HumbleChief

One nice feature of plan views is that more than one can be open at a time in its own tab so switching between electrical, then foundation, then roofing no longer requires closing one Anno set, opening another etc.

Here's what I've discovered. There's no reason to start at the top and work your way down in Chief UNLESS you are trying to correct floor height problems in a model which usually includes inconsistent floor heights on an upper level. If the model is correct from the beginning, and continues to remain correct, a user can work from the bottom up, top down, makes no difference in my experience.

Are you sure that's not you at about the 1:03 mark??

Thanks as always for your help...

LOL and thank you very much - I think...

I think that X11 is just displaying the default numbers incorrectly as the plan seems OK. Curious, am the first to notice this? Or has no one built second floor yet? Beta team? Interesting...

Thanks Michael and are you suggesting somehow that I have not lost my mind? THAT would be very cool....

NOT the best approach, unless it was what you wanted. I think you had it nailed before but you had your attic walls turned off and set to not display. Did you check that out?

Just to be clear, you started a new plan and got the same whacky default results?

..and X11

Looks like this phenom is related to X11 as my default plan in X10 behaves as it used to...

Thanks Joe but I don't see any change when I do that??? Do the floor heights change to defaults when you uncheck that box? I do want a mono slab foundation and there's no way I know of having the mono slab box checked and the "Floor supplied by foundation room below." Still missing something..

Either of these 2 vids Mick. Thought it deserved its own thread? Sorry for the confusion and multiple posts.

I know, pretty dramatic post title but I am now more lost than ever and am missing something very simple. Need help bad. floor_level_1_test.plan

Hey Joe, Was going to try and explain how Chief works and came up against this little bit of crazy.... Attached the plan cause I might need some help... floor_level_1_test.plan

Better yet make sure your attic walls are set to display - looks like both are missing in the view...

Can you draw a wall on the attic layer?

Hey Glenn, the fact that one can even go to the 'basement' level in a mono slab is crazy enough - the fact that one can create roofs over a sticky out portion of a mono slab foundation is not a feature I'd ever use nor request but I gave up fighting this battle with Chief long ago... Now on to more important things..are you getting any of that cyclone swell? The coast looks lit up and crazy for the past few days - jealous...

Kate, If the ridge is centered in the room then you have 2 different sloped roofs to get the 2 different wall heights. Set the roofs up accordingly. The closet can be a separate room with an 8 ft. ceiling or if you have a portion of the room that's 8 ft and not the closet use an invisible wall to define a room and set that height to 8 ft..

Thanks Ben your participation and input is much appreciated...

Good post Curtis and even though I think I might have suggested similar, you put it much clearer. Is it finally time for a layer manager? Hope so....

Your accusations are bit harsh IMO and I base my opinion (not information) on 20 years using the program and watching the changes that do not happen over those 20 years. Also based on meeting with the software engineers in Idaho as a select group of users and not seeing changes that were suggested and again 20 years of an approach that remains basically the same. Again different opinions, and I am not intending to attack the good people at Chief, which I have personally met and are simply great in every regard. I don't think this forum represents that many users and you should know that as I have posted that assumption and made that point many, many, times and I do not think that the engineers at Chief don't listen it's just that their view of how the software should work differs from mine (and many others) but I can live with that, and do, as I've stated again many, many times.

You are making my point and missing it at the same time. I have no engineering background so the coordinate system is a bit vague though learnable as I have done but I don't want to see it in an interface and I don't think the user should be exposed to such arcane pieces of information. This is an arguable point and you make a good one but I think your mind might appreciates the complexities whereas mine does not unless absolutely needed. Different strokes, and understand we look at these things from a different perspective but even from the diagram you posted I would choose 90 for the overhead view not -90, makes sense because I am a dummy. The larger point, for me is that I think the user interface should be less technical with a simple diagram that shows views from a graphical instead of technical information driven dialog box. Where any user can choose a view via a picture or circle shaped diagram, hiding the tech stuff. That's simply my preference not something I would assume all users would want nor appreciate in its simplicity.

Richard, couldn't agree more. I think you might have missed my quote above. There's so much that is counter intuitive, at best, but some people seem to have no to very little problems with it. Drives me crazy on almost a daily basis but am done fighting that losing battle....

Did not know this, thanks for the education....