TheKitchenAbode

Thanks Jared - That's the one I wasn't aware of. Will give it a try and see what happens. Graham

I don't see this as an option in preferences. Are you referring to Chief or Windows?

WOW!!! It must have been a "bitterly" cold winter in Alaska this year "eh". Any relationship to Sara Palin? Not sure what I expressed has anything to do with the comments in your response. I just stated that it is up to the poster to determine the validity of the advice and experiences provided by others. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one do extensive research in order to gain as great a perspective on issues and problems in order to determine what best suits my needs. Yes there are others who may have greater experience than I. This however does not necessarily make them an expert in respect to my particular circumstance. If we were to take your thinking on this then every structure would just look like a Frank Lloyd Wright knockoff. A true designer goes beyond traditional thinking to create something unique. They learn from the experiences of others but are not bound by them. Graham

Joe - I keep my systems as up to date as possible, all auto update features are active and all windows versions are current. I should stress here that this crash is only something that I can induce by really putting my systems under severe stress. Under normal usage I rarely encounter a problem. However since X7 this has happened several times without me purposely doing anything special, at this point I can only assume that this stressing has always occurred at times during normal usage even prior to the release of X7. For reasons unknown to me it seems that X6 was able to handle this better. I also have X6 and ran a comparison with X7 on the same system. X6 definitely appeared to run smoother and faster than X7 under the same type of stressing and I could get X7 to crash repeatedly. Was driven to explore this from reading the other post concerning X7 Performance - Crashes?. Tech was expressing difficulty as they could not replicate their experience and users though experiencing problems could not find any specific association to help guide tech. What I have found may or may not be the cause, it is however something that can be replicated at least on my systems. Please keep in mind that many users including myself use Chief for far less demanding work than others. For myself I only need to render interiors, primarily kitchens & baths. I appreciate and often envy those users with truly cutting edge systems and understand that their work load justifies and requires this. It would however be a shame if these types of systems are required in order to do my type of work. Graham

Joe - I am using a Nvidia GeForce 650 Ti on this system. Another has a discrete Nvidia Geforce 310m mobile graphics adapter and another has integrated intel. The only thing I find so far is that the better the system the more you have to push it to generate a crash. This would be expected as it only shows when the systems are being stressed out. Graham

Just downloaded the 64 bit version to the same system that I rand the 32 bit. Seems to be smoother, but was still able to generate this crash. ..\source\ChiefQtApplication.cpp(174): Error #272000999 " Assertion failed: An unexpected error occurred. You should use "Save As" to save your current work in a NEW FILE and restart this program." 4/27/2015 5:52:19 PM Build: 17.1.2.2x64 Graham

Just ran the same test with X6. All cores maxed out at 100% while running a Raytrace. Tab switching was fast a smooth catalogs came up quick, no real sign of lag. There is a definite difference in X7. This has been run on three different systems, all quad core. I also have the 64 bit version on other systems, same result. It seems to happen only when the cores are maxed out. With a lot of multi tasking this is going to happen quite frequently. Graham

Joe - I have a quad core with the core always set to 3 max. I am just playing around here to see what it takes to bog down X7 or make it crash. I've been able to crash consistently 5 times now. Using core set at 4, 3 & 2. Error message below. Always crashes when I am flipping through the catalogs. ..\source\ChiefQtApplication.cpp(174): Error #272000999 " Assertion failed: An unexpected error occurred. You should use "Save As" to save your current work in a NEW FILE and restart this program." 4/27/2015 4:56:06 PM Build: 17.1.2.2x32 Graham

We still don't know if any of the suggestions resolved your problem. Agree with Joe, you can't mark your own thread as "Best Answer", especially when there is no answer. Graham

Thanks Doug for explaining what is actually being done here. Can't let the "technically inaccurate" comment pass by. I'm no more technically inaccurate than the Raytrace Dialog DBX terminology "Number of Cores Used". I ran some other tests comparing the thread approach versus the core assignment method. Agree that the thread approach appears to run smoother, the core assignment demonstrated lag sooner than the thread approach. Regardless of which approach was being utilized everything was running smoothly until all of the cores maxed out at 100%. Had some other programs running in the background with a Raytrace. There was still some available headroom so I started jumping around tabs & library items to load things up. A very noticeable lag was occurring once the cores all reach 100%. Ran this procedure twice and was able to get X7 to crash both times while flipping through the catalog. Graham

I'm impressed!! Great vid. You made this seem like a walk in the park. You don't rehearse this by any chance do you . Just kidding. Graham

I did a bit of testing yesterday late afternoon related to processor core assignment in Chief. Found the results to be interesting, not what I was expecting. Here's the Post that describes my findings. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/4962-processor-core-usage-in-chief/ I know some forum members really like this stuff. Wonder if they see similar results in their system. Just need to monitor core cpu usage through the task manager while running a Raytrace. Graham

This is not "American Idol". My hope is that the forums purpose is to encourage the dissemination of ideas & experiences regardless of their degree of validity. Peer review and critiquing will ultimately flush everything out. At the end not only does the original poster learn something but also many of the participants. Otherwise you might as well just e-mail directly the member you consider most capable of answering your question. Graham

I am trying to better understand the new capabilty to set the processor cores for Raytrace. Apologize for the length of this post. Prior to X7 I assume that processor core managment was left to windows. My research into this indicates that windows by default makes all cores availabe to all running processes. There are also other peramiters such as priority that I assume windows also uses when managing throughput for best overall performance. With X7 we can now define the number of cores. My initial asumption of this was that now I can direct windows to isolate those cores for the exclusive use of Raytrace and therefore the remainig core(s) are the only one(s) available for windows to manage. Some other research I was doing indicates that in Windows there are already settings such as Affinity that allows me to assign cores to a specific program through the task manager. It is however my understanding that this does not isolate the cores but instead it tells windows that when managing all of the cores that it can only split the core specified program processing between the avaiable cores up to the programs defined limit. Under this scenario you are restricting the core defined program and that other processes not only have access to those cores but also have exclsive use of any additional cores that the defined core program does not have access to use. Prior to X7 my system while running a Raytrace was obviously affected but it appeared that windows was on its own managing things reasonably well. Immediately after upgrading to X7 my system instantly demostrated a very noticable lag when running a Raytrace. The default Raytrace core setting is set to maximum cores. If I reduce this I can reduce this lag, which is how I came to my initial assumption that you are dedicating cores to Raytrace. Now I'm a very curious sole so I fired up my computer, loaded a Raytrace with cores set at 4, my max. Brought up the task manager and obsereved the cpu graph for each core. As one would expect all four cores ran at essentialy 100%. Good so far, lets try 3 cores. Not what I was expecting which was 3 cores running 100% and 1 core runing near idle. Instead all cores were processing, 3 cores were runing around 80% and 1 core around 50%. Set cores down to two. All cores were still processing, 2 around 80% and the other 2 around 50%. Now 1 core. 1 core runing 80%, 1 core around 60% and the remaing 2 around 25%. From this I have to conclude that the Raytrace core assignment is not what we think it is. All cores are still being used, it seems to just force a redistribution which appears to be more of a cpu % usage control and not a core usage control. To verify this I set the Raytrace cores back to 4. This time I used the windows affinity seting to assign core usage to Chief and rant the Raytraces again. 4 cores assigned, all 4 cores ran 100%. 3 cores assigned, 3 cores 100% 1 core idle. 2 cores assigned, 2 cores 100% 2 cores idle. 1 core assigned, 1 core 100% 3 cores idle. Exactly what I would expect. Also, when the affinity cores were lower than the max. Then there was no effect when changing core assignment through Chief. The affinity settings over ruled. Raytrace times were essentially the same and matched each core assignment whether they were set through Chief or Windows. I am wondering though if the difference in the way Chief manages cores compared to that of windows may be why we are experiencing these quirky slowdowns. Hope so, otherwise I did all of this for nothing. Well not completly for nothing at least my curiosity seems to be satisfied for the moment. Thanks for reading, Graham

Maybe these vote up/downs should be eliminated, they seem to have the potential to be counter productive. And the "Best Answer" should be renamed "Most Helpful Advice". The assignment of this to a post/thread should be restricted to the original poster. It's really up to the original poster to determine the usefulness of respondents advice and guidance. Graham

Agree - if X6 works fine & X7 shows a lag then it is most likely something related to X7. The challenge is now to isolate it down asap so a fix can be implemented. I too have experienced some significant lags, the most noticeable occurs randomly when I switch from an active Raytrace tab to any other tab. The tab bar will replicated it's self (display a duplicate set of tabs underneath) and take maybe 5-10 secs before the active tab closes and the other tab opens with the tab bar displayed normal. Not a programmer expert by any means but I'm wondering if the new capability to assign cores to Raytrace and how that is actually managed whether it is interfering with how process interrupts are being dealt with. Had something similar before where my system was randomly very slow. Used some process monitoring programs and found that for some reason the windows search (file indexing) thing was running 80 - 100% all the time. Had to stop the process then restart it to get it to behave as normal, does it's thing and then suspends. It was however interesting to see that even if it would not suspend that as long as the % processor level was less than about 70% the lag was not noticeable, obviously there was still sufficient headroom to handle a request. I have a quad core processor of which I assign three cores to the Raytrace. Could it be that the left over headroom (1 core) is just not enough to handle tab switching. In the past with core management being handled by windows then if needed windows could suspend the entire Raytrace process and dedicate everything to the tab switching request and then once finished it would resume the Raytrace. Just my thoughts, Graham

Just a thought, would it not be possible for tech to design some type of standard test model that we could use to help in determining whether the problem is within Chief or not. I know this would not be 100% but may accelerate the identification or at least help as to where to start looking. They could even just add the ability to save/ store your current settings so a quick reset could be done, if nothing changes then you could restore your last settings set. A bit like windows safe mode. Although a bit off subject I'd even like the do/undo to have a visible stored list so I would be able to confirm these actions other than watching for some visual clues in my plan. Photoshop has this feature and it is very useful, you can even select a specific undo from the list. It's not just move back one step at a time. Graham

In my region this is done with a drain tied into the weeping tile system. If a home has a sump pump then nothing changes. For debris the drain has a trap and a plate, same as a drain for a shower.

That's one of the drawbacks with these extremely high resolution screens in combination with smaller monitor sizes. Not sure with IOS but windows has a scaling setting that can help at times if you wish to keep the native resolution. Only drawback is it does not handle dialog boxes that cannot be moved or resized very well, it can scale them so portions of the box are off of the screen. The real benefit of going super high resolution is on larger screens, say 40" an up. Graham

Joe - I apologize for not making mention that you had identified this as the likely cause. Didn't pay full attention to your post prior to doing my own investigation. However, as you have often cautioned us in the past about the evils that lie within that "Paint Spray Can", it compelled me to look in that direction. Maybe that can should be renamed "College Pro Painter" and then a new one created and fixed named "Professional Painter". Many Thanks, Graham

Not sure if this is the problem. The porch is defined as a room. If you click on the region where the missing texture is and open the room dbx - Materials-Walls the finish is defined as drywall. Maybe this should be changed to your siding. Could be the drywall finish is interfering with the siding. The area lacking texture is exactly the wall portion of this room. Graham

Thanks Dermot. I may stand to be corrected but I believe the accepted convention is to only use the standardized symbol, which is void of any labeling, in the drawing and then within a schedule define the particulars such as voltage, amps etc. that are relevant to your region. If the symbols in Chief were to be altered then the labeling should actually be removed and left up to the user. One of the main purposes of this type of symbol only standardization is that regardless of the region the assumption is that the symbol always means a device that meets or exceeds the requirements of the region in which the device is being installed. The symbols only represent the type of device not the devices ratings. It's the same for general construction/architectural drawings. Standardized symbols are used to represent elements such as insulation, concrete, etc. Schedules are then added to define the particulars. The drawings would be an absolute mess if the element had to be labeled in every instance it was used. Graham

Keith - If cabinetry design is your area of interest then I know you will find Chief to be a really great tool. The approach is obviously different than say 2020 which is primarily designed around using manufacturer catalogs, just pick and drop. I have used this program extensively in the past but now use Chief exclusively. I can build a cabinet faster than the time it takes endlessly searching catalog drop down lists. For some unknown personal reason picking a cabinet from a catalog just seems to contradict the term "Custom". Also, Chief allows me to really get in there and detail not just the cabinet configuration but also every other element in the room. Clients want us to design the entire room not just provide a cabinet layout. If that's all they need then Home Depot is their best bet, not really interested in this. Graham

There was a similar post on this happening just a few days ago. I observed in that one and also in this that it only occurs in certain regions around shadows. If I compare your pic versus the original posters pic there is a significant difference in the shadow intensity. Yours is far less aggressive. In the prior post I had suggested that the poster examine sun angles to see if there was an actual relationship, unfortunately they never responded back. Graham

Absolutely!!! If I mix things up a bit my electrical contractor just laughs and kids me about it, it's all in good fun. Wouldn't want it any other way, there are many more important things to be concerned about. Graham