Alaskan_Son

The macro actually isn't the problem. Its a Chief related 3D rebuild issue/bug.

It should be noted that specifically regarding the Emissive setting, the video is a little out of date. In X16, that setting does indeed cast actual light on the scene in Physically Based (Ray Trace) views.

Check out the Recreation No.2 Theater and Music bonus catalog. They have some theater seating in there... https://www.chiefarchitect.com/3d-library/index.php?r=site/detail/779

From the help files:

I think you may be lumping me in with the rest of the group. I've personally said very little about any of this in my 3 posts and although I'm fully aware of Chief's many limitations, I certainly didn't say anything about Chief falling flat or breaking with complexity. What i actually said is that I thought the introduction of phasing was likely to break some of the functionality. As for the "assumptions" you speak of, I'm not really sure what you're referring to but it is clear that you have assumed a lot about most of us. Your assumptions may may be correct as assumptions commonly are, but they may also be wrong. I for one actually understand phasing fairly well and to be fair, I think it's a really cool feature that would be nice to have. The concept in one form or another has actually been brought up quite a few times over the years here on the forum, but I think it creates too many problems with Chief's paradigm. This is true on many levels having to do with the way Chief automates things, but in particular this is true of Chief's room based paradigm. Chief uses the Room to define almost everything about the model including but not limited to: f Floor structure Floor finish Ceiling structure Ceiling finish Moldings Wall coverings How objects are positioned How various tools behave How doors and windows behave How walls behave Wall finish Automatic roof generation Framing generation Automatic dimension generation ....and much more This paradigm although a hindrance in many ways is also the reason why I can literally complete a complete set of construction documents for a 4 wall building in the time it's taken me to get this far in this post. This room paradigm though means that multiple rooms cannot exist in the same model space without also breaking or greatly complicating some of thew aforementioned behaviors. To make matters worse, we define those rooms with walls, so that means walls become part of that problem and so forth. Side Note: I know we're not exactly comparing apples and apples, but ironically Revit has issues with Rooms and Phasing as well. Anyway, I do think its possible Chief could maybe implement a time stamped reference point (like a Saved Action History) in the drawing to represent any given phase, but due to the underlying dependence of various objects, this would also make it virtually impossible to go back and make a correction or change to an earlier phase without also making that exact same change to every other affected phase therefore constantly having to manually sync our timelines. This is not to mention how complex and expensive it would be to computationally maintain automation for several different timelines all at once. Chief has a hard enough time handling one complex model as it is with all of its various automation. So, its a balancing act. Yes, I have multiple models, and yes if I make any changes or corrections I may potentially have to do the same to multiple models, but its really not a lot of extra work and allows Chief to automate a lot more than what Revit is able to automate. Also, what hasn't been mentioned is that it's not all downsides either. Using the X-Ref type approach I'm talking about (and that I know you're familiar with) allows for using a single As-Built or Phase 1 plan with multiple Proposed or Phase 2 options (i.e. parallel timelines) which can be super useful. Again, I wish you the best.

You sound like an Autodesk salesman! This issue seems highly subjective to me. I think its entirely possible...nay probable...that a persons preferred workflow, mental proclivities, and preferred/required output dictate what they need in this regard. And its clear (at least to me) that you can't/don't fully appreciate that your phasing functionality objectively comes at a cost. In Chief that cost would be much of its automation and ease of use. If you had a deeper understanding of how Chief worked, you would realize that the introduction of phasing would absolutely slow down and even completely break several key aspects of the software--things that make Chief what it is. Good luck my man, but I if not having phasing is a "non starter", I think you're wasting everyone's time here ...unless of course your goal is indeed to move people over to Revit.

It sounds like you've made your mind up already. No, Chief does not have phasing but we do have other ways of communicating the same information. And no, Chief's terrain tools haven't really changed.

This should be over in the General Q&A Section, BUT, yes, as long as all your rooms are set to Default Floor and Ceiling Elevations, all you need to do is go into your Default Settings>Floors & Rooms>Floor Levels, and then, change the ceiling heights for each individual floor.

Have you actually talked to the new company about their drafting standards and needs yet? Are you sure some of the things you're concerned with are even going to be an issue? Maybe they already have an easy system in place for their as-built/demo. plans. And maybe they don't even do site plans...or maybe those are done by someone else? I don't know, I could easily see a situation though where you're concerned with the ability to do something that they already have figured out and under control, and that perhaps you can just adopt their system. I mean they're getting jobs done right? Just a thought.

I believe it was right here in X16 that we were first given display Layer control for the structural Layers of walls. You'll have to make use of those:

Use a molding profile with no back leg...

You're right that Perspective Crop Mode is very similar to the Zoom tool. I still use it when working with very small details though for some of the exact reasons you mention...it allows for infinite zoom while freely panning, orbiting, and scroll-wheel zooming with my mouse. The zoom tool is not nearly as fluid and easy to use.

You can also optionally use a standard Orthographic Camera, 3D>View Direction>Front View, and Edit Active View>Camera>Options and set Field of View to 10 (the lowest it will go). This won't be perfect, but its close. This may be what Robert was alluding to when he said... By the way, I think the real ticket was what Robert mentioned just before that... He seemed to be mostly responding to Chris' mention of the Perspective Crop tool. but it was also a very good option for creating a PBR of a nearly Orthographic View. You just need to be viewing front the front, Zoom way out, and then use the Zoom tool to crop your view (zoom back in again).

Yeah, some of these are a real pain. I honestly can't blame Chief for this one. Its super difficult to know how and where these walls should join up. Even trying to manually decide how to do so is nearly impossible. Every single wall layer intersection option creates a problem somewhere and at least one of them is pretty much impossible... There are different variations within each as to how wall layers could potentially be joined, but they all have problems, so, I would probably do something like this... I would use a short section of Room Divider wall to control where that break takes place, and I would place a CAD polyline to hide the resulting extra line.. Turn the special Room Divider Layer off, and set the polyline to Background Color and you're off to the races.... Test.plan

Yes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried some variation of that over the years hoping that I can get it to work somehow.