Chopsaw

Yes there are definitely situations where it is user error but if it happens to Michael and needs a workaround to fix it then it is obviously an issue for other users as well. I worked on a relatively simple plan file all day to correct a attic wall issue and when I was done I sent the plan file in to tech support asking why it was so much work to fix an automatically generated wall and explained the whole situation to them. That was 9 weeks ago and obviously there are issues within the software because I am still waiting to hear back from them. Not so sure that is what Johnny is talking about but I have never done an electrical plan without connection issues so I am voting for CA.

Not quite sure what you are saying Yusuf. Is that in reference to what David called the "water mark" ? The left door has the manufactures website overlaid onto it for advertising and maybe copyright purposes. http://www.iwantthatdoor.com/product-category/iron-doors/page/6/ Any way as David identified that as an issue that is why I said to just use the Right door.

Very nice Yusuf, Thank you for taking the time to test that when I could not. Happy 40 th.

Also crop in Paint or Photoshop to have only the right door without the frame then maybe you could make a symbol and flip the symbol for the left side. Not sure if that will all work or not but that is how I would try it. Not that "Cheesy" if it works. Keep us posted.

You can set that in your window and door defaults under the Label tab.

Thanks Graham, That all seems to support the data that I have. I might just be dreaming but wouldn't it be great if CA provided some testing data like that for users so they could make a good decision about the expected performance of the software based on their budget. Even if they were to sub out the task I think it would be worthwhile but it could also be done in house as I am sure they have over a hundred company computers that would all make excellent test platforms since they likely all were purchased at different times for the purpose of running the software at all different levels. If they were to provide a standardized test procedure I am sure that there would be many forum users that would participate and provide test data also.

Very nice demo pictorial Yusuf. I will give this another try on my next job. I like how you intersected the terrain breaks. Last time I found the break to be too abrupt but you did a good job.

Graham, You seem to have a good understanding of this topic, hoping that you have shared this knowledge with CA or will find a way to do so, because there seems to be no acknowledgment of this issue from their end. Not may users have the means to maintain two separate systems which it seems is the only solution currently for maximum performance. I think you finally answered my question from our last discussion back in January : https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/12619-questions-on-pc-cpusgpus-for-number-crunching-i-series-xeon-amd/?do=findComment&comment=108629 Hoping CA will invest some more time into this issue for the development of X10.

Yes I agree but there is still something that I have not worked out in my challenge against that Dual Xeon that I was referring to because the math still does not work. It was a 28 core dual Xeon system running at 2.1 GHz which also had a M.2 SSD drive. So mathematically it should have had no problem blowing me out of the water but even with my mSata SSD handicap I won hands down. This kind of data make it a difficult decision on finding a system that will excel at both everyday design work and also raytracing. I have also had chief hang up many many times and checked with Task Manager to find that I am only at 12-18% CPU utilization which is essentially a single core for my system.

That will help for ray tracing but chief is still unable to fully utilize multi core systems for regular drawing. X9 has made some marked improvements but I have put my system up against an impressive dual Xeon setup and beat it hands down even with my now aging processor but the point is that CPU clock speed is the key to smooth and fast functionality in Chief.

Add an area or two that are set to be a little lower than your patio slabs that run under them and possibly a little larger than they are and that will give you the most control so the grass does not overtake your design as pictured.

Usually just a wall that is not quite correct, sometimes you can regenerate the wall and it will fix itself or you can edit in 3D and unwrap the wall polylines. Hard to know for sure with out seeing the plan. Also easier to get good help if you post the version you are running along with your critical computer specs, you can put that all in your signature and keep it updated. Also there is a free tool in windows 10 called the "Snipping Tool" works great for screen shots and saves the hassle of using your phone unless of course you system has frozen.

Cad Block Management could also be used to bail you out of a situation like that if it is too late to undo.

Yes, It is not as complicated as Michael suggests. Just export from current camera view and you will be good. If you want framing export from your 3D framing set.

Take a look through these options for starters : https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00467/troubleshooting-missing-toolbars.html

Scott I just wanted you to take another look as I thought you may have been onto something. It does seem that Chief does need to do a little more work on terrains as it seems that it is factoring in a 0 somewhere in the calculations based on Griffin's plan. However Glenn's fix seems to be the best for the available data.

Scott if you look closely there are four elevation points visible. One inside the terrain and three outside, two below and one offset proportionally to the left at the top. Put those four points back within the terrain perimeter ( near the corners ) and then see what the subfloor setting will do.

Not sure if you saw this post or not but you might want to give it a try.

X9 allows many more options but is not available for $400.

Dan, If you would not mind taking a look into this for Andy and all the rest of us that use PM's.

Thank you Johnny for skillfully putting this into words. This is a core issue that I have spoken to CA staff about and it is critical to the future of the software that it is addressed.

Susan, Thanks for your continuing work on this project, hoping this will be successful.... email sent today.

Just add a "Insulation Air Gap" layer to the Ceiling finish (J) layer above the drywall in the Room Specification DBX on the Structure tab.

Yes the general framing is faster and provides an automatic cross box if your ceiling is flat.

Depending on the complexity of the plan you might just draw some psolids in elevation view and extend them in floor plan. Draw cross boxes in your section layout view. If you need more help send me a PM.