Alaskan_Son

Like I said, I didn't want to get into an argument or debate. Only reason I even said anything to start with was to say that there are those of use who feel the same about the metric system as you guys do about the imperial system. Its also clear to me now that my stance requires a much longer explanation, that I left a good handful of important details out, and that in my attempt at a quick and to the point post I may have oversimplified and come across as ignorant. Oh well, a full explanation really requires a short essay on the subject.still don't want to get into it. I will answer your questions though... -No I was not joking, I was dead serious and right or wrong its something I actually feel pretty strongly about. -I will concede that my stance lies partly with the fact I'm accustomed to the imperial system but its goes much much deeper than that and its not all based on ignorance as you may think. -I used the fractions to try and communicate what exactly .25 and .33 are representing (or claiming to represent).

I think metric sucks. There's really nothing useful or logical about it other than easier conversion. I really don't want to get into an argument so I'll say my quick piece and leave it at that... The imperial system actually has a lot of unsung benefits, is more functional for everyday life, and is actually designed to work like we naturally think. It's also more "modular" and works better for visual purposes for that reason. Our brains can easily picture 1/4 or 1/3 of something but what about 25/100 or 33.33/100.00? I can also pretty accurately visually guesstimate 4ft. 2in. but what about guesstimating 127cm? There are actually a lot of benefits to the imperial system that people tend to overlook. The basis of the metric system is really just as abitrary as anything else...numbers (and specifically the base 10 system). Is it really the numbers that matter or the ideas we're trying to communicate? For scientists and mathamaticians, metric might start to make a little more sense, but for the masses...maybe not so much.

You actually need to select the roof plane first, click on the polyline subtraction tool, and then click the polyline you drew for the hole... OR ...just select the roof plane and then click "Create Hole"... OR ...select your plain polyline, click "Convert Polyline" and then select "Hole In Roof / Custom Ceiling" from the list... OR ...Build>Roof>Skylight. Draw the skylight, open the DBX and uncheck "Skylight". There may be other methods as well. But those are a few options.

I can easily reproduce in a new plan. Definitley looks like a bug to me and should be reported to tech support. In the meantime, try using a cabinet mounted outlet. The ones in Chief's library don't behave all that well though so if you want you can get some better, slightly modified versions of the same in this thread... https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/7955-improved-cabinet-outlets/?hl=outlets

Sounds like some kind of addict group...PUA (Power Users Anonymous). The first step is to admit you're a user. If you're a POWER user...well then you're really in trouble.

Oh I get it, and it's a great suggestion, just not a big fan of the negative attitude, and BTW, I'll still try to get around to the 3D version video here sometime... Having a hard time deciding which method to use...I've come up with about a dozen different methods (using moldings, p-lines, solids, slabs, CAD blocks, or various combinations thereof). Some that display the T and L profiles in elevations, and some that don't, some that are faster but less accurate, some that are more flexible, etc. It really depends on what people want to display in their individual plans, how they want to display those things and to what accuracy. And FWIW, 3D actually doesn't take much longer than 2D.

What you are describing is really the basic idea of "BIM" (Building Information Modeling).

Yes, and 6 freakin' years ago Chief was way ahead of VW with some things as well. In fact Chief is way ahead of a number of other programs in a good handful of areas. I wish people would stop acting like every little thing they've seen or used in another software is an absolute necessity in Chief and that its somehow an absolute travesty when we don't have it. Consider doing this...Make a suggestion, adjust your methods, and try not to be so negative. Its seriously really discouraging and doesn't promote a very productive atmosphere.

Yep. You can use it to do the CAD grid just like in your screenshot. That's another extremely quick way to get the job done. Actually the main reason I used CAD lines in the video is that it sounded closer to what Edward was already doing, and I think they're a little easier to manipulate and keep track of for most people. Moving around a group of polylines is just a little trickier. If I find a few extra minutes that will be in my next video.

If I get around to making the 3D version video I'll show you, but the way you use that tool is to RIGHT click, drag (primary offset), let go, drag in second direction (secondary offset) and left click to finish. You can trick the program into using only the secondary offset but it's a little quirky and not very consistent so I don't do it.

I would strongly recommend you post the plan.

Was trying to make a quick follow up showing a similarly quick and simple method for full 3D using p-solids but our power went out. Maybe tomorrow. The p-solid method can be equally as fast...its just a little more difficult to manipulate for proper layout within the room.

Hey Edward, Here's a quick video. Sorry, intended to make it a few days ago...just didn't find time till now. From the way you describe it, it just sounds like the method you're using might be more of a hassle than it has to be. Hopefully this helps; if not you, than maybe someone else... Note: You could quite easily add the thickness of the main beams/runners and cross tees by simply creating an extra line before your multiple copy. And you could add further accuracy by using polyline boxes instead of lines to differentiate between the main beams/runners and cross tees (would just take a couple minor extra steps).

I use Nitro Pro https://www.gonitro.com/pro

Build>Electrical>Connect Electrical Manually place connections.

No, I don't believe so. Material List for that.

Rich gave you one possible solution. There are probably many. I just got back to my computer a little while ago and after taking a look at your plan, I have another... As I suspected might be the case, your lighting intensities were all super high. Turn them WAY down and your colors will start to match a lot better. Just ran a quick test changing nothing but the lighting intensity. Turned all 3 down to 0.5 and here's what I got (9 passes)...

Harry, Not sure about version 10, but I believe for many versions now we have had 10" logs in the user library that we can resize as needed. Assuming you have molding lines, polyline solids, slabs, faces, or even a round post converted to a symbol, you can also use any one of those. What exactly have you tried?

Kevin, I think this is a huge misconception...that those of us who are sometimes seen as resisting change are ignorant or unaware of whats out there. The fact is that there are MANY Chiefer's (myslef included) who either have used other CAD software, or who still do own and use other CAD programs. Many people came from Softplan, Vectorworks, Revit, ArchiCAD, Sketchup, and/or AutoCAD just to name a few, and there are plenty of Chief users I know of who still use those programs. In fact some of the guys here on the forum own copies of half a dozen different CAD apps. Anyway, take that for what its worth. I'm just sayin'...we're not all living under a rock.

You're very welcome : )

Understood and agreed. I was just trying to reassure Mike that there's no problem with changing the fill to solid that way he could avoid having to always make the change through default settings (which is really probably not a great idea in some cases).

There are at least 3 ways to deal with that just off the top of my head: 1. Break and resize that wall in elevation and add another section of no room definition wall to replace the section you resize. 2. Probably a better method...Use a pony wall with one desired wall type on top and the other on bottom, then break and resize in elevation. 3. Probably the best method...Simply apply a wall material region.

I'm honestly not sure if there's an easier way. It's not something I've ever wanted or needed to do. Your solution is as good as any I can think of though. Biggest downside is that it's no longer completely live (i.e. if you change one countertop you have to change both).

By default cabinets are already set to solid so setting the type to solid should be considered a non issue.

There could (and probably should) honestly be a whole separate forum for ray tracing. It's a complex art form and takes a lot of time and patience to master.