Alaskan_Son

You know, I think the lack of a curtain wall tool is one of the only reasons some architects don't use Chief.

We have used a lot of engineered scissor trusses over the years and the interior pitch has always been half of the exterior pitch. We also typically have a lot of snow load to account for though too.

No probelm. That sink works fine on most cabinets and countertops, but for whatever reason (probably something having to do with the order in which you built things), the sink is inserted into the top base cabinet and not the countertop (thus the origin discrepency). If you explode your symbol and replace the custom countertop it works just fine. It works just fine if you don't use a custom countertop as well.

You need to adjust the origin of the sink symbol to approx. -8 1/16"

I think you forgot to close the plan before you zipped it.

I don't think anyone is trying to police anything. Just suggesting it's not a very good idea to change dimension numbers to something that is inaccurate. Having said that, I think a custom text dimension tool would be nice and could definitely have a lot of uses. I guess even the ability to override existing dimensions with text.

Yes sir...agreed.

I wouldn't go quite that far. I wuild usually try to figure out why my dimensions weren't adding up and split the difference (average it out) here and there to make up for it. Drawing the house correctly out of square would be overkill in my opinion.

I concur...bad idea to fake dimensions in my opinion. Too many potential problems.

Using Firefox and no spell check for me either.

I've also had this issue for some time. I gave up trying to make it work. I figured it just doesnt. Working in elevations has a long way to go in my opinion. It is very inconsisitent, snaps work sometimes and sometimes they don't, I will have objects that will snap on one side but not the other, I've had objects that will snap to the correct plane but the snap point will be way up in space, and like you said, point markers don't work right either. Thats my experience anyway, and no settings seem to fix it.

Can you be a little more specific? What does the face look like? What is the intended function of the "cabinet"? What do you mean by 12" leg (12" tall, 12" wide, etc.)?

What exactly IS happening? Can you select the line? If so, are you getting any options? A little more information might help.

Try grabbing the move handle, hitting tab, and then entering the correct angle and a very small measurement of movement.

Those look like point markers to me too. They can be resized here...

Just to reiterate what some of the other people said above… it probably wasn't a "roof plane". It was probably a ceiling break line. They are associated with roof and ceiling plans but they are not an actual thing in and of themselves. It's just a piece of information that is automatically given to you when 2 ceiling planes intersect.

Check these settings...

I'm not sure what you're referring to...can you be a little more specific? I'm not having any issues with walls flipping.

And it's "drag and drop" in X6. Simply drag the file and drop it right into the plan. You can then chose to "Add To Library" if you wish.

A few of my thoughts on the subject... 1. If you build your model properly your cross sections may be a little "messy" looking compared to those of most AutoCAD users, but fact is yours will most likely be far more acurate. 2. View to CAD as Lew said turns your view into a series of lines and disconnects the view from your model so it is no longer "live". It defintely has its good uses...for example, I've started making copies of my cabinets, deleting the doors, and creating a CAD detail from view in order to dimension all the openings for "shop drawings". Its also a good tool when you need to heavily modify a view and gives you a lot more flexibility with dimensioning. Having said that, I would avoid using this tool for most elevations though due to the fact it doesn't stay "live" (after refreshing the view of course). 3. The Edit Layout Line tool can be handy, however I would only recommend using it for minor touch ups to nearly complete plans, or to make more substantial changes once plan is completely finalized. The view would stay "live", however if you make any changes that would affect those views and you want to refresh them, all your linework would be for naught. 4. What I've found to be the most effective for me personally is to use polylines to "mask" the elevations as necessary. Choose a solid fill set to Match Background and whatver line style and thickness you like (including the "clear" line option). You can break lines, reshape, create polyline unions, etc. to cover whatever you don't want showing up in the view. This way your view stays completely "live" and you have very little fear of anything getting messed up when you refresh a view. Just my $.02 Its not the most beautiful plan work (at least compared to some I've seen around here) but I've attached a link to a dropbox file with a plan and layout in it that I recently did for a big cabinet layout. Look through it a bit to get an idea of what I'm talking about if you like. And note that all the "detail" pages were done with "Create CAD Detail From View" https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2k5gkqafitspp7/ER%20backup.zip

Can you be a little more specific with what you are trying to achieve? To me your question seems a little like "How can we create dimensions without using the dimension tools?"

Good idea for a post Joe...simple and to the point. Until a few days ago I didn't really know what anno-sets were and I'm sure there are a ton of people in the same boat. As I see it, it saves me from having to put CAD and text details on their own custom layer for any given plan view or elevation and saves me from having to adjust the settings (especially for dimensions and text) all the time. I've been wondering lately how much time it will really save, but the more I think about it, taking a couple hours to set them all up will likely pay off fairly quickly.

I only recently started to realize what anno-sets are for. I'll likely start using them here shortly and I am fairly certain I will only use 1 or 2 of the OOB sets and will probably end up with around 20 or so of my own. I guess I'll have to see and then check back in. I'm not altogether certain how much faster anno-sets will be than just continuing to use custom text and CAD layers.

I think there is a pretty big misconception of CAD and 3D design programs out there amongst those who haven't delved into them much... None of the programs really DO anything for you (much like a router won't build your cabinets or teach you how to). They simply make drawing and figuring things a little quicker and more efficient. In short, and for all intensive purposes; if you don't have the knowledge, expertise, and general ability to draw something up by hand and do the calculations on paper, a design program won't make you any better at that and most certainly won't draw up plans for you. It will making general and basic ILLUSTRATION possible for your average user, but as far as construction documentation goes, engineering, calculations, specs, etc...thats still all on you.

LiteMari, The subject you bring up is rather involved and requires covering a broad range of topics to answer acurately. I don't have a lot of time so I can only briefly touch base on a couple things... Chief Architect and SketchUp are really not very similar at all and I honestly doubt you'll find many (if any) architects who actually use it for construction drawings. In fact, Nick Sonder is the only one I personally even know of. While Chief Architect is an awesome tool and in the hands of a good user will leave most other programs in the dust...it also is not as commonly used by architects as several other programs. In short, I wouldn't really use SketchUp versus Chief Architect as much of a factor in deciding which architect to hire. In my opinion it really wouldnt be a very good tool in deciding who to hire. It may be worth considering as a tie breaker, but I would recommend that you put which software they use much further down your list. Things like reputation, referals, rapport, quality of product, level of creativity, etc. are much more important factors. It would be to me like picking a builder based on which brand of air compressor he used. Similarly, with regard to ray traces and renderings, I would focus much less on the tools and techniques and just try to work with who you think will do the best job based on examples of their work, their ability to clearly communicate in such a way that YOU can understand it, etc. Many times (depedning on the situation and the person) a simple black and white sketch can be a much better way to communicate an idea than a photo realistic rendering would be. A good designer or architect should really know what works best for his/herself, their clients, and the specific project or design feature. I might add that you will find VERY FEW people who can turn out anywhere near the quality of renderings you'll find on the website you attached, and I would venture to say that some of the people who CAN turn out renderings of that quality may be terrible designers. The abillity to do good renderings and to design a home do not necessarily go hand in hand. I could easily see a person passing up the better architect by placing too high a weight on their renderings and overlooking some more important strengths. In short, a good architect or designer needs to know their strenghts and weaknesses, which tools work best for them, and how best to communicate each unique detail and with each individual client. The best choice may end up being an architect who uses AutoCAD and draws his/her 3D details by hand.