JKEdmo

Thanks. I did not know about that tool. I'll give it a try! Jim

Does Chief have a site stair tool, where the stair follows/ conforms to the terrain? I need to do a railroad tie stair... How do you usually do site stairs? Do you just use the regular stair tool and finesse it? Jim

Thanks for your input. Jim

Shane, You have a standard keynote table (text?) as one CAD detail that you bring into the layout sheets where needed. You use "dumb" callouts or tags in the PLAN files that refer to the keynote table. Did I understand your method correctly? Thanks, Jim

Good morning, I'm setting up a project with 5 small buildings on the same sloping lot, each with different orientations and elevations. The owner plans on submitting each building separately for permit. I have not done this setup before in Chief and thought I'd ask a few quick questions before I get too far into this. I have read some previous posts on the topic... 1) I plan on doing separate PLAN files for each building, then reference in each building to a separate site plan. In your opinion, an okay approach? 2) In the interest of consistent notes, Is it in any way possible to have one common notes / keynotes schedule that is used across all separate PLAN files? I suspect no, but thought I'd ask. Thanks again, Jim

Any chance you have (most) layers turned off in your Camera View Layer Set?

Maybe F11? Toggles Bumping / Pushing on/off:

You know, I'm not exactly sure. Maybe another user with more experience than me will chime in? But, you might look into Reference Display method for as-built / demolition plans. If you don't already know, you could set your existing plan as a grey line underlay to your proposed / new work plan. Items in the new work plan that get deleted or put on turned off layers will allow the grey line "existing" background to shown through. This method might work good for what you want to do. Jim

The casing and sill layers are different than the window itself. Select a window. Under Active Layer Display Options you'll then see all the layers associated with a window element: You'll then see the layers Casings, Exterior and Casings, Interior. These control casing and sill display: For this window I changed the window to blue and the casing layers to magenta.

Hey, you're pretty awesome! But, you've made your argument to the forum, so how about giving it a rest? I don't think you are winning many converts with your boasting and snark.

I built a mulled unit next to the bay and just copy and pasted it over (after I deleted the original center window in the bay.). See if that works for you.

Not sure an engineer, but perhaps a gun range consultant or specialty firm? I've never done one, but my first wild guess is there are firms who specialize in designing and building these. That is if shooting ranges are complicated enough to warrant this. (I'd guess they are). So, they would give you all the requirements to lay out the room / shell / enclosure and they would handle the rest. Sort of like doing coordinating with an elevator company for an elevator install -- they provide general guidance in laying out the hoistway, machine room, etc. but handle the rest of the design. Jim

Thanks Jason. Yes, that's my approach too and was my intent. As Chief was spitting out a "silly" roof slope of a 16th of an inch, I just wanted to adjust the automatic output to be reasonable and was looking for alternative to manual text override. To sum up for the audience, I was simply documenting an existing roof condition. I wanted to indicate the existing, approximate and to my best knowledge roof slope. The modeled roof plane had a weird fractional slope because it was driven by the set conditions: a shed dormer on a standard plate height rising up to meet an existing ridge whose height was set by an opposite roof plane with a "normal" roof slope of 12:12. And since it's as-built documentation, there was no proposed new construction (roofs). So, "match existing" note is not relevant. Well, I suppose this topic has been exhausted! Yours wearily, Jim

Strong words. Take it down a notch please.

Thanks Michael for your input. (I'll try to be more precise with my wording). Good and lively discussion above regarding precision in modeling. As an architect (i.e. non-builder) I have no problem fudging things if necessary to move the drawings along. My personal standard is the model doesn't have to be perfect but good enough, and then on to the next project. Jim