and it's an X13 plan so hopefully it will help somewhat and hopefully it's what you are looking for. Tried it in X12 and could not get it to work again, so maybe not so much help... 562403700_GREENROOF1.plan

Didn't know that - still appreciate it.

Thanks you guys, this feature is simply brilliant. Takes the worry out of migrating from version to version.

Worked a treat - thanks so much for the quick response and a GREAT new feature.

THAT'S pretty amazing. I'll give that a go.

Curious too about bug fixes too. I ran into 2 rather quickly...

I was just noting that X13 is out of Beta and have a question that I think is an easy one. I earlier upgraded to X13 and migrated all of my templates libraries etc. but found a couple bugs in X13 and have not used it much but for one plan set. I have changed a couple of my working X12 templates in the meantime and don't really want to simply upgrade my current X13 install but rather delete the current install and re-install the newest version and migrate those altered templates etc. from X12 into the latest version. Should it be that simple? Or is there a landmine I could be missing?

Understood and agree but for me the string location may clutter things up a bit. I'll try both and try not to hide a general note under the donut. Maybe like this?

Matches my experience as well and any good builder will not want details to get in his way to 'build it right' or exceed any detail that may be an actual bare minimum and only code compliant. I have not added any V.I.F notes to dims on an 'as built' but will start today. Will probably add a general note instead of adding to the dim string but will add something.

That's a really good summary in my opinion and very close to practices I've adopted over many years of measuring 'legacy' as built properties. As to #1 I will use existing blue prints as a starting place for the initial measure but never rely on them as I have never measured a house that was actually built to that legacy blue print. Difficult for some clients to understand as they sometimes feel half the work is already complete but I make sure they understand before beginning. I don't measure exteriors any more and find #4 to be one of the most important tips to getting at least close to the existing floor plan. With #5 a close second. Internal walls with drywall on a standard 2 x 4? Or older construction with plaster on a true 2 x 4? The one thing that I've never resolved in any legacy measure is the 1/8's, 1/4's, and 1/2's that get eaten when measuring. Round up? Round down? Measure to the 1/8 of an inch? As those roundings accumulate there always seems to be an inch that goes missing. It's an art as to where that missing or additional inch should go and placing it in the wrong location can be a lot of no fun. I think that last comment regarding any measure as an art instead of a dead on science might the most appropriate and knowing a bit about construction and what comes next allows for that art to create a set of plan that won't sabotage the builder.

I understand all the (childish IMO) down votes but just think how awesome the Style Palette could be if given more effort and energy. A modern interface with its own menu options instead of being hidden in the library with a fairly awkward interface. More options and capabilities could make it the go to feature for kitchen and bath design. I would use it on almost every design. Of course it would take more resources and the ROI might not be immediately evident, or non-existent, but the feature would be fully fleshed out and eminently more useful. Not an easy decision for the Chief development folks but I think if there were fewer, fully complete features it would simply, again, make Chief better software.

Yeah I figured that post might have ruffled a feather or two and even garner a couple of those delicious down votes but most likely from those who don't know me nor understand why I would post what I did. I've been using Chief for over 20 years and absolutely love the software as it's provided a living for myself for those 20 years and it just keeps getting better and better. I've been to Coeur D'alene to Chief headquarters and had dinner with the development team. There isn't a better group of men and women and have had nothing but a great experience with everyone involved. But (you saw the but coming) there is a corporate mentality or paradigm that allows for new features to be introduced, sometimes finished sometimes not, then abandoned, never to be improved or polished to their best potential. Never understood that methodology. Another great example in my world at least is the reference layer set feature. Outstanding to say the least but within that outstanding feature is the glass house rendering ref set. Simply doesn't work in real life and just sits there, unfinished. Just think of the potential that feature could have. Add a couple of rendering technique options like line drawing, give it some more flexibility as to how the ref sets layer interact with different rendering techniques and that feature sings. Or wait for feedback and have a team that focuses on finishing and improving each newly introduced feature but "there are far more important things on our todo list." I get it. How long has kitchen partitions been on the todo list? Really makes my point. I also understand completely what becomes a priority within any software development environment and features that are not 'finished' (my term) are very low on that list. Again understood and give much credit to the team for the work they do but what I am suggesting is not intended as a dig against the company but is instead intended to make Chief better software.

If there's no Style Palette Option then it can not be used in a Style and I think the list of objects that can be used is just long enough to give the impression the tool might actually be useful but it is a long running Chief tradition to almost finish a feature then leave it in that unfinished state never to be revisited or 'fixed'. I used the feature once then reported that the partitions (cabinet drop down) that are used in almost every kitchen are not part of the objects that can be specified for a style palette. Tried to make it work but gave up as the effort was more than the 'Style Palette' saved and have never used the feature again. Maybe you'll have better luck but for me the Style Palette joins a fairly long list of features that had so much potential but ultimately abandoned by Chief after their introduction before they could reach that potential. And yes, I am not happy that Chief spends so much effort introducing half finished 'time saving' features only to find they save no time at all. Again you may have better luck but I could never get the feature to be truly useful. Never really understood the mentality about introducing a feature then never really polishing up to its potential but the Chief guys seem to think it's OK but it is, after all, their software.

I just created a 'garage' room and placed a 1/2" floor in the 'structure' tab under Floor Finish and it renders OK. It does not seem to be an issue with the 'garage' room type. Sorry, that's not much help.

There's a "Floor Surfaces" Layer. Is it turned on?

Again, really appreciate your quick response, probably saved me another hour.

Here's a bad question. Are there any other "known issues" we should know about? I just spent an hour trying to figure that out.

THANKS BEN!! Very helpful and appreciate the quick response. I can also take a picture and send that to Layout and will stop the crazy on this end. Took your advice and printed to a new PDF file and it worked a treat. Something I'll remember for the future as well. Thanks

Re-Booted with no change. Certainly appears like user error of some kind, like the wrong file name/location but this form, no matter the client will not be imported into a Layout page.

Hi all, There was a problem in Chief a couple versions ago where Chief would not import an updated PDF but would instead re-import an older, existing version of a PDF. It was fixed but appears to have reared its head in X13. Can anyone confirm or has anyone seen this behavior in X-13 before I send into tech support? I think a re-boot was the only way to get it to work before and will try that now. Thanks

Very easy to just close. Just a niggler and simple curiosity.

Could be, but I would rather there not be new plan opened without some explanation, obvious reason, or my expressed request. In the example both plans are identical as that's the nature of a new template created from an existing plan but the programmer sometimes have a reason that I often miss and perhaps you're correct in your assumption and I'll live with that for now. Thanks

Bending that way myself Joe.

"...many little things that have always bugged me." Yeah same here. May make time for a suggestion, and yes am willing to live with the behavior instead of dealing with the (for me) uber frustrating suggestion forum. Thanks Eric