Alaskan_Son

I have no problems.

I think the truth is a lot of people buy these programs thinking it will do all the work for them magically making them an overnight plan producer. When they see what programs like Revit and Archicad offer in the way of "features", they think those programs can automagically do the work for them. It's simply just not true. All these programs do is make the work a little easier. If you can't draw plans without a program you won't be able to draw plans with one either (basic 3D renderings maybe, but not plans). And if you can't draw code compliant plans easily with Chief, MEP tools or any other "code compliant" tools won't be able to help you. I would venture to say if you can't draw those things up with Chief, you probably would have an even more difficult time with Revit (or any other program offering the tools to "meet code requirements".

I know what designers and architect need, and I can tell you almost nobody needs the so called "code compliance" tools the OP brought up. CA's lack of said tools doesn't make it a "homeowner" program. I think some people are just looking for a program that does all the thinking and design for them. As Perry suggested, if those things are needed have an engineer draw them up. Fact is, next to zero jurisdictions would accept those drawings from anyone else anyway. Im just growing sick of a system in which NOTHING is specialized or really good at anything anymore. When something is exceptional at what it does, along comes someone that wants to make that thing good at everything. People, tools, programs, businesses, and governments are becoming "jacks of all trades and masters of none". Let Chief remain a master of one and perfect what it already has before adding currently UNNECESSARY "improvements". I've said it before, and I'll say it again... There are enough Chief users who also have copies of programs that do exactly what you're looking for and they STILL choose to use Chief. Why?? Because its the perfect tool for the job.

That goes without saying. I for one want to make my dissenting opinion heard as well though so CA realizes there are those don't necessarily need or want the suggested features or "improvements".

If I suggest an idea that others think is bad, then I should hope they would fight it. You've pointed to some critical flaws in our current society..."Don't fight for anything"..."Don't offend anyone"..."We can all have everything we want."..."There will be no unintended consequences."...and "It of course won't cost anything."

I have a really hard time trying to get behind any suggestions like these. I would venture to guess that Chief Architect boasts perhaps the fastest plan producing designers and architects there are, and they don't have or need Revit's MEP tools (and I'm talking about guys who produce plans for some of the most stringent code requirements in the known universe...you guys know who your are). To say some of those tools might be nice is one thing, to say we need them is quite another. I don't need them, and I really don't want a program as monstrous and bogged down as Revit. Chief is absolutely a fantastic program. I'll take improvements to its simplistic design before I'd request "code compliance tools".

To be perfectly clear...you do not have to resend anything for the "make copy" layerset to update. Its just a bug that happens anyway from time to time. Often times the views update just fine, but they don't update often enough.

Not to hijack my own thread with this topic, but "make copy" is perhaps one of my favorite tools. I would be highly upset if it disappeared just because no one else uses it.

I think "make copy" is highly misunderstood. All it does is make a different layerset for each page. Nothing different besides that. Its the same concept as creating your own layersest, except with "make copy" you don't have to remember which is which, every single view sent to layout can have any number of layers hidden or displayed. You just have to give them custom names or remember to acces them through the layout.

It actually works beautifully (except maybe the little problem I'm having?). Only problem is that you have to be careful to always access the layerset through the layout or you"ll get confused. You could also just rename the layerset when you send it to layout to help with that confusion, but it really hasn't been a problem for me.

Okay, so this seems to do the trick, except its the not the square tool with the "O", its the square tool with the checkmark.

I'll try that out Mike. Perry, I realize elevations don't update, my problem is with the plan views not updating, and it only seems to be a problem with hiding layers. Its not consistanat either. I just opened the plan back up and its working fine again. Its been an ongoing issue though since at least X4. And I love "make copy of active layer set". It makes modifying layers for every page super easy. I've never understood why so many people don't like that option.

Try this...Open a layout view, hide one of your layers and then go back to the layout. See if that change was made on your layout page. It never is for me, and never has been.

No, makes no diference.

This has been a long time problem for me and I've never taken the time to figure it out... Is there a way to easily refresh layout pages. Specifically plan views when layer changes have been made. It seems whenever I change or hide an objects layer that those changes will not display on the layout till I close it and reopen it. It has always been this way for me. Any help would be appreciated.

Same is true for the artistic renderings. All CPU and no video card.

I have something to add... I think its possible a lot of people may not want to post a plan for fear of people seeing their sloppy model with all its mistakes and in its raw hideous state of being, and don't want people to think less of them. Don't worry about that guys, we all had to start at zero, I for one still do a lot of sloppy modelling at times, and I know a lot of the veterans still jerry rig a ton of things and just mask it all by hiding layers, covering it with CAD boxes, or using any number of other tricks to make the model do what they want it to. Point is, its okay...just post a plan, don't worry about what people will think, most people here are pretty cool and will just help you solve your problem. Worst case, someone sees something stupid we're doing, points it out, and we pick up an extra tidbit free of charge. And if you don't know how to post a plan... -Save the plan -Close the plan -Right click on the plan file -Send to > Compressed (zipped) folder OR use another method of zipping the plan file -Attach the zipped folder to your post using "More Reply Options" -Under "Attach Files" select "Browse" -Find and select your ZIPPED folder -Select "Attach This File" -Done

In the future, just bear in mind it took a lot of guesses to give you an answer that may have only taken one had your posted a plan. Not trying to be rude, its just a fact.

Andrew, I think most (but not all) of us use Nvidea gaming cards as they seem to be the most stable with Chief. I have had zero problems with either of the cards in my signature line, and honestly don't notice much of a difference between the 2.

You should probably attach a plan. You will almost always get a much quicker more accurate response that way.

Wow. Really must be a "clone".

Does it AUTOMATICALLY save as a DWG though?

Thanks Joey, that information is super helpful.

I could be wrong, but I think DWG is a proprietary file extension. I don't think you'll find any non-AutoDesk products that will automatically save as DWG. I believe DraftSight DOES offer a purge tool though and for what it's worth, it was actually AutoCAD users who recommended DraftSight to me a while back as a nearly identical AutoCad clone.

Check out DraftSight. Haven't used it myself, but heard and read only good things. It sounds like a company who just has it in for AutoDesk so they offer basically the same product for free.