Alaskan_Son

Yes, I agree, zero pressure would be ideal but its not realistically feasible from any practical standpoint. In erring to the side of caution I will always put my house under negative pressure before I put it under positive pressure. Anyway, only reason I bring it up is that your assertions that slight positive pressure was better is really only true in warmer climates. In colder climates, the opposite is true. And in all cases, I think we can agree that zero pressure is best, once we start introducing all the variables to the equation though its just not something that's going to happen anytime soon.

Here in Alaska and in other cold northern climates its actually imperative that houses remain under negative pressure. Yes, negative pressure has its health risks, but this is something we've just had to learn to balance and deal properly with. As soon as a house is under positive pressure here, we get condensation and the resulting mold and rot inside our walls, floors, and ceiling assemblies. Its actually a really really big deal here and codes have all been amended to completely remove supply only ventilation systems for this reason. Actually, even the warmest regions in Alaska have essentially (if not literally) zero cooling degree days and so there is almost always a constant negative pressure anyway simply due to natural air leakage and the stack effect.

Yes. This is very easy to do too. While in the Plan Footprint CAD Detail, just create another Plan Footprint. You will be prompted to select a floor number. Just select whichever floor you need to add.

You're welcome. For the floor moldings, it depends on the situation, but one of the easiest things to do is just open the wall and set it to No Room Definition.

This isn't totally true because we CAN create multiple Plan Footprints in a single CAD Detail using a many floors as we wish and can control whether or not we display Plan Details for those on a floor by floor basis...

Joe gave you the answer I think you were looking for. You can also drag half-walls up and down in a 3D view now too.

I'm not sure, I wasn't at the UGM, but this has come up multiple times over the years, and I'm pretty sure I recall your reasoning had something to do with not easily being able to measure to the roof overhang areas?

Yes. Just check "Use Current Layer Set To Display"

CAD>Plan Footprint then select the Plan Footprint in the CAD detail, check "Display Footprint Polyline", and then give that polyline a solid fill. You can also try unchecking Display Plan Details to see if that works better for you. It really depends on what all you need to display.

Its so crazy...it just might work!

Right click on the folder>Export Library

I personally think the easiest, most efficient, and most accurate way is to just manually place the doors from the library. Place one set in the closed position and put them onto a "Bifold Doors, Closed" layer and then place another set in the open position and put them onto a "Bifold Doors, Open" layer. Beyond that you can use normal bifold doors, manipulate symbol settings, etc. but its a lot of extra hassle for not a lot of benefit.

A pencil and a piece of paper can work wonders.

You need to use the %view.name% macro in the wall detail itself.

This is definitely subjective. I have personally exported untold hundreds, nay...thousands of renders and I don't specifically recall having exported a 3D view as a PNG except maybe a couple times in experimentation. Similarly, I don't recall having ever exported at a size other than my screen size except MAYBE in a rare experiment and even then...probably only with Ray Traces. Anywho, I agree that a lot of bugs seem to get missed and that they need to get addressed, but I definitely think this one is understandable. I don't know that I would have EVER caught it had it not be brought up. This is why it is of paramount importance that people report these things when they run into them...even if you know somebody else already has. It doesn't matter how much time and energy we spend discussing the issues here in the forum. If Chief has 10 people report that their trusses are misbehaving and 1 person reports that their 3D view exported as a PNG isn't working, which one do you think is gonna get fixed?

I could probably do it for you. It would really depend on how accurate you need it to be though. It could get pretty expensive really fast if you need it to be super intricate and fitting it into the schedule would be a lot trickier. If the intricate details are super important it might be more cost effective to have someone else build it but I don't know who to recommend. Anyway, if you want to discuss further send me an email at alaskansons@gmail.com

No, it can be zero. I do it all the time. You must have just coincidentally done something a little differently when you tried it at zero.

The one character longer answer though is yes... You can use the Arc With Arrow tool. Just set the arrow to be 0" or perhaps use the arrow that just looks like the end of a line. You still won't get the automated 3 way and 4 way notations but that's not something I personally care about anyway. Actually, my current preference is to just leave those notations out.

This is most likely due to the new Plan Views feature. To avoid having the views change on you there are at least a few options... 1. Use a unique Plan View for each of your various views that you send to layout. 2. Change your Plan View to "None" before sending the view to layout. 3. If the view has already been sent to layout open up the Layout Box Specification dialog and change the Linked Saved Plan View to "None" 4. When sending to layout select Make Copy Of Active Layer Set And read up on Plan Views so you understand what they are.

You just need to uncheck Use XOR Drawing. XOR drawing cancels out overlapping lines that have identical properties. In Chief though, it doesn't always work as I believe it was intended too and oftentimes seems to cancel out a few other things as well.

2 things here... Its pretty standard drafting procedure in my experience to display floor framing with the walls BELOW and it has nothing to do with Chief. It's just the way its done. I have seen some draftsmen draw walls above along with their floor framing and I have occasionally done the same thing as well with really faint lines, but these are usually IN ADDITION to the walls below and not instead of the walls below. If you want to display floor framing on a different floor, you don't need to use a CAD detail. You can either overlap views in layout or you can use the reference display and reference the floor below using a layer set with everything turned off except for the floor framing.

There are 3 different things being talked about here: A line that is converted to an arc. The arc is generated in a clockwise direction from the start of the line to the end of the line. An electrical connection. These are also drawn in a clockwise direction from the start of the line to the end of the line. A plain arc. The way these are drawn depends ENTIRELY on the Arc Creation Mode you have activated. My personal favorite is Start/End/On Arc.

Eric has it right but just to explain a little bit... In prior versions there was almost always a JPG (or PNG) Texture Source file associated with any given material. If there is a good Bump Map (or Normal Map) available though, the Texture Source is no longer necessary. What the Texture Source file does is produce a repeating pattern to simulate a "material's" color(s) and patterns. What a Bump Map essentially does is it uses a repeating pattern to simulate texture (high spots, low spots, and the resulting "shadows"). Let's take tile vs stucco for example: With tile, the JPG Texture Source is absolutely necessary as it provides the grout lines' shape and color, the shape and color of the tile, and any patterns in the tile. With stucco on the other hand, its really all about the actual texture of the material which Bump Maps can do just fine...especially with Chief's improved rendering capabilities. Following so far? Now here's where the current misunderstanding seems to lie...If there is a Texture Source file in use, Chief uses the colors in that JPG instead of the Material color. This is where you are given the option to "Blend". If there is no Texture Source file though, there is nothing to blend with and so the Material color is used.

We call these outswing doors and just FYI, they can be automatically labeled correctly in the schedule using custom macros. It's really not very difficult.

Some of us ARE the builder and we are using the schedules specifically FOR ordering. I personally use custom macros and notes/comments as necessary to make sure I get the correct information across. I also set up my schedules with the specific supplier in mind. A couple things to think about… Who do you I think is more likely to make a mistake on a door or window order? You, or your supplier? I personally trust myself more than I trust my local lumberyard. Not only did I draw the plans but I know exactly what I want. Secondly, just because you try to produce an accurate schedule doesn’t mean it can’t be double checked. There is definitely something to be said for having another set of eyes look things over. In order for it to be doublecheck though it first must be…single checked. BTW, even if I’m drawing plans for another builder, they may want to use the schedule for ordering too. Actually, the example I posted above was originally developed for another builder. I honestly don’t think the perceived difference in the way we call out door swings is nearly as widespread as some people make it out to be. I’ve actually never dealt with a door manufacturer in the northern hemisphere that calls out doors differently than any other. Anyway, assuming there is a great variation, a diagram in the schedule along with the appropriate notes can pretty easily clarify things.