HumbleChief

You can draw a manual roof plane where you want it and adjust slope/height to taste unless I'm missing something...

As I've said I do think that this issue is unique, in the harm it can cause.

This is clearly a case of a simple misunderstanding when writing and reading forum posts and simple differing opinions. I would bet we'd agree on all of our intentions in a simple conversation so let's not let posts here pollute both of our intent to be helpful. Maybe I posted the wrong words? In the wrong order? You disagree? Fine. The entire thread is about a problem that can 'catch a person out' in a harmful manner. Not about harmless nuisance bugs. If one person is cost time and money because of unexpected behavior or bug then I'm saying that should be changed post haste - as soon as headquarters knows that it can cause harm - no matter how many other people report it. Is that an unreasonable position to take? Maybe, but I think as soon as something is discovered that can cause genuine harm it should be fixed ASAP, and put at the very top of the priority list. We can differ on that of course and it's just my opinion but I know how I would react, and how I do react, on a day to day basis when I discover something that needs changing right now no matter if someone says something or not. Maybe it should take a lot of people getting harmed before anything is done? Again another opinion - I disagree - but it's valid none the less and obviously a position Chief has taken. We all know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I genuinely got caught out not knowing about Chief's behavior and it genuinely cost me time and money. It took a while to even understand that a program would load an older version of a file instead of the updated one. It never even occurred to me that this could happen. Again, I'm not the brightest bulb but learning about it really surprised me. Haven't been caught out since but even today I have to remember Chief's unique behavior in this regard and my assistant and I are always reminding each other to double check. If some users are OK with that behavior then not much I can do, but I personally am not OK with it. I've told headquarters and relayed my story but there's a little bit of a disconnect at Chief in that the tech support people have no power to prioritize changes, only report them. They are kind and understanding but a lot of the concerns i.e. bugs etc. may not get to those who do have the power to prioritize such things in a way that will cause timely change. I still love Chief and that will not change but I just think they can do better. I personally don't 'insist' that a saved PDF be saved with the same name it's just a habit I'm in to keep my file list clean and uncluttered. I simply don't want 3 or 4 similar files with different names.

Huh? Not sure what thread you are actually reading but was there a post somewhere in this thread that suggested everything is (or should) always the highest priority? And why would you quote the post you did and then respond as if there were a suggestion that someone suggested that everything is always the highest priority? I suggested specifically that if there are behaviors that catch someone out, and cost time and effort that those should be given priority so you can't be referring to the post you quoted but sometimes we all read what we want and I think you might have read in something that was never implied or suggested. Or least quote something or someone that is relevant to your response as a common courtesy. I went back and added a descriptor to the previous post but I thought I was talking about a behavior that caused harm and not just any and every bug should be highest priority. Ah never mind... Thanks

It only has to catch one person out one time to be an important behavior that should be changed. Don't call it a bug, make up any name you choose, and by all means don't wait until enough people note it because most users will not report bugs - or any other unexpected behavior but once (EDIT: a bug is discovered that causes some harm to the user) it seems it should be of the highest priority.

All great sentiments and there is a certain responsibility that rests on the user and a certain responsibility that rests on the software developers. If you report a bug, which is part of our responsibility as users, that responsibility ends with that report. The responsibility of the developers takes over and the bug should be prioritized, addressed and fixed. Now as the dev. do you wait and see how many people complain about a bug and move it up the priority list accordingly? I certainly hope not. That would require more responsibility on the user than is warranted IMO and relieves the devs of theirs. "Oh that doesn't seem to worry our users, let's not fix it." That's a horrible measure of the effect of a bug on a user base. If a bug simply goes unfixed for a long period of time it demotivates the user base to even report bugs. Why should we? If they are ignored for years and not fixed? Not enough people reported the bug? Really? Not saying Chief thinks this way and I hope not. This specific behavior of Chief, to me, is very out of the ordinary and can cause genuine harm and costs in time and effort. Is it a bug? I personally don't care what it's called. The behavior is intended and is part of the internal design of how Chief works as it caches files etc. to speed the program but that intended behavior was never OK for many users until they understand how Chief behaves, which is different than any other software I've ever used. Any user can feel free to report bugs as long as they'd like. Personally I'm done. I've used Chief for about 20 years, absolutely love the program, and I know who the company is. Not from speculation. or a bias from inexperience but from a long long time of demonstrable behavior. Chief talks a great game of customer service etc. but many times do not deliver on that talk. Again great people, but the execution of the promises can be a bit lacking and sometimes just down right poor despite customer feedback.

This is all about the personnel at Chief. All great people, I have met them, but someone is making these decisions to ignore reported and demonstrable bugs along with constant requests on this forum to report them. Why would we? Why should we?

I rarely take the time any more because some just sit there unresolved - for many years.

That's a great tip and just simplified my plan views. Thanks

Robert did you add lights? Or just use the recessed cans? I can never get them to look OK by themselves.

Thanks David, Saved in my template files.

I'm far from an expert but I find that the 3D lights added from the 3D>lighting>Add Lights dialog box instead of relying on the recessed can light etc. to light the scene are much more effective in getting the lighting correct. I add lights that have Custom Lumens settings and move them both vertically and horizontally through the scene until the lighting looks OK. PBR LIGHTING.plan

It still is in general but there are a few who feel like a lecture is as important as offering genuine help. Stick around, there are still others who are more than willing to help - without the scolding. As far as RayTracing help the subject can be very deep and complex and there are no real short cuts to getting them 'right' in your eyes and to your liking. David's advice about doing a general search is very good but it will still come down to much trial and error with lighting and different settings to get what you want. There are a few users who are perfecting the Physical Based Rendering or PBR and are using it instead of RT. Still a lot of homework either way. Does interiors have the PBR option?

Almost 4 years ago? And no change? Talk is cheap....

You will notice that when you create your second floor that the settings it is asking for in the structure dbx, before you complete that second floor specification, are the defaults for the second floor. It says Floor 2 Defaults in the structure tab. You will also see a space to input 'ceiling below'. This value should not change with any kind of custom ceiling height for floor 2. Or you can go to defaults>current floor and set your heights there for the second floor. I just tried it now and had floor heights jumping all over the place. It's part and parcel of using Chief and its Structure dbx which is IMO the single worst piece of software interface I have ever used. You just have to mess around until the floor looks the way you'd like them to. Takes time to understand the (poorly implemented) paradigm. Good luck.

It really is no less important than your description above....

Rod, That's gotta help - I hope. I know they are aware of the problem but the fact an issue like this isn't addressed as soon as it's known is concerning and the response you got from tech support basically saying the behavior is intended, with no real plan to correct it, is even more concerning. I can deal with it because I know about it but was caught out the other day because the behavior is so unexpected I forgot Chief worked in this way.

This...

...so by all means, instead of assigning a layer that you can turn on/off like every other material/item in Chief there's a special material selector for cantilevered undersides that's only available for cantilevered undersides? Really? Nice catch as always Glenn but why would Chief decide to throw this entirely new way to deal with surfaces/materials? I wasted a lot of time this morning learning about another secret handshake that's hidden within an incredibly inconsistent GUI.

Nice catch...

Yes, agreed, just like a 21st century software program.

It's pretty disturbing when such abnormal and potentially harmful behavior is intended. What I mean by abnormal is that no one could guess that this behavior would/should occur and I have lost time and money until I understood how Chief, uniquely treats PDF files and I think also its own plan files. AND they do not intend to change it? Again pretty disturbing.

Rod, Tried it a couple ways but don't like anything about decks. Sometimes Chief remembers that it was a deck when the room is re-named and I think the cantilever underside is a great idea but why isn't it on its own layer that you can turn off/on? Oh yeah thought about the inv. walls and room below too but like you say a bit of a PIA.

Michael, tech support mentioned caching in their reply. Probably has something to do with this behavior as well. Might go to the core of their software in a way that might be difficult to remedy?

Thanks Eric, Tried that and also tried thickening the T&G surface layer but the cantilever underside layer always finds its way z fighting with the lowest layer....with no way to turn that layer off. Looks like it worked in your pic. Did you get it to work?