• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

About Klassen_Rem

  • Birthday 05/25/1958

Contact Methods

  • Houzz
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Butler, WI (suburb of MIlwaukee)
  • Interests
    Classic Design
    Accurate, clear renderings

Recent Profile Visitors

761 profile views
  1. For whatever reason, concentric doesn't seem to work in Elevation view. Both Concentric and Resize will move an edge by the "jump" setting, but dragging a corner only jumps that corner by that setting. Plan view, works as always, but not in elevation. Or am I missing something??
  2. Thanks for checking! That's perfect. There are a lot of things that show up in under cabinets I've learned to ignore, so that's no worry. Counting receptacles in a complex plan usually means something gets missed, so I rely on the material list. Many thanks, So, now Chief should know what they need to do to make this work for all users . . . !
  3. Dermot: The behavior you describe pretty much confirms what I'd been finding. But the idea of a CAD block -- that's brilliant. I really don't need anyone to look inside the cabinet (in Chief) and see a duplex or 2 under there; I just need it for the electrician. Then again, the only issue is my device count will be off in the material list. I feel Chief should allow us to put outlets inside cabinets. We have to do this a lot -- say for built-in wall ovens and the like. Sure, there's a wall to attach to in many cases, but in reality, many times the receptacle is in the cabinet. And then there's the whole thing w/LED lighting, particularly low-voltage. Graham: Your answer is a great one -- if the electrical device counts in material lists. Thanks, guys!
  4. It will let me put a receptacle on an open side, but nowhere near an inside or on the sides of adjoining cabinets.
  5. I had not checked defaults for electrical since moving to X10. Now that I did, I selected surface mount/duplex for the default receptacle. Behavior is same as before. At the front or back of the cabinet, it puts a standard receptacle on. Move anywhere near the inside of a cabinet (in plan view), and it changes to a WP.
  6. For whatever reason, in X10 in my plan, it won't allow an outlet to be placed INSIDE a cabinet, or on the side of adjacent cabinets. Like others here, we put duplex outlets in the sink base for the disposer and dishwasher as a means to meet code for disconnects. CA will let me put the outlet on the front or back of the cabinet only. Otherwise, if I use the toolbar outlet, it will let me put an outlet anywhere, but it's a WP (weatherproof) which always gets a laugh from our electrician. I can put an interior wall "in" the cabinet, add the outlets where I want them THEN make the wall invisible. Once invisible, I can no longer add outlets to it, but the ones I added are still there. I wish Chief would alter that behavior. (I'm using the Surface Mounted duplex -- though it doesn't seem to matter which device I use).
  7. How would materials be handled? Just like anything else in Chief. The top layer is often the only thing you change there. Setting it in the "Structure Tab" makes it like flooring -- which I personally don't care for either. Materials should set materials. There's no default for roofing any more -- so what we were taught to set all your defaults before drawing is now -- only partly true?! And, to make it even more lame, there IS a setting for the ridge cap in the materials defaults, but not the roofing. Just plain dumb. Having the layers of the roof "structure" broken out is wonderful, especially for take-off & material list purposes. But setting the roof surface material there, non sequitur to how of the rest of Chief is setup. The fact that there are suddenly several threads of folks asking how to do this is clearly an indication that Chief took the wrong direction here. Change that makes the process smoother, the results better = good change. Change just because = bad change. I'm all for good change. While I'm at it: Where the hell did the setting for gutter materials go, and why on earth was that changed?? "Help" says that setting is on the materials tab, as it always was. But nope, not there. It's on the Material defaults (the ONLY place it is, as far as I can find) list | Roof, but listed by the gutter profile, not "Gutter." Who's doing all this? Obviously not someone who actually needs to use the program! IMHO.
  8. Having the layers is terrific. Love it. But setting the materials there is really sorta dumb. AND, there's no default material for roofing any more either. This is inconsistent. Shouldn't be like this. IMHO.
  9. Noticed today that if casings are turned ott, the jamb disappears from a door. Try this, and you'll note that the jamb selection is grayed-out. This was posted in the old forum at http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?65511-X6-Exterior-Door-Defaults-not-working&highlight=door+jamb - As some have already commented, the wealth of knowledge and or bugs found could be lost now that the old forum is esssentially locked. Workaround if casings aren't wanted: Leave casings on, but set width to zero. Not sure what this might do in the Materials List, but at least it makes the door look correct in a render view. In the link above, this was noted for exterior doors; same happens for interior doors: No casing, no jamb. I'd say that was a bug, huh??? Ron Klassen Wallner Builders Chief Architect since ver 9, now X6
  10. Lew's suggestion isn't a bad one -- but perhaps due to the accuracy/relevancy issue, limit the releases to 1 or 2 back? X4 thru X6 have a lot of commonality; prior to that it gets weaker and weaker. The real issue, in my mind, is the new forum is essentially like starting from scratch. I had an issue with zooming in an overview, tried searching this forum 6 ways, found nothing. Went to the old forum, one search, found my answer -- don't check "Zoom using field of view" in Preferences | Render. Now I've sort of pulled an "old but useful" piece of information into this forum, but it's 1) off thread and 2) more typing than I would rather have done. . . (OK, I'm being lazy, yes). That said, if some of the relevant old content isn't brought over (and/or at least allow searches to find it here so we can copy/paste??), we'll lose a heck of a lot of wonderful, and sometimes painfully-gained experience.