TeaTime

17 hours ago, Renerabbitt said:

they should update that..standard view with line option looks a lot nicer, especially since they fixed shadows wtih the section cut tool when used with full overview instead of floor overview with no shadows
 

Agreed, but the main point was showin labels on a Top-down view, and the only way to do that is mixin 2D and 3D Views, regardless of rendering tech.

Hopefully some day we'll get the ability to show text and dimensions in 3d views and none of this will be necessary!

Something like this? https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-01142/creating-an-image-for-use-in-a-brochure-flyer-or-website.html

On 7/10/2023 at 9:13 AM, HabitatAlan said:

Is anyone using a Microsoft surface pro 7 or 8 with X15?

So, I'm guessing the sound of crickets means "No."

On 7/10/2023 at 9:13 AM, HabitatAlan said:

If so how does it do? Can you do 3D views ok?

Historically Surfaces have never really ideal for Chief, I think very few people find a lot of success with them. I had an older model surface years ago, I think around X12, and it worked "okay", not great but it was fine in a pinch. But overall performance, I didn't enjoy it and I wouldn't recommend it.  Of course X15 is a different beast, and I don't know that newer Surfaces have kept up with the changes to Chief's graphics. And thats always the biggest concern with any computer when considering it for Chief. The Surface 7 sports either an Intel UHD (i3 model) or Intel Iris Plus (i5 and i7 models) while the Surface 8 has Intel Iris Xe - none of these are ideal, though I'm fairly sure they'll work.

Chief's requirements are pretty obscure, they simply say your graphics needs to support DirectX 12 but computer spec sheets never list that so you gotta do some side research.  I'm pretty sure Iris Plus and Iris Xe both support Dx12 but I doubt youll get exceptional quality from it and no GPU Ray Tracing. It's best to think about Chief like a video game given the way it renders 3D, asking "will this computer be good for Chief?" is the same as asking "will this computer be good to play video games?" and if you find yourself talking to a store sales rep, that's a good way to frame the conversation.

7 minutes ago, DesignGallery said:

Is it the 'Text' or 'Text Line with Arrow' command?

Text macros within a Text Box will use attached arrows to determine what object the macro applies to (it's Referenced Object), so any arrow will work though, so long as the arrows tail end is snapped to a text box.

So Leader Line are the easiest since they draw an arrow and automatically attach a text box at the end.

3 minutes ago, DBCooper said:

Another thing you could do is use a note schedule.  I think this could work good if it was going to be just for a particular view and the comments are just on some of the cabinets.

This gets my vote, especially if there are a number of cabinets with comments that you want displayed.

Quick, simple, and clean.

Dontcha just love getting two entirely different reactions -- Chopsaw's right, you can absolutely adjust your dimensions to display in metric regardless of the plan being an imperial one, but on one hand it's simply a matter of what's more a pain: re-adjusting your various dimension defaults? Or redrawing on a metric plan?

However, you also need to remember that there's a lot more that's locked in Metric / Imperial, like Schedules and Materials Lists. Again though it just depends on the scope of the plan, but I like to err of the side of caution. I'd redraw.

1 minute ago, courtneykish said:

I was hoping to just show the secondary dimensions in metric, but I need it to be accurate.  

Oh boy that's something else entirely - yeah if all dimensions in the plan are metric, then using a Metric plan will be less of a headache overall.

1 minute ago, Chopsaw said:

Not on my version of chief although I do typically have it set up that way for normal design work. 

Not sure what you mean by that - various fields in chief have different minimums, some 1/16, some much less. If you open a cabinet spec and set it's width to 24 1/32" it'll correct it to 24 1/16". Even setting Num Style to Dec Inches, it'll change to .0625, not .03125.

But, yes, manually drawn dimension lines set to Decimal will display 17.6 using Grid Rounding, 17.7 using Distance rounding.

No, I don't believe so - entering in fractional inches, 1/16 is the smallest the Size fields allow, so even entering in 17.7, it's rounding to 17.6875", the nearest 16th.

43 minutes ago, rgardner said:

couldn't we skip all of these steps and just use the "reflect geometry" selection in the 3d

Sure can - save one door, copy it, reflect one.

Bottom line from the start though is you need two door symbols any way you swing it.

Because of how Change Opening/Hinge works, I don't think there is an easier way.

I guess I don't get why it didnt work though, with two door panels in either direction you should be able to apply and flip them to whatever orientation you need

5 minutes ago, MN_JohnH said:

I just thought the would be an easy way to change the door swing but leave the rest of the door exactly how it is.

Well, if Change Opening/Hinge is essentially just doing a Reflect, then if you flipped the symbol the wrong way, then Change Hinge should flip it back the right way, right?

Try copy/reflecting the door and making two different versions?

Curious, Pony Wall layers are supposed to cut around the casing, not the opening.

How'd you create the pony wall? What are the wall layers, layer grouping, etc.

I think "expected' depends on the situation, but regardless there's just no control to make it do/not do that. It just *does*.

Though apparently if the cap splits the walls it doesn't do that. But you don't want that.

Making wall type copies technically fixes it but breaks it in another way

Maybe that's acceptable, but I also don't think it'll be possible to get that little brick wrapping around the corner like in the photo - Chief will only allow a break a certain distance from the corner. That photo shows a single brick length wrapping and I think Chief'll fight you there.

Might do something like a thick cornerboard - but the cap will probably just need to be done manually.

That's what I was thinking too - unfortunately I don't think that's going to work exactly like the image because of the fascia and sub fascia.

Chief can do Square or Plumb(vertical), but not plumb horizontal. Should file it under Suggestions.

Just to see if it handled it gracefully or not, I marked those short wrapped attic walls to Retain Framing before I generated wall framing so they'd be ignored, and hey, lookit that

better than I'd expected!

2 hours ago, DIYJon said:

creating a wall with panels and balusters through the fencing feature

 Yeah, that'll totally work if the lower wall type is Solid, but Panels, Balusters, etc. won't let you put a framed wall above. Only the other way around.

What I'd probably do is go Up to floor A, draw a wall aligned with the rail below, then in a camera or Elevation view pull it where you need it

usually not a great idea to go yanking wall tops n bottoms around but this is one of those weird situations.

I did have to wrap the corner on Floor A

otherwise you'll have exposed framing.

Beat me to it once again, @DBCooper

That's what I was thinking too -- Try using the Back Clipped Cross Section to create an elevation of just that one wall to eliminate the back wall's framing, and check to make sure the layer is on in th Section View's layer set.

To be normal honest: there's a lot going on here - too much to give a simple answer.

To be brutally honest: your baselines stress me out. I had to just ignore them and focus on matching fascia heights.

One big tip to start though: that one roof plane that's jutting up too high needs to match the 6:12 pitch of the main roof just so that it can even join the rest.

After that, it's a game of massaging things into place. I played with this for a little while before I got it to fit together nice n tight.

7 hours ago, JLHomeCo said:

there are different wall heights, yes - fine with different overhangs and or fascia heights.

In a design like this you're guaranteed to have different fascia heights, but the trick it getting them to match where they need to, then reshaping the overbuilding areas.

In a lot of places you can open one roof plane, copy the Fascia Top Height and paste it to adjoining roof plane, locking the Pitch. As long as they have the same overhang depth and fascia height, the Join should be good.

One big hurdle here though is that main 6:12 plane on the top has different fascia heights:

You cant copy the fascia height from this one since it'll take the lowest fascia (the right edge). To get the left edge fascia height you'll either need to manually measure in elevation or draw a new roof plane over that wall -- the Move to be Coplanar roof tool works wonders for this. Pull that left edge back off the wall, draw a small roof plane over that wall and Move to be Coplanar with the large roof. Then copy it's fascia height around to 9:12 plane on the left.

There's probably a good half dozen other snags you may run into here though - I know some people on here offer training services, as does Chief directly. I'd probably suggest looking into that.

58 minutes ago, DBCooper said:

If by "washed out", you mean that the countertop fill is completely hiding the cabinet lines, then this sounds like a problem with the partial transparency used for the fill style.

There's definitely something more going on:

but yeah, agreed, go through that article try some other PDF writer software - in the days before chief had a built in PDF Export feature we used to have to use things like PDF995 or CutePDF, sometimes they avoid some of these weird issues.

If I were to guess, it seems Mulled units look to Windows Defaults for their schedule info.

Go into Window Defaults and change it to Fixed and see if that fixes it, it did for me. 

Looking at an object in Chief that is already setup to work like this will help understand how to configure ones you've imported in.

Placing a dishwasher from the catalog into a plan and opening it, you'll see on the 3D panel there's an Origin Offset that's used to re-position the object so that it sits inside the cabinet it's placed in.

Of course that only does what it's supposed to if on the Options panel its set to Inserts into Cabinet Front.

Edit: Oh, just noticed X13 in your sig, in older versions you have to use Open Symbol, instead of Open Object.

If you're dealing with Imported objects they should be in your User Catalog, you can just right-click them there

This is pretty easy to reproduce, it certainly does seem to treat "+" and "/-" as different things.*

2 hours ago, JKEdmo said:

Not sure if this is correct behavior

"correct" is subjective - I'm sure a software engineer may have a way to justify this behavior that makes no sense to the rest of us.

2 hours ago, JKEdmo said:

a minor glitch that I could report

I don't think it ever hurts to report something you feel is wrong.

*Edit: I got it to wrap "+/" and "-" so I'm guessing it's just not treating a string of symbols as a "word"

14 minutes ago, Chief42020 said:

If I knew what I was looking for I wouldn't be asking now, would I. Smh. 

3 hours ago, Chief42020 said:

why this shows up and follows around my arrow cursor?

I assume Ryan's point was to educate that you can ask the Forum, or you can ask Help. Just searching "Cursor" brings you to that topic.

Also take note of all the other cursors in that list, there are a few on there that can seem to appear mysteriously.