mtldesigns

Eric, I tried that too, but it won't let me set a negative Y. Did you get it to work?

Working a master suite on a beautiful Saturday... I am trying to put in a recessed outlet (like what you would see behind a flat screen). Chief does not have a model of this, nor could I find a descent one on-line to use. I tried (see below) a niche, 2" deep, and it looks great in the plan view when I offset the fixtures -2", but the camera view is another story. I thought, I will just put in a room divider line (like how we used to have to do on islands), and all that did was open the wall up. Any ideas with all you experts?

Per Eric's suggestion, I tried a ceiling plane for the underside of an exposed roof plane (used with rafter tails mainly), and it worked great (see attached). Figured I'd let all know for future questions on how to do this.

damn genius.. will come in at same pitch too..

That's what I think Eric was mentioning, and I thought the same thing too, two planes, same ptich. I'm going to try a couple of these other options you all mentioned than the one I did, and see how it goes. Maybe need to suggest again to Chief Eric? Thanks all.

Adding the 3/8" thk layer is what I just showed. I will have to work around the sections. Better to do this way than a poly solid.

I put that thickness in the Roof Surface Definition and it looks great... but it does the whole plane, including the attic. I guess that's not really a bad thing???? Still not right though.

We will be putting a 3/8" painted beaded board (same as your T&G) in between the tails, attached to that OSB.

Good evening fellow CA users. Got a nice gig for a Florida house that required rafter tails. That part was easy, but wondering how to put the painted board on the underside? I added thickness via Roof Surface Definition but it creates under whole roof plane. Just watched a couple training vids. too, and nothing noting this part. I checked and unchecked a lot of buttons too on the roof dbx.. so I am thinking its a combination?

Wow... definitely get a lot for $0.02 in Alaska. Thank you ALL.. all great points. A little history. Client bought CA and tried to design his own home over a year ago. When he contacted me, in 16, I cleaned his model up for a flat fee. Everything was wrong, no two rooms had the same floor or ceiling heights, no roof line, walls flipped, etc. I fixed the model and received payment. Because I use a job specific Dropbox folder for every project that I share, I gave him the corrected CA file via DB. I noticed earlier this year, that in the same folder construction docs were created using my model, via another design firm, I thought, ok no problem. I did what I was paid for. Forward to September 17, client contacts me and dramatically wants to change this house. I did start this new model from scratch, starting with new plan. But also had the old model and his new changes to reference. I charged a flat fee, based on sq. footage, and have been pad in full for the services I have rendered. Like I mentioned on my original post, they had many chances and did make many changes on this second go round.... thus making my dollar to sq. ft. ratio decrease ALOT. But a contract is a contract. Now that the project is complete and payment has been made in full, I was asked if more changes could be made. And of course they can, but now the charge will be an hourly rate. This and the fact that another group finished my previous design, is what threw up the flag. Not to mention, its proprietary. Just because I buy a custom Chevy Silverado, doesn't mean GM has to give me the plans. Oops.. sorry about the winded note... I couldn't stop typing. Because they are descent people, and always paid on time and in full. I am going to give them two options. A stripped down model at no cost or a adder and a document signing off my ownership. To me that seams very fair, and it puts it in their court. thanks again gents...

Glad you asked this question JLC... my builder wants to make this SOP now on all his houses. Here is another picture. I will find Johnny's thread from April to get a better grasp.

I was thinking the same thing Johnny. My initial thought was coming from, if a person bought a plan online, that's one price. But if you wanted DWG's, there's usually a nice adder. There's a reason they charge more for that. Potential lost work, the ownership, etc...

They are the first clients to ever ask for model, so lesson learned on mentioning in a contract. I am thinking of giving them the watered down version. Deleted sections, notes, dims. basically just the model.

Hey CA users. I know there has been many conversations on how and what to charge. BUT what do you charge for "THE" actual model? I have finished this project,(the model, the layout construction package, with all the sections, views and notes attached), and now client wants that model. They do have a Chief license, correct version even (x9). During concept, I had no problem saving a copy for them to play with because it wasn't really detailed, and it kinda gave them a actual say in the design process (Simm's game?). But now that this all is done, and I have many many hours invested, I am thinking I should not share without additional compensation. Am I wrong to think that? No where was it mentioned in our contract and agreed upon price that I would provide these items. I know for a fact, they want to change some things, so to me, if someone else has, they could complete those mods at a discount rate. BTW, they are great clients, but this is business.

I figured I would have to do the old fashion way with cad lines. Was hoping there was a live "show floor or ceiling" button in an elevation view that I was not aware of. Thanks for confirming what I thought. An overlay, hmm.. guess I can try that too.

I know we can story board dimension, but its not the real clearest thing I've used in my experiences (it basically just throws a line out there across the elevation). In the old days, a hidden line representing floor or ceiling was drawn, and we dim'd to that. Is there any way to do this with CA from within the model, or do I need to draw hidden lines manually?

very nice indeed. multiple layout sets all at once.. def will help with efficiency. and.. changing layout view port shapes. can't wait to see what else was implemented from all of our suggestions from the past year.

Great Idea Mick... why didn't I think of that? :-) Thanks... moving on with this.

Hey CA users... and pros. A quickie... I couldn't find how to change the floor "0" on all the schedules to say "Basement". Is this a macro thing? As always, thanks

I've tried both ways Eric.. same result.

Nothing has changed on how I open a new plan. I always use the pull down from under the File menu. And I checked out the preference setting per your recommendations Chop (see below) and it appears correct. But when I do try to open, I get the not found pop up. Second attachment. BUT.. I can manually go into my folder C:\Users\mtlde\OneDrive\Documents\Chief Architect Premier X9 Data\Templates, click on the template and it opens correctly with all the settings. My third attachment is all the templates via that path.

Its like a disconnect from that pull down, because they were there.

Tthey are in My Docs>CHIEF>temp>.. that's what I meant when I said I followed the path. I can open a new template from within this folder, but cannot from the File>new plan from template pull down in Chief.

Starting a new design, and like I have always done b4, started it from a temp-plate that I had set up for this specific builder via the File pull down. I get the popup of "was not found". So I checked a couple others that came with Chief and that I have not modified and get the same message (see attached). So I followed the paths to these templates and can open a new plan via this method. How do I get it to work via the file pull down??

Here is a grab of those preferences, and even with the vid card I have, it does say 8 is the max. Just curious though, why was 8 the max number, esp with the vid cards getting so much more advance. I know my Alien should be able to handle more. Again, just curious. And I want to make sure I understand everyone.. the 8 is for a camera view, BUT not a ray trace correct? In a camera view, I might have 20 with the glow, but only 8 are really on. Still wish, even though all but 8 lights are really not on, that the glow doesn't keep turning off when changing the material of an object or turning another light on or off. Opening new cameras, or changing a material just to get that glow again is a little bit of a nuisance.