Alaskan_Son

Yeah, I was suspecting that might be the case. I couldn’t remember for sure. Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Away from my computer but a few options that come to mind (and I’m not sure whether or not the first 2 would work or not)... 1. Try blocking the stairs while the wall is out of the way and then leave them blocked once you put the wall back. 2. Put the stairs onto a different floor and then overlap views in layout or use the reference display. 3. Build that bottom tread with primitives and just make it slightly thicker than the existing tread to help avoid z-fighting. 4. Just build that whole set of stairs with primitives. 5. Depending on the structure you might even consider building the wall with primitives or a symbol. 6. Use Justin’s idea.

Just a wild guess here, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this user has probably already found the help they need...seeing as how they posted more than 2 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that the issue was all one and the same. The OP was just trying to give us a visual of the "glitching out". I was able to easily reproduce on my system too and it does indeed seem to be completely related to the distance from the origin. You are right though...there was also a major z-fighting issue. I was just trying to clarify that what the OP had illustrated in the wasn't z-fighting. And no, I hadn't opened the plan yet.

Huh? Did you look at the PDF in the first post? That is most certainly NOT z-fighting. Your advice seems to have fixed the problem for the OP, but what he/she showed in the shot was something much different that I’ve never seen before.

See if this thread helps you out at all…

Its an elusive but spectacularly wonderful creature. Once you have a glimpse you’ll never forget it. It will haunt your dreams.

Mimicking trusses for as-built situations, communicating ideas with truss manufacturers, drawing important truss details for CDs even when the trusses have been designed by others, inserting truss designs from others for model accuracy/collision detection, drawing decorative trusses, rough iterations for CDs or renderings... PLUS, some of us actually DO have a hand in designing trusses either in whole or in part, and some of us even build trusses onsite from time to time. I don’t think some of yuze guys realize the range of users there are that utilize Chief. It’s not all about permit drawings you know. In some areas there are no permits and everything is designed by one guy—only reason for drawing anything is to communicate with subs, some of us are engineers, and some of us use Chief almost exclusively for realistic renderings where every little detail counts. AND, some of us use the truss tool for things other than trusses. The list could go on. I’m kinda curious what the point of this thread even is though.

Yes. That is correct.

My experience with large numbers of CAD Details is fairly limited (I usually don’t have very many) but here’s what I can offer—for whatever it’s worth: I’ve found that the most significant slow down occurs when loading the views themselves and not so much with the overall size of the file. The single worst thing I’ve seen though as far as “hitting a wall” is with large numbers of CAD Blocks and opening up CAD Block Management (CBM). It seems as if Chief draws every single CAD Block when opening CBM and I’ve had files that take 5 or 10 minutes just to open CBM. I think those were situations where people used the SAM with Automatically Purge UNCHECKED. If your CAD details contain a lot of CAD blocks though, this might be an issue you need to consider.

This is what I do as well unless its something super simple in which case I will occasionally just place items on different layers. This approach is really only useful about 5% of the time though.

Yep, I agree with the guys above. It totally varies from one place to the next and from one product to the next. Installing cabinets over some nail down/glue down hardwood or tile might be fine, but over floating floors or carpet? Not so much.

We pretty much always use completely custom cabinetry built locally and so I've never used cabinets from manufacturer libraries, but there's no reason a manufacturer catalog couldn't include cabinets as cabinet symbols and therefore include the box itself as part of that symbol. Not saying any of the libraries are set up that way because I don't know, but its definitely possible.

I personally just use an existing wood, laminate, or tile material that looks the same.

Ya, Joe nailed it. What you're seeing is z-fighting though, not semi-transparency. The reason for the z-fighting is that the face of the casing is getting located where the back of the casing should be.

For your particular plan, there are basically 2 main criteria I would look at... 1. The joist span. The code requirement for joist spans is just based on deflection and is something you get from the joists manufacturer, but I typically try to keep most 9-1/2" joists down to about 14' spans or less. 2. Whether or not the trusses are free spanning. 99% of the trusses we use ARE free spanning (no interior bearing locations) and if that is the case, there's no need to worry about the pony walls supporting the trusses. If the trusses require mid span supports than you may need to locate those mony walls directly underneath some of the wall above. In the case of your plan though, it looks like the 2 locations where I put the only walls would likely be the only place they would need to be located in order to bear the trusses and walls above anyway. With regard to the spacing between walls. It really kinda depends on the plan. I see no reason to place breaks in that plan. I just MIGHT frame little "doorways" (openings with headers) at a couple locations just to make ity easier to traverse the crawlspace. Not really a necessity though.

I didn't study the plan in great deal, but if it was me, my pony walls would almost certainly look more like this...

This is just a very basic answer and I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding your question or not, but those pony walls are typically just built to do one of 2 things... Provide mid-span support for floor joists or floor beams Support bearing walls or posts/beams above The pony walls as you have them don't make a whole lot of sense to me but I also don't know what the house above looks like.

Delete everything except the problem area.

Maybe try to read my post again? The steps I spelled out will get you the materials from the wall definition too.

Mark, You are correct. Calculate Materials For Room will calculate any material regions and will deduct any fenestration areas but not calculate the wall materials themselves. This is something that has been suggested in the past To get the wall materials to generate try this as a starting point: Create a layer set that has nothing reporting to the Material List except your walls and Material Regions Select your desired room and click Make Standard Area Polyline Convert the polyline to a Material List Polyline Click Calculate Material List Groups select the desired cells and copy/paste them to wherever you want them

Yes. Switch to a dimension tool and then hold down Control or Shift while you marquis select.

Do this instead... Rotate your camera and Fill Window Building Only Send that view to layout As Current Screen Go back to plan view, click Tools>Plan Views>Rotate Plan View and rotate the plan view to orient it the same direction as you rotated the camera view. Fill Window Building Only Either send that plan view to layout As Current Screen, OR Click Tools>Plan Views>Rotate Plan View and rotate the plan view back to 0.0°, send it to layout As Current Screen, and then rotate the layout box. Again, these steps should automatically align your views.

Away from my computer right now and that thread is gone. As I recall though the problem in that thread wasn’t the offset shadows/fills but those rough edged shadows, and the problem was directly related to the FOOTPRINT of all VISIBLE objects. It could be pretty easily controlled by simply turning off layers. Not sure if that has any affect on this issue or not. Also, FWIW, I absolutely see it too. I think everybody has the problem. Some people just don’t notice it or care enough.

There is a much quicker way to do this actually. Just use Fill Window Building Only in both your plan view and in your orthographic overview. Then send each of the 2 views to layout as Current Screen. They will automatically be lined up perfectly.