renosud

Sorry Mr Nestor, looks like lunch for two! Thanks for taking the time to show in the trial plan and in metric.

Fixed! Thanks so much Alaskan Son. Let me know if you are ever in the Montpellier area of France. Lunch on me.

High Ridge Runner & Mr Nestor, I have uploaded a sample plan with these conditions and added a photo of the result I want to achieve with all units in the same plane and no frame/casing projections. I have recessed to sheathing layer and tried moving and shunting the individual units, but it always results in the same projecting casing. It's as if the mulled unit retains the connecting frames between individual units instead of creating a single unit frame.

Hi, Does anybody know how to get rid of the projected door casing when door and window units are mulled? See photo. I cannot seem to get rid of the dividing casing or frame section even when mulled as a single unit. I must be missing something. I need it to look mulled in a single plane, with no projected casing from the individual units. Any ideas? Many thanks MULLED_DOORS_V1.plan

Glenw, Absolutely spot on. Thanks for your time, it's a complete fix, just didn't realise that tiny detail was the culprit. For anybody else following or reading this, it's a tiny detail with a devil to find resolution. Custom wall exterior layers must not be framing type, or your pocket doors won't work. Best wishes George

Hi, I have an annoying 'bug' or fault, or equally something that I have done, which is triggering pocket doors to delete wall layers in 3D views. A simple plan is attached showing the error in a custom wall, but not showing in a shipped Chief wall. Any ideas before I have to rebuild the walls etc? This is an existing wall in a complex renovation plan and I would prefer to know 'why' its happening before I try to fix it myself. Many thanks SAMPLE POCKET DOOR ERROR.plan

Thanks to you all for a range of solutions to this. Kbird1's option with the partition wall seems an easy fix and a future rolling solution just a little bit easier than chopsaw but both work well while preserving the wall materials integrity. Excellent. Perhaps Chief can fix this in due course, seems logical to have internal/external layers always wrapping between wall thickness intersections, can't really think of condition where it wouldn't be desirable. For David - excellent French pronounciation! For the Francophiles 'enduit taloche' is pronounced 'en-dwee talo-shey' In the USA/Canada I think you would call it 'stucco' its a very old hand-finished render technique still commonly used in the Mediterranean for external finishes on stone buildings see here If any of you are in the South of France let me know - always a bed available with a glass or two thrown in. George

Hi Guys, Apologies for delay I have been off line for a while. See attached a simple version of the same 'not-wrapping' issue for Kbird1 and Alaskan_Son to look at. The wall type is a typical wall type for my work, which is a thick stone wall normally 500-700mm with a plaster in the inside and lime based traditional render on the outside. See here an web example. You'll see the not wrap condition on a wall composed on 2 wall thicknesses in the same plane. Any ideas - is it me? CP NOT WRAPPING EXAMPLE.plan

Hi, I use CA almost exclusively for remodel work on old stone properties in France. I keep running into the issue below, which is needing to use two different wall thicknesses in the same run of wall to reflect typical recessed windows in old stone properties. I usually draw one wall, than use the cut wall tool exactly where I want, and then create a new wall but the internal material [in this case plasterboard - is this called drywall in the USA?] will not wrap around the cut edges leaving the main layer materials on view? An ideas what I might be doing wrong? Thanks as always George Palmer

Hi David/Alaskan Son, Wow. It never even occurred to me to put the walls in the library. A fantastic and super flexible way to keep, use and amend them. Many thanks. I'll really look at David's method here, it's clearly a more controlled and clean way to work. I suppose bad habits stick an really bad habits really stick. CP

Hi David, Thanks so much for the clarification, that's interesting. If I understand you correctly, you use the default Chief profile.plan [unadulterated] and then add back in what you want? Does that mean importing all your custom wall styles, annotation sets/ layer sets etc each time? e.g. you do not save all this into the profile.plan and make tweaks etc to the profile.plan as the base template? CP

Hi Robert, OK it's clear now. I can see that they are not a mystery. In fact I opened a chief example plan and realised that even without adding user materials during the evolution of a plan, there are over 60 materials by default in the plan materials list sitting in the background. This just needs careful management because it's very easy to build up over 100 different defined materials. Technically, just to clarify for any Sketchfab users, as soon as the 'different materials ' passes 100, the model is rendered to a single default material as confirmed by the technical helpline. This does not mean just a count of the list of different materials in the 3DS export [which is then zipped for upload to Sketchfab]. Often the listed materials in the export can be as few as 20-30. The issue appears to be that the 3DS file itself embeds all of the default materials in the polygon architecture [even if there is no supporting texture file]. I have tested this by first deleting some of the exported material jpegs from the 3DS export to 'reduce' the materials, which had a minimal effect. What actually worked in the end was going into the plan materials list and merging many materials to reduce the whole list to less than 100. Here's an example of a typical sketchfab model for our type of complex renovation projects in the South of France: typical sketchfab project Our clients, from all over the world, love this kind of interaction and so when you suddenly have to stop sending them models because the materials count passes 100 and the models fail, they get withdrawal symptoms. The Chief 3D viewer is too basic for us and does not present the same ultra professional image as sketchfab. Any other sketchfab users will need also to be cautious in managing the total number of materials to less than 100. As a final point, I asked the technical guys at sketchfab if this upper limit could be increased, which they are considering. Sketchfab is really a 3D artist modelling platform, but they are aware that they are missing significant commercial opportunity for small architectural firms, who because of the complexity of the models, will quickly pass the 100 materials threshold. Many thanks Clive

Hi Everybody, Thanks for the ideas. Have checked the purge angle. Everything that is there is tagged 'in-use' with nothing to purge. To clarify David's point, this is my template plan [saved as a template] that has indeed developed over time, but doesn't everybody do that? Have checked all sections/elevations etc, and all floors with 'all on' layer set - nothing hiding there. If anybody wants to take a look, you can download it from the link below. [Chief X9 - latest release]. Off to bed here in the South of France, so will pop back tomorrow to see if any of you guys can shed some light on it. As always, many thanks for your generosity and patience. Best wishes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngF1TwBNNS8ISVsPRszSzYvL0sXf5FU4/view?usp=sharing

Hi, I seem to have a lot of materials that have accumulated in my main template plan materials list [view plan materials from the materials format painter]. I have made sure the plan is entirely empty with no walls or content anywhere, including deleting all CAD Details just in case. The list is showing some 85 materials as 'in use', but from where? The problem is that when the model is exported as a 3DS files for use in other 3D modelling software, it exports all the materials [including the mystery list of 85] which can quickly exceed the upper limit [of usually 100 separate materials] set by many modelling tools. As a result, the 3D models tend not to work. I am completely baffled as to a] where Chief is picking these up from as 'in use' and b] How to get rid of them? Any ideas? Many thanks Clive

Solver, many thanks for the link and prompt reply, looks like this is a unnecessary hassle for many of us. Looks like and easy fix for Chief developers. Little things like this just interrupt the workflow. Here's hoping in X10.