Chopsaw

Think I would just change the elevation and not the level unless you want it designated that way on the drawing.

Do you mean the " 15.0° " ? There was no default until X13. Now you can choose.

You might be better off using a deck room for those landings anyway which makes the supports easier anyway. And you may need to hurry with the drawings since it looks like they are almost finished anyway.

Yes it would be great if we could created a truncated Cone like the feature that Pyramids have but that is not and available option. You will need to create a cone with the right base and slope then cut the top off with boolean operations. Then if you will use this in other plans you can make a symbol out of it a put it in your library so you don't have to spend time recreating it. If your goal is a shape like this just combine a Cone and Cylinder and don't worry about trimming the cone.

2022-03-25 11-48 AM (2).mp4

Not exactly sure without the plan file but I would be willing to take a look for you.

It looks like you must have a room defined with that central "floating" structure and it is creating an auto ceiling.

Perhaps a custom Road Stripe could work for that ?

Great idea but Clay is a rendering technique not a way to change all the materials of the entire model. We have Basic and Standard rendering as well as Glass House with the 3D viewer. You could perhaps create a duplicate plan file an change all your material patterns to a clay style then it would appear that way in the 3D viewer basic rendering as clay but I can almost guarantee you if the client knows how they will view in Standard rendering so you would also need to change all of your material textures in the whole plan to clay.

Yes that would protect you from loosing the contents of your plan file and custom template. The only issue I see with that is it would limit the number of tools you could use with the Client Viewer or Trial Version. You still may run into rendering issues with a Minimum Requirements system though as the surface count would remain the same. As previously mentioned I don't see any benefit of going through the symbol process for the 3D View as that is essentially what the 3D Viewer does any way.

Have a look in the Roof Plane Specifications DBX Shadow Boards Panel The settings on the Shadow Boards panel allow you to specify one or more fascia shadow board profiles that follow the selected roof plane’s eaves. See Shadow Boards. The settings on this panel are like those on the Moldings panel found in many dialogs in the program. See Moldings Panel. Also it is best practice to start a new thread for a completely new subject.

How about this:

I have not tried a file quite that large but if you want to totally avoid the use of a cloud viewer service you could try an embedded 3D PDF. It is old technology but I think it is still better than the 3D viewer at this point but not as good as the Client viewer for image quality.

Not very likely since a lot us us can't even run all the features of X13 unless of course their kids have the absolute latest gaming systems.

Humm... No notification here but it looks like you are correct. Here are the notes: https://cloud.chiefarchitect.com/1/pdf/documentation/chief-architect-x13-update-notes.pdf Rather odd.

Did tech suggest you look at this article ? https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-03044/optimizing-a-chief-architect-plan-for-export-to-the-3d-viewer.html The viewer is unfortunately not capable of displaying a large and highly detailed model. I have only been able to utilize it for small projects. If you think there is an issue with your system you can always post the link here and we can see if we get the same results.

Try a Note Schedule and you can sort it manually otherwise I think you will need to use excel and import or something similar.

I guess you need to be more specific as to the results you are expecting. Such as you have four walls @201 = 804 but you want the doors and windows subtracted from that ? Everything else looks ok to me maybe. If you have a cathedral ceiling it is going to be more than the floor depending on the pitch.

No but you can "mull" as many as you like together as one.

Well definitely not on any old survey done in Canada but quite possibly on a brand new layout in an area that uses Metric.

It looks great. How Did you do it ? Thanks for sharing.

I guess you don't know Alan because technically it is not. All of his comments made more sense when he was using his previous avatar.

There is still no reference as to what this is being used for. For all we know they may be laying out a subdivision on a 1000 hectare development.

Did not realize how long ago that was but see if this helps: