HumbleChief

This kinda makes a point I've been suggesting - that one man's logic is another man's crazy. The trick is to try and get your personal crazy to match the 'logic' that Chief built in, or the other way around. Once understood it gets easier. May never make sense or seem 'logical' as in my case and maybe yours as well Richard but once learned can be used to get some plans out the door...as crazy as some of the steps seem...

I also had no idea that menu item was there. Went through that crazy match properties exercise on that plan in the other this thread, went back to the plan checked the floor and ceiling heights and it was done - every floor. Wow, still learning in spite of myself...

True but that simply replicates the previous Anno Set behavior which is cool - was trying to point out a benefit of Plan Views, but only if it makes things easier. Come to think of it I don't think I have a bunch of tabs open at once, probably old habits that are hard to break...

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.