HumbleChief

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?

You know what would be REALLY nice? Maybe give it its own layer so you could turn it off like every other aspect of Chief...sigh...so much for consistency.

Yeah that's what I did, video shows that but I know those videos can be long and boring....

Thanks Perry, I think it will come in handy in some cases but I chased that thing around for far too long this morning. Wish it was on/off by choice.

...turns out it is a 'Cantilever Underside' layer that is created by default. Can't delete it, can't remove it, can't turn its layer off, or can you? Had no idea, chased that bugger around for 45 minutes. Hope that helps someone in the future. surface_question.plan

Heard from tech support and was told it's likely they already know about it. I told a story about how it actually cost me time and money but don't know if they intend to change the behavior.

All great tips to fix a very broken aspect of Chief. Video shows how closing/reopening Chief will revise the PDF but again if you do not know that Chief behaves this way it can really cost you, in real time and real money. Inexcusable that this bug remains IMO.

yes but I wish 'limiting' were the only consequence. It's cost me money in the past and that is not cool by any measure...

Maybe, but should a user have to do anything special to expect normal behavior when updating a PDF? And what if someone does not know about this behavior? Should they also know about the trick you just posted?