Alaskan_Son

Thanks again Yusuf. I posted that video here fellas...

As requested by another user, here's a video going over how to create a pattern that conforms to an arc or circular shape like this... I used the above technique to model the lamp bases seen here... Thank you to those of you who donated to support my efforts. I really appreciate it and I'm sure others do as well

Those are caused by light sources (whether automatic or manual) and it seems to be more specifically tied to Point Lights. I don't have a perfect answer to the problem, but you can try moving the lights and/or the camera to get them to disappear.

Click on one of those 2 affected roof planes Click on the View Draw Order Edit Tools Either click on Bring Forward or click on Bring Backward depending on which roof plane you selected.

Thanks Charles : ) Looks like I'll be making that video afterall. I thought I might get around to it this evening but looks like I probably won't be able to gitterdun till tomorrow. I'll get to it here as soon as I can though.

You're welcome Ross. I wouldn't say I'm being totally selfless though. As silly as it sounds, I know there's part of me that does it for the recognition (and maybe the reputation points) and I'm really being dead serious. I wish sometimes that more people would (like I know you do) realize the amount of time and effort that some of us put into this stuff. 99% of the users here give us no thanks, no points, no thumbs up, no reciprocal help, no nothing...and just in case any of you are wondering, we're not on Chief's payroll either (at least I'm not). You guys can really thank the other 1% of the users here that offer any kind of support. If it weren't for them I may not being helping out here at all. I honestly get a little frustrated at times with the lack of appreciation that the user base in general here seems to display. I don't know how some of the guys here have stuck around as long as they have. I mean Scott probably has 10,000 videos and and several million views and I doubt he's seen more than some stinky fish. I can't help but think we've lost the help of several of the most talented Chief users over the years due to the lack of appreciation and support. I just feel sometimes that there are a very small handful of users...Scott, Glenn, Joe, Yusef, Perry, Mark McAnnif, Curt, Chopsticks : ), Eric (Solver)...just to name a few...who are really offering the bulk of value...and the rest are just along for the free ride. I can't help but think sometimes that everyone has the impression we're all getting reimbursed for our time and efforts somehow. I can tell you from personal experience though that we're probably not. Anyway, sorry for the rant. I would just implore everyone to try and offer a little more support however they can...not just for me but for all the other guys who have increased your knowledge, wisdom, and productivity. Whether it be a heartfelt thank you, clicking on the little UP arrow (or the little thumbs up), financial support, or whatever. Just remember that sometimes the smallest tips can sometimes increase your value and productivity substantially. That's extra money in your pocket, or extra time to do what you love. Wouldn't hurt to return the favor sometimes.

To be honest, I'm not sure how long it took but it was definitely a number of hours. I'm sure if I had to do it all over again it would be much quicker, but I had to work though a number of unique challenges on that one that I've never had to deal with before. Regarding a video: How about this... If I receive enough donations to cover even a small portion of of the time I spent modeling the fixture (let's just say 1 hour @ $75) then I'll make a good video going over how to model that base. FWIW, after about 180 videos and 12,000 and some odd views on my YouTube channel, I believe I can count on one hand the number of users who have voluntarily donated to support my efforts. You guys know who you are and I am exceedingly thankful. Anyway, since posting the fixture above I have received a grand total of $8.00 from 1 user. Actually, I received another $5.00 as well but that was really for another more specific case. I'll go ahead and include that it in the total though so we're up to $13.00. We'll see what happens : )

This is not something you can do with Chief. In fact, I don't know of ANY 3D architectural modeling programs that are truly backward compatible. If I'm not mistaken, TrueView won't work for any of AutoCAD's "intelligent" 3D objects either. 2D linework, text, hatches, etc. are one thing but once you get into 3D objects and all the embedded information and intelligent behaviour then you're dealing with an entirely different animal. The only backward compatibility you can get with most 3D is simply to export as a 3D symbol of some sort but then you lose all the intelligence.

Just use a molding polyline with 3 different moldings.

Good point Glenn. Thanks.

Oh ya...you can also simply double click on the text tool. This will take you to your currently active text default. You can just temporarily change the layer there instead of creating a whole new text style. Just depends on how you prefer to work and how deep you want to delve into Annotation Sets and such. Unrelated, but on a side note, I temporarily change wall types using that same method...double click on the wall tool of choice and change the wall type that gets drawn using that tool.

The text is automatically placed onto the layer specified for that TEXT STYLE. Simply create a new text style and change the layer setting. Now when you use that new text style it will automatically get placed onto the appropriate layer.

Truth be told I have very rarely needed to do this with dimensions but there are absolutely situations where I've wanted to bring extra attention to certain dimensions and the border/fill would be a very good way to do this. Anyway labels are a different story...there are plenty of situations that could benefit from a border around a label. Necessary? Probably not, but as I'm sure you can appreciate...we all like to do things here and there to dress up our plans and add clarity wherever we can. Borders just give us a way to both add a little class to our plans and more importantly they give us a good way to quickly differentiate one group of notations from the next. With reagrd to the fill color, I've personally never absolutely needed anything other than the background color but I could see where having a different color background might help if the notation is overlapping a busy scene such as right in front of shingles or brickwork. Being able to set the fill transparency on the other hand seems like it would be a lot more universally useful. There are plenty of situations where it would be nice (if not necessary) to see through to the objects below. I'm sure you've had those busy framing plans where you need to have certain notations but it seems there's nowhere to put them that isn't covering some important detail. Having no fill in those situations can make it very difficult to quickly find the notations but having semi transparent fill (with or without a border) can help give those notations a little pop without completing covering the structural details. I would post some examples but I'm away from my computer.

That's just the text fill that both Richard and I pointed out. I personally leave the fill on for most of my text styles unless I have a situation where I need it off. Problem is that we can't add a border, we have no control over the margins, and we have no control over the fill style/color/transparency.

I agree. It seems like it would be super easy too. It could be as simple as adding something similar to the Object Information fields to a callout, providing a checkbox for "Include In Keynote Manager" and then a Keynote Manager (schedule) with a setting that allows a person to only include objects from a particular user defined "Group" or layer.

Changes? Not per se, but I have added a few tricks to the toolbox... It's worth stressing again that due to the addition of new new Object Information fields and the new/enhanced Drawing Group controls, it is MUCH MUCH easier to use all sorts of object types now and not just Plants. With regard to the elevation view problem...I mostly just use them in plan views so I can't speak to the elevation views all that much. Most of what I came up with in that regard was just to help other users out. One other thing I would recommend you check out is the Label tab...Hide In This View. That and placing the object on a different layer and simply turning that layer off. I don't know, there might be other methods as well...maybe just using a CAD mask even.

Its gonna take a lot of faces to make a symbol like that look halfway decent. I decided to have a go at it this evening to see if I could cut it down any. Here's my version based on the picture you posted. All done in Chief. Its still got a lot of faces, but at around 130K its still less than a quarter of what that one in 3D warehouse has. I didn't add any lights but a person could do that as well. I personally don't think it would be worth the time or effort though. Anyway, here it is for anyone who would like to use it... Wagon Wheel Light.calibz If anyone finds it helpful enough maybe just consider pasting paypal.me/alaskansons into your web browser and sending a small donation my way if you find it in your heart to do so. Its all good either way though. Hopefully it helps some of you out. P.S. I could reduce the face count substantially by doing away with those ornate lamp bases (those are around 10k faces each) and/or by switching the chains out for something else (those are around 15K faces each) but I was going for accuracy. If you would like me to make some changes I could do so for a fee. Just email me at alaskansons@gmail.com and we can discuss further. EDIT: I realized afterward that I could have actually made the bases with as little as 10% of the number of faces so with a little work I could conceivably cut that symbol size down to as little as 50,000 faces or so without any real noticeable difference.

Yeah, some of the limitations we have are pretty frustrating. Here's a crappy workaround solution if you ever really find yourself needing the borders and fills for your dimensions...

Not sure what you're doing differently, but they work just fine for me. Starting in X9, any surface mounted outlet should snap right to the side of your cabinet.

That's what Current CAD Layer is for. You can also take it a step further and start utilizing Annotation Sets to automatically switch that Current CAD Layer along with a whole bunch of other defaults.

You betcha.

All standard text boxes can have a border and fill (set through the Attributes tab if I recall correctly).

Totally agree. So should labels. Its definitely something I've wanted to be able to do at times and would be a good one for the suggestion forum. EDIT: Since it's something I've wanted anyway I went ahead and posted a suggestion myself...

What do you mean by "Text Mask"?

Good thought. That one seems more likely and is a much less silly question than mine.