TheKitchenAbode

CA has finally figured it out,  use same tool for many different purposes but give it a unique name and it is no longer a work around.  Brilliant.

 

BTW Graham,  nice catch,  and some nice input coming from you,  thanks.

Truly appreciate the encouragement. Have always found your posts to be enlightening and motivating, usually have to go in right away and explore first hand.

Yes, it's a very efficient way to bring in new features, take an existing one, massage it around a bit and rename it. The only caveat is that this, if not done correctly, can make the program appear either overly complex or limited, especially for new users. Its similar to the Apple & Microsoft situation (approach), Windows is extremely powerful, but you really need to dig around to get at it, Apple on the hand discourages or limits this, which at times restricts what one can do. Although I am 100% Microsoft I do have to give Apple credit as they certainly appear to have struck a balance that serves the needs of a significant number of users. Hopefully Windows 10 will provide us Microsoft fans with the best of both worlds, lets keep our fingers crossed.

"Complexity is defined by the number of components and their arrangement, not by the components themselves."

Graham

It really depends upon how many jobs you need to push out. If I was only cutting a few kitchens per month I would just setup an Excel spread sheet. It could be easily designed to handle this level of work.

Graham

Really nice vid. Worthwhile noting that the Backsplash tool seems to be identical to the Material Regions tool, just given a unique name. Too take things a bit further the Custom Counter Top tool and Slab tool are also identical, they just provide control over the horizontal face versus the vertical. Maybe we just need one tool that allows us to define the control face and the Material List designation?

Graham

Don't think Chief was designed with this purpose in mind. There are other programs available specifically designed to do this. A small custom carpentry shop I have worked with has this, doubt if they paid too much, however it likely does not handle NC machines. I do know that they have to redo my design as their software cannot work directly with Chief files. Pain in the neck and just another chance for mistakes.

Graham  

My primary supplier from Quebec uses box depth. Door thickness will vary according to style and construction material, typically between 5/8, 3/4, 1" and possible greater with an applied moulding. Their line must be highly standardized to deal with this in their catalog.

Graham

I was getting so many crashes with X7 that I've reverted to using X6 until the problem is fixed.  Narrowed the crashes down to my dual graphics not switching correctly, but there may be an additional issue with X7 and the Intel HD graphics.  Anyway, the development team have all my crash data.  Also found that X7 was taking an age to load compared to X6.  When it worked, it seemed to work fine, but the frequncy of crashes on my HP laptop makes it unusable.

As you mentioned there is an issue with integrated Intel hd graphics. Freezes when you attempt to use Material Definitions when in camera view or elevation. Have run A6 concurrently with no problem. Used an object created in A6 & A7 & also tested both 32 & 64 bit version, updated drivers and did extensive system cleaning. Freezes every time, condition is 100% repeatable. Definitely something has changed or there is a bug in the way A7 deals with these chipsets. Intel HD3000. Will be sending report to Tech.

I am certainly going to investigate the Wall Type & Railing suggestion further. Thanks for all of the tips. In the past I have utilized the methods described within my posts in order to get the details I require. For example, the curb would likely have a sill on top versus being fully tiled, and the sill may also have a 1/4" reveal over the interior exterior tiled curb. The sill may also require a profile edge (bullnose, etc) There are also instances were the glass is not centered on the curb (sill). How easily can this be accommodated using the other methods mention? Also require the ability to fully dimension all of this.

Graham

Just another thought. Please keep-in-mind that the cabinetry manufactures usually interpret the depth on full overlay as being the box depth excluding the fronts. If your drawings are being used for ordering you may not get what you are expecting.

Graham

Works great and it does allow you to dimension. Only minor issue is that setting the vertical separations to "0" will mean that the door/drawer widths will be calculated to the full cabinet width (no 1/8" gap allowance) or if you have an opening, say for a built in wall oven, it will show not show the interior width correctly. This may not be of any concern depending upon your needs.

Still interested in the need to dimension this, it would really be helpful to understand this.

Graham

I don't believe there is a way, other than with point markers, to dimension the cabinet front thickness where the configuration is an overlay style. The inset will work, but your drawings will of course depict the inset.

I am in the Kitchen business, is there a particular reason that you need to dimension this?

Graham

Here are two pics showing just a door panel, same technique as above, on a base unit end gable. 1st pic shows flush with cabinet base, 2nd shows flush with drawer fronts (provides a semi inset look). Every thing dimension properly.

Graham

I have attached a pic showing the method using a door panel I described in your other thread. Everything dimensions properly. I have used the method you are currently using but had the same problem. With this method you can also manipulate all components in all views.

This would be a typical section of a peninsula. we would normally place a back panel and then apply the decorative door panels it.

Graham

You can just place a door panel from the library in the plan and then size & move as required. Do this when I need the door paneled gable to extend flush with the actual fronts of the cabinets.

Graham

Well,  that goes without saying.

 

What I do think is important is to explain  why one thinks a particular approach is better than another.  

 

To say,  "I like my approach better" is useless dribble.  

 

There are a many ways to accomplish a task,   but for pete's sake,  let's talk about advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

 

And as far as the competitive nature goes,  are you kidding?  Getting rid of the competitive nature is what it is all about,  it is the competitive nature that drives us to come up with better solutions.  Let's check our feelings and our egos at the door and teach each other and learn from each other so we as a group will become more successful in our businesses.

 

Eliminate the competitive nature?  Let's just hand out a bunch of first place trophies.

Only If I it means the first recipient is better than the second !!!

You may wish to review the "Glass Shower Walls" discussion. There are several participants that are well versed in the use of "Wall Types" and "Material Regions" that may be able to assist you.

Graham

I believe the last couple of posts bring to light a very important consideration that needs to be taken into account as we attempt to assist each other through our own experience(s). That is  "Users End Needs Vary" and as such the best suited technique can only be judged within the context of the users end needs.

Given this it may be more conducive if we were to reframe from using terms such as "Best" when referring to our methods. Yes, we are all passionate about our perceived knowledge & expertise, however it is really up to the end user to define "Best" according to their specific needs. The intent of the forum is to promote the exchange of ideas and experiences between participants and as a resource for non forum participating Chief users. Would this intent not be better served by minimizing our competitive nature within the forum? Would this not create an atmosphere that would encourage less experienced users to openly express their ideas and needs without fear of intimidation or embarrassment? I strongly believe so!

Graham

Here's my method.  It requires a little bit of organization within the Library but it makes it real easy to create - and editing is very easy as well

 

http://screencast.com/t/kJvmrO1a2J

Very nice demo vid, thanks for sharing. Just one question concerning dimensioning. When I use the Material Regions, say for the wall tile, and I set the thickness to say 3". When in the plan view I can't get the dimensions to lock-in on the object to dimension the thickness. I know I can point (marker) this but then every time something changes I have to go back and manually correct it. These Material Regions appear to dimension properly in elevation views but it is in the plan view where I encounter difficulties. Any suggestions?.

I believe you will find this to be purely a graphic design choice. This more open, simplified, flat look is the way things are going both in software and website user interface (UI) design. This trend for websites started around 8 years ago with the introduction of the HTML5 markup language and later reinforced by Microsoft with the Metro styled Windows 8 about 2 years ago.

Personally I prefer this style from an overall perspective. Software and websites are becoming cleaner looking with a more visually open look. This allows the content to be the primary focus, which is really the way it should be.

Graham

Thanks for the video, provides a good overview of the wall type/covering and material regions function and application. I must however say that from my perspective there appears to be a lot of steps involved considering that this was done without the need for any accurate positioning, sizing or plan and elevation dimensioning.

Just as an example. This approach uses only one object (well maybe two) to create every element; curbs, glass, door, seat, tile surface & floor.

Assume shower is 42” x 42”, curbs 4” x 4”.

1.) 1st Curb – partition, size 4”X4”x42”, drop & snap to wall 38” from other wall.

2.) 2nd Curb – copy/paste first curb, drag & snap to wall & first curb.

3.) Floor – shelf, 1/4" thick, set on floor, handle drag/size/snap to walls & curbs.

4.) 1st Glass pane – partition, height off floor 4”, 1/4” thick. Drop/drag over curb center, drag/snap to walls.

5.) 2nd Glass Pane – copy/paste first, drag into position.

6.) Glass Door – copy/paste 2nd glass, position & size.

7.) Walls – partitions, drag/snap to clad walls, floors, ceiling.

8.) Bench – partition, size, drop/drag/snap into position.

9.) Materials – set as required via dialog box or material painter.

Every element will adhere fully to all bumping/pushing and drag/snap behaviors. All elements can be manipulated in all view formats plan/elevation & camera. All elements will dimension correctly in both plan & elevation views (inside/outside edges & centers). All elements will be accurately positioned, glass will be 4” off of floor, 0” on curb. Glass to glass door clearances can be set. All intersects such as glass to tile, glass to curb etc. can be fully evaluated. All adjustment/modifications can be done using simple drag/snap object handles in all view formats.

I don’t mean to say this is a better method, it just depends upon how one prefers to get things done.

Graham

I only encounter this issue when several narrow width items are beside each other or there are items behind. Guess there is a limit to the auto dimension tolerance and it cannot discern the individual items and therefore places point marks. Just click on the dimension (not the point marker) and drag on of the handles over the area, sometimes zooming in will help or turn off some layers to isolate the item.

All software written to-date has some anomaly, there is no such thing as perfect. If there was nothing would ever evolved and we would all be unemployed.

Graham

Thanks Doug, really appreciate your expansion on this subject. I fully agree that multi-cores are for most users the best available solution. For all of us with the X7 upgrade and multi-cores we can easily demonstrate this by setting the Raytrace core usage to max. and then try running another program at the same time as a Raytrace, can get real laggy. Great way to simulate one core versus multi-core under multi-tasking situations.

When I upgraded this was immediately evident as X7 is defaulted to use maximum cores. Initially I thought some virus or background process was the culprit. Ran a few process monitoring programs that indicate Raytrace was consuming 100% of my processor all the time. As soon as I saw the setting in "Preferences" "Render" "Raytrace" I knew exactly what was happening. Freed up one core and everything is back to normal.

I know from this forum that many users are experiencing this, maybe a general notification is needed to help resolve this and alleviate a lot of undue stress. Especially for those who less familiar with this subject.

Graham

Accurate colours and textures are extremely important for me. Those depicted in the camera views are often way off from the Raytrace . The best approach I have been able to find is to select the material in question and use the blend with color pallet and shift the colour to get the render correct. For interiors you can also set the colour temperature on the lights which will influence a colour, same as adjusting the white balance in photography. Don't know if you can do this with in the sun settings for exterior rendering.

Graham

I know I'll probably receive a lot of flak for this but here goes!!! I think there are some misconceptions concerning multi-core processors and their benefits. First, a single core processor running at the same clock rate as a multi-core processor has the same throughput. The additional cores have no real impact in regards to shear input/output processing power. In theory the single core processor should actually beat the multi-core as it does not have to spend time managing the cores. The real benefit of multi versus single is their ability to more efficiently handle multi-tasking demands. These days we are usually running several programs concurrently, Chief, MS Office and our browser. It is under this scenario that the multi-cores have an advantage. Once an instruction set enters the processor it can be directed to one or more of the cores, It's as if each program has a dedicated piece of the processor. However this should not be construed in the same way as having parallel processors, it's a hybrid approach. The cores are within the processor, they in themselves are not fully independent processors. No matter how many cores are available instructions can only move into and out of the processor at the clock cycle (frequency) rate.

Here's an overly simplified analogy. Envision two 5 mile stretches of highway, each has a single lane on ramp at the beginning and a single lane off ramp at the end. Between the on/off ramps one of the highways has one lane while the other splits into 4 lanes. In both cases the on and off ramps determine the rate that vehicles can enter and exit the highway, however once on the highway the four lane one will be less congested. Once the on or off ramp reaches it's maximum flow rate it does not matter how many lanes you have in between.

Graham

I've used slabs in the same manner for years but I really like the partition idea, as it seems to save a few steps.

I use the partition as there are more options to control positioning, sizing, etc. than a slab which is actually a polyline. Either works. The way I see it is that everything is really just several basic shapes, by varying their size and combination with each other you create anything you want. It's called a partition but in reality it's just an object with variable width, height and depth options. It can be anything a 2 X 4, sheet goods like plywood, drywall and even Glass. Just change the material designation.

Graham

I may be incorrect here but I believe the way things are set-up is that anything related to primary construction work is, from a height perspective, relative to the subfloor. For finishing elements such as cabinetry you have a choice between the subfloor or the finished floor by setting the "Auto Adjust Height" option.

Use the "Wall Elevation" view and the vertical dimensions will work between the finished floor and finished ceiling. Using the "Cross Section/Elevation" view the dimensions work between everything.

Just ran a comparison using "NKBA Auto Elevation Dimensions". In the "Cross Section/Elevation" view it dimensioned everything. In the "Wall Elevation" view it dimensioned between the finished floor and finished ceiling. I believe the NKBA standards are mostly format & style related. What is dimensioned is controlled by the elevation view type and what layers are turned on.

Graham