smashing

I am so annoyed by this decision, and so bitterly disappointed. My entire view of the company has changed. I sat down to use CA just now and that's when it dawned on me. I have had this warm, fuzzy, loving and benevolent feeling towards this company, that has grown and grown over many years, and I realize in large part it’s because of the straightforward, ‘honest’, buy-to-own model. This feeling grew as I progressed from a version I bought in a computer store in the mid 90s, through every version of Home Designer, to finally shelling out for Chief Architect this year. I am not an architect, I'm a home owner and DIY'er. I've upgraded each time I moved to a new home, or embarked on a new renovation project. I loved that 'progression', an investment in the software and my own skills, that made me feel like a valuable and loyal customer, and the excitement that came each time I upgraded, by unlocking new features and possibilities. I was happy to pay for the not insignificant upgrade cost each time. The upgrade to Chief Architect this year was a massive outlay for me. I justified it in my mind that I would own this powerful and professional piece of software for a long time to come, a significant step in my progression as 'amateur architect', at least until my next home or renovation project, when I'd have happily paid out yet another significant (but still manageable) outlay to upgrade or update. So I feel I supported this company for an extremely long time, extolling and lauding the software to innumerable friends, over two decades plus, with many of my friends joining the Home Designer train too. So frankly this feels like a gigantic kick in the balls. Nearly 30 years of good feelings and vibes, destroyed in one email. While the company may have done the figures and worked out how much additional revenue this will bring them, the fact remains this company will never be able to calculate the loss of goodwill and feelings from people - perhaps like myself - who still believe in the concept of owning things, rather than renting them. What a damn damn shame.

What an absolutely terrible decision you are making. This is the worst news ever. Subscription software models are a curse on humans and I pray there is a user revolt. You will never get another cent out of me. That much is for sure.

I realize this is a very old topic but I experienced a similar issue to this today. When importing a 3D model (symbol) and applying a material to it in Chief Architect, the material appeared stretched compared to other objects and walls that I applied the same material to. In my case I was importing a Collada (.dae) file made in Blender. The solution for me was to disable 'Use Imported UV Map' in the symbol specification dialog when importing, which comes up if you select advanced options. This solved the problem immediately.

I wanted to follow up and share what I ended up doing... 1. I used a 3D solid to create a false wall in front of the exterior wall. 2. I punched a hole in the 3D solid where the window was, using the 'right click -> 3D Solid Feature' method. 3. Working in 3D Perspective view I selected the lower face of the opening and selected 'Chamfer Lines', as shown below: 4. This let me add a chamfer to the right side 5. And then the left 6. I then selected the right chamfered edge and extended it to the right as shown below 7. This had a desirable (unexpected) consequence of adjusting the left side automatically 8. I then selected the bottom face again... 9. And adjusted the 'corner' of the left chamfered edge and moved it up towards the window 10. And repeated for the right... And this resulted in the desired opening. I imagine there is probably a more precise way of doing this - I had some trial and error to get the measurements correct - but 3D Perspective View is what worked for me, and I liked the simplicity of ending up with a single 3D object for the false wall, complete with its keystone opening. I'm grateful to rcmcdougle for inspiring me to keep tinkering, and hope this helps others!

Thanks Glenn. I was unable to find the 1800mm Bathroom Mirror that you used, either in the X14 core library or among the bonus catalogs. I tried a number of bonus catalogs, anything with mirrors or bathroom items. However since you and Robert succeeded with different looking frames, this encouraged me to experiment with a few I had access to, and eventually I found one that I was able to reproduce your results! The one I ended up having success with was 'Beaded Frame' under 'Mirrors and Frames' in the core library. This is a picture frame, and all I needed to do was change the material for 'Picture' to 'Mirror' (under Glass and Glazing > Mirror) Thanks for finding this anomaly... that works!

Thanks for replying. This is a proof of concept at this stage so no plan exactly to share. Ultimately it's for a shower wall on an open concept bathroom. I've tried windows, several of the stock mirrors, as well as a 3D object changing the material to (stock) glass. What kind of object are you using?

This looks perfect. Amazing. I'm having trouble reproducing it. Can you (or Rob) provide the steps?

Yes it has lots of names.... Is it possible to have glass mirrored on one side, see-through on the other?

Excellent - will try this approach. Thank you.

You're absolutely correct, the roof plane forms the top of the opening which is not modelled in the CA screenshots. Those were me working on a quick test model to play around with different approaches. I've seen some wonderful videos from @solver - it's possible I've not found the right one yet. Thanks!

Sorry yes this wasn't perhaps the best shape description... it's more 'keystone'. The opening is wider than at the window basically. The bottom of the opening is flat as you'd expect, the top follows the roof angle.

I’m working on an old property with thick stone walls, and a variety of false walls inside of them. Wall thicknesses vary throughout the property, most are at odd angles, and some vary in thickness along their length. Suffice to say it’s caused a lot of headaches modelling in Chief Architect. I’ve given up on the idea of modelling walls that vary in thickness along their length, and have solved a number of key issues, but there’s a couple of things I’m struggling with. I’ll keep it simple and put a simple question… How would you model the situation in the photo below? It’s a recessed window in a wedge-shaped opening. The drywall (plasterboard) sits in front of the exterior wall, which extends 28 cm further beyond the window shown. So far I’ve explored using marriage walls, with the option under ‘Double Wall Options - Enlarged’ to place the window. This is simple, and results in a fair approximation as shown below, but the recess is rectangular (not wedge shaped). I’ve explored using a 3D solid for the false wall, and poking a hole in it using the 3D Solid Feature. This seems to offer more control and is quite promising, but my 3D skills in CA may be limiting here, and I can’t get the hole to be wedge shaped. It ends up the same ‘squared’ recess as the other approach. Perhaps I’m missing something. I’ve considered modelling the false wall in Blender, but there are a lot of rooms, and I’d prefer to have an all-in-CA solution for speed and flexibility. What approach would you use? P.S. For the sake of simplicity, perhaps ignore the complicating ‘beam’ across the top of the window (although ideally I’d like to model that too)

Very interesting - thank you

As someone who was infuriated by this same problem today, ironically in both Home Designer and Chief Architect, a solution that worked for me was to play around with the checkboxes under the 'Floor' section of the Room Specifications > Structure tab. Specifically I found a troublesome checkbox seems to be 'Floor Supplied by the Foundation Room Below'. If checked, I had the same problems you describe, if unchecked, I was able to change the floor height for an individual room, without changing all of the other rooms. I can't speak to the inter-relation of the checkboxes, what all of them do, or unintended consequences. Other notes... Sometimes you can't enable 'Monolithic Slab Foundation', without enabling 'Floor Supplied by the Foundation Room Below'. But sometimes (or somehow) you can. The checkboxes act a little buggy in other ways - they do so if you do make changes to the checkboxes on multiple (selected) rooms at once Sometimes the checkboxes get re-enabled while you're away from them. Baffling. In Chief Architect there is a 4th checkbox labelled 'Build Foundation Below'. The X14 Reference Manual doesn't say what it does, but I can tell you it affects whether a room's foundation is rebuilt or not Dropping the floor height of a room on the ground floor seems to expose the foundation (visually) where there are higher rooms around that room, which there usually would be. You can't 'paint' on this foundation edge, and the only suggestion I've found so far is to cover it up with a thin soffit. Removing and replacing internal walls worked one time for me, but it created a new problem where the higher room's floor covering was the foundation, and I couldn't 'paint' it either. I'm beginning to think that it's best to start a project with the lowest part of your house at 0 height, rather than use negative floor values. But this is not really an option when you have an existing model that you are trying to work height changes back into. I realize this is an older question, but I struggled to find a suitable answer to this problem, so I put this here for others who may be searching in future.