HumbleChief

Is there a special reason the pitch is in degrees instead of per:12?...and all of your pitches vary by a little bit. Did you try auto roofs? Using a standard pitch:12? Double click on the selection arrow and change show pitch in degrees, if that's what you want. Why that selection is no where near a roof dbx is anyone's guess.

Figured it out. Floor 1 does not, turns out, have to be at 0". Most of my confusion comes from the nature of the structure dbx but if the floor and ceiling of the foundation room are both set to 36" it lowers the floor above by 36" to 61". Then moving up to the second floor and raising the floor 36" which raises the ceiling of the first floor, then moving up to the roof planes and raising them 36" completes the raising of the entire building. All of this ignores the absolute insanity of the foundation dbx that assumes one is in the 'room' of a mono slab foundation (as if that were somehow possible in real life) that shows a 96" high ceiling, again in the 'room' of a mono slab? That basic craziness within Chief will never end but it's possible to raise the entire height of a mono slab building with the proper order of things...

This might work and maybe what Cheryl was getting at. And wouldn't you know it the contractor decided not to add a second house on the property. Stll a good exercise.

AHA, finally understand the logic here, may give it a go.

Wow, tried to adjust floors and simply failed. I worked my way down from the top by raising the roofs 36", then the floor below up the same 36" then when I got to the first floor over the slab it just went bonkers. Now I know why I posted the question, simply can't get it done with my pea sized brain...Will keep trying. Maybe the symbol is the way to go? https://www.dropbox.com/s/docxx2n09cpp9ga/KIAH 45TH STREET PROPOSED 2 SAME HOUSES 2_auto_save.plan?dl=0

Yeah, good advice and am always surprised at how difficult changing a building height could become, and given enough thought may not be needed with symbols etc. I'm going to give it a go with one building set to '0', adjust terrain, and then raise/lower the other one in relation to the terrain.

Terrain will be fixed and each house occupy a section of the terrain, one high up on the lot and one down lower, probably a 4ft. diff in height. Should be easy to set the terrain then change floor heights but haven't tackled yet as the structure dbx always gives me fits.

Yeah thought of a symbol and may go that route and am curious, would you use that method no matter what? And what if you wanted to change the height of the entire house, each floor. Would you use defaults perhaps? Except that would change the heights of both houses. ....

Thanks Cheryl, question probably wasn't clear enough but the 2 story house is complete. Just need a quick way to alter the entire building's height. Sounds simple but each floor needs adjusting, maybe through defaults? Haven't had a chance to try it yet.

I have 2 identical 2 story houses, on mono slab, on a sloping lot and will need to adjust floor heights a few times as we decide on final grades and was wondering what the easiest way would be to raise and or lower the entire 2 story house to grade ad terrain heights?

Thanks so much for taking the time for the video. Really appreciate your take on Chief. The whole "plan views saves defaults settings for walls" thing was news to me. Not sure when/how I'll use it but another tool in the box is always a good thing.

...or maybe a wall in the way? Hold ctrl key while moving?

Same here...

I'm surprised??...

Here's what I just discovered - this time - as long as I changed the properties of a window and did NOT save as the default, the object painter worked as expected. As soon as I saved that window as the default the object painter would not paint properties any longer. Not sure that helps anyone but will thrash as usual to get things done. Thanks Mick!!

Yeah, missing something basic... https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/5307/object-eyedropper-and-painter.html

I've never noticed a big difference in the views speed wise and have never found a way to sped things up once a model gets large but I imagine the fastest video could have some effect - on your new laptop - which you don't want to buy.

I have a question about the Object Painter and Window Defaults. I thought when the Windows Defaults were changed all the Windows set to use default would change too? And I thought the object painter could be used to 'paint' one style of window to another? Tried both methods this morning with no change to the Windows. Not a big deal as I can manually change the few windows I have but am wondering how those tools work? Thanks

Maybe the saddest part is someone on the software team is spending time on an interface change that has no real effect on function while other issues go unattended...

...still curious

I think that there's another thing we fall for a bit here on the forum and that is that the posters here truly represent the user base and I am quite sure it does not. The purpose of this forum is to help anyone with pretty much anything so the fact that there's a few users who don't get Plan Views, or Layouts, or Plans or Anno Sets or whatever should not be unexpected. Hopefully the OP got an answer to his question?

I'd be surprised to find any experienced users here who don't think Plan Views are the bomb (could be the best thing since Anno Sets IMO) but should new users know how they work intuitively somehow, or is posting here every week to clarify their usage again, part of the territory? Don't know the answers, but have a lot of empathy for those who take some time to really understand how Chief works.

...nor do I but I also understand ANNO Sets and most of the other features in Chief but when a question comes up over and over again, my first reaction, as a company would be to ask what can we do better? Add options to a dbx? Better training vids? Dunno, but there's inherent crazy with a complex piece of software that I think just comes with the territory. How many users even understand ANNO Sets let alone use them? I bet the number would be shockingly low. Is there any way around powerful and complex as Mark suggests above? Dunno but if indeed a question arises over and over again, it's either simply part of learning a complex piece of software, or the complexity is not embraced well enough by the GUI and people get confused.

The paradigm that Chief uses for Plans, Plan Views and Layouts is inherently complex. Powerful once understood, and simple for the lead software designer who designed the features, but still complex for a lot of users. It may be only natural and expected that users have a difficult time grasping the concepts. I know I did and even after 20 years still find some things complex and difficult to grasp. So if Chief's software engineer has to post the same thing "every week or so...." what does that suggest? That the users need to be better equipped to use Chief? Or that Chief needs to be better equipped to design and or explain its software in a way that more people grasp the concepts quicker and easier?

I've gotten to only a little of the Video but have learned a few things I did not know. Very helpful and a nice presentation Rene.