Alaskan_Son

Tons of ways to do this... 2D molding 3D molding 2D molding AND 3D molding (2D for the slats and 3D for the supports) Primitives and multiple copy Symbols and distribution path Deck framing (sneaky method) Louvered window converted to symbol and rotated Rotating existing louver symbols through symbol dbx. (not sure which louvers you were referring to that you found)... Also, you could use any combination of the methods above...and I'm sure there's a whole slew of other methods I'm not even thinking about. Those are just the ones that very quickly came to mind.

This is not entirely true. Not a super detailed explanation but here's basically how to do it. Pretty easy...

Thanks Jerry, I figured it was something like that. I just didn't dig too deep. Creative solution with the deck framing too. I'd say if a person wants to get into the business of skinning cats that they might start out by first learning to use Chief Architect : )

Its not about the money, its not about it being "nice", its not about "enshrining" anything, and its not about "glorifying" anything. It's about clear communication. Yes, the Vectorworks drawings look a lot nicer but I would argue that the reason they look a lot nicer is because we can very clearly see what it is they are trying to communicate and that makes them pleasant to look at. We use color, depth, lighting, shading, contrast, shape variations, etc. to understand what it is we're looking at. It only makes sense to utilize those same things when trying to communicate an idea. It only took me a few seconds to all but completely grasp exactly what it is I'm looking at in the OP's example. Give me the same drawing in black and white or with solid colors, without the shadows, without the gradient fills, etc. and it takes a lot longer and a lot more mental energy to figure out what it is I'm looking at. At the end of the day, I think there are very few things if any that are beautiful simply for beauty's sake but rather I think they're beautiful because we appreciate something else about them whether we realize it or not.

BTW, I would consider this to be a bug and I think it should be reported. The presence of a gap material shouldn't preclude pattern lines from drawing IMO.

Hey Johnny, This seems to be an unintended consequence of having that gap material on the upper wall. I've never noticed this particular anomoly before. Another one of those annoying little Chief quirks...this works but that doesn't work...it sometimes works but not always...it works here but not there...its 95% perfect but 5% totally and completely wrong...or its 50% perfect and 50% mediocre. I like Chief and I'm usually able to get it to do what I want but it still gets really frustrating sometimes.

To me, the lack of control over joist thickness, joist spacing, and joist direction makes the multi-layer assembly a non-starter. That's just me though. I know a lot of guys don't care quite as much about 3D accuracy as I do. I like my 3D model to be accurate though and so FOR ME, I'm still thinking the multiple floor solution is best. I DID just try the method out too and I'm not sure I see the problem with the stairs that you guys speak of. What's the problem? Can you elaborate a bit? I haven't messed around with it a whole lot, but the one problem I HAVEN'T been able to quickly sort out is how to get a single plate to automatically frame for my 1-1/2" tall floor. It's not too big a deal. It's easy enough to throw a few extra plates in there. Just a limitation I noticed.

I typically don't throw ideas out there that I haven't personally used or tested without immediately disclosing the same but in this case you are correct. I have NOT tried it. I do understand how chief works though and I understand the structural concepts as well. I was just thinking through it logically. That space between floor structures isn't any different than an extra floor that has no interior floor wall or ceiling finishes. I assume it would have some cleanup to be done but in my mind it still seems like the MOST correct automated method for a situation with stacked floor systems that have different joist layout and/or directions. I guess I'll have to test it out one of these days.

You CAN specify different directions for a DROPPED ceiling and the floor joists above. For the situation in this particular thread however I think an additional floor is probably the most correct way to go about it. P.S. In some situations you can also explore the possibility of specifying your room as a deck and then using the joists and planks to frame your floor system. Would probably require a little cleanup and would likely require using a material region for the floor surface...Actually, probably faster to just frame the floor manually, but it's a fun thought anyway. P.P.S. Another option might be to use a ceiling plane.

I'm away from my computer but just looking at your screenshot I would say you need to set your wall to align at one of these two layers...

Insulation/air gap should do it but it shouldn't really matter as long as it's a "gap" material set to be transparent.

Whoa! I didn't realize we had all those. Thanks Eric. I had only ever used what was in that first pattern file. I've seen those files but I guess I just assumed those were all names of the individual patterns already listed in the standard drop-downs. This is the type of thing that is very surprising to learn that I have been missing out on this long. Thanks again Eric!!

Where are these hatch patterns located? I've never seen these lists before this thread. I can only find about 40 hatch patterns that come with Chief. There seems to be 6 or 7 times that many on the lists above. Can anyone point me to where they are located?

You don't side the air gap Chop, it's just to trick Chief into building the window through both walls. The problem is that in Johnny's example he's using a pony wall. Right or wrong, Chief seems to use the main wall definition (the thinner upper wall) to decide how thick to make the window assembly...specifically where to place the casing. By adding the air gap to the upper wall section, it tells Chief to build the window assembly an extra 3-1/2" thick. Entiendes?

Yep. I believe this to be the correct answer.

Hey Johnny, Go back to your original idea and try adding a 3-1/2" air gap material to the exterior of that main wall definition. Worth a shot anyway.

You can also simply block the schedule then add it to your library that way. Just beware that when you place it in your plan from the library it will be invisible until you explode it.

I think the reason you haven't gotten any responses is due to your seeming lack of understanding with regard to exactly what it is you are asking for. It is not anywhere near as simple as converting a PLAN file to a DWG file. AutoCAD is primarily a 2D drafting tool whereas Chief Architect is primarily a 3-D modeling tool. A person could convert your 3-D model to a 3-D DWG file but the file is honestly all but useless for most purposes. It's typically the 2-D information that most AutoCAD users would want, and in that case we would need to know very specifically which 2-D views you wanted to send, what information needed to be included on those views, and exactly what settings they wanted exported... amongst other things.

I'm away from my computer but I think you probably just need to open the roof structure tab and uncheck Use Room Ceiling Finish.

Just a quick note here in case you don't realize it... For Copy, all you actually have to do is hit the space bar as soon as that dbx opens up to check the box, and then follow that up with tab to enter your desired number of copies.

They're already on their own layer by default. It's a layer called Cabinets, Countertops. The one thing to be aware of is that you cannot turn the cabinet layer off without also turning off the automatically created countertops, so...if you want to display only the automated countertops in a particular layer set, your best bet is probably to change the line style for your cabinet layer(s) in that particular layer set to the invisible line style.

I think "remembered settings" are always a hotly debated issue when it comes to software upgrades. Those that tend to repeat the same tasks over and over absolutely love these remembered settings. Those of us that change things up a lot however can absolutely hate these kind of settings. Personally?? When I open a dialog box up, I would much prefer that it always revert to its original state. This way, I can habitually go right where I need to go without even thinking about it. When settings are remembered, I'm forced to reassess the situation every time I open the dialog box up. This is an absolute efficiency killer for people like me. I personally have never commented one way or another on the particular issues mentioned above, however… I HAVE very vocally opposed remembered settings in another software package. I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking Chief probably received more complaints about these particular remembered settings then they did support for the same. Unfortunately, complainers tend to have more impact than people who are happy. It's just the sad way things are. For this reason, I really like to try and thank people for doing a good job or for making welcome changes when I notice it.

That really sounds like a very wise practice. To me, the only downside is that some things will take longer to describe in writing then they would to simply make the change. Very good advice though worth considering for anyone using any variation of the template method.