AvoyeDesign

Ken is correct, there are no notes for this update available, at least at the time I downloaded. Per Derek's post: "The update version is 19.3.1.8 and includes a simple wording change in the "Help" menu." The word "includes" leads me to believe that wasn't the only thing in the update. Would be nice if that was more clear.

Saw this update today. Was hoping someone from Chief could see this post and advise when the update notes will be released for this update. Curious to know what has changed. Thanks.

Yeah, I'm at 1080p max with my 32" monitor. I am planning to get a 44" or larger TV running at 4K, that will benchmark a lot different I'm sure. Yikes! I gotta start saving pennies.

Here is mine. I don't think this puts the CPU through a rendering task like cinebench does, but I don't think cinebench puts the cpu through a more comprehensive set of tasks like this does. So while your CPU's may be rated 5 times as well as mine on a cinebnech rendering, they are only about 1.5 to 2.5 times on this test.

How does that Xeon 14 core stack up against your i7? I assume you get 14 cores, 28 threads? Xeon is more of a server/workstation CPU if I'm not mistaken? What is your MOBO? I've been curious for a while about building a system around one of those xeon multi core beasts, perhaps even on a dual cpu motherboard.

Wow, that threadripper is ripped! My cinebench CPU score for an i5 is 560. Open GL is 118 on a GTX 1060 6ghz. I wonder if you could get a little more out of that 1080? I think that the scores on the left are from other systems within your range. Although I would guess that you are pretty high up there. Out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking what did you pay for your system?

A faster way to compare systems though would be with cinebench.

To do a proper benchmark, I think you should save the camera you used with all it's settings, and upload the plan here. We should all be using the same camera with the exact same settings, same raytrace setup, etc. A slightly different angle of the camera can change what chief has to render, and different raytrace settings, well, I think that goes without saying.

Good Point. Chief usually likes to terminate the truss tail with a single node. I think what the poster has going on is some weird geometry where the top chord is generated through based on the nodes.

Selecting "energy heel" might fix this, but sometimes it doesn't But if you want the bottom cord to extend past the wall this won't help.

I usually draw a retaining wall on the foundation level and a railing above it on the first floor level. Set the railing to follow terrain. But I usually do this around exterior stairwells where there are rooms defined on both floors, with the upper room being open below. So not sure how this would work with a retaining wall that does not define a room.

I would say that this is probably the best practice, and adjusting your attic walls should be avoided.

This is good to know. I could have saved much time for other projects by avoiding polyline roads. Sometimes though, a driveway does not have parallel or concentric edges. That is where things get fun.

Can you post the plan? Better to have someone look at it.

Well, I went back and had a second look, and it was not what I thought it was. I went into the wrong folder and used an old set of labels that I had not fixed form the X4 to X9 upgrade. My bad.

I store a lot of plan labels in my user library so I can drop them into the plan instead of having to create them new each time. A typical label would read "Floor Plan" on the top line and "Scale: 1/4"=1' on the bottom line. Standard stuff. I've never found a way to add a stand alone text object to the library, so the technique I use is to group select the single object and make it a cad block. A problem I encountered when upgrading from X4 to X9 was that apparently some formatting changed and the text became too big for the width of the block it was grouped into, causing many of my labels to show text wrap. I would then have to place them, select and unblock them, and even at times open the DBX and set the width to automatic. A real pain. Instead, I went through all of them one by one and re-blocked them so they didn't show a text wrap. Problem solved. ....until the update the other day. A bunch of them are screwed up again. SMH. Anybody else see this behavior?

I would suggest building a relationship with builders in your area, who can give you the best advice on how they price their wall assemblies. Also look into the building codes and learn a lot about local practices. For any given application in my region, there can be many various solutions to meet code requirements for structure, sound control, fire separation, insulation, moisture/vapor/air barriers and seismic activity. And in my province there are varying requirements for various regions, so this changes when I do work outside my region. All of this needs to be taken into account to determine the most cost effective assembly for the application. I don't even try to determine that myself, I rely on builder feedback. Until you can understand the requirements of the building codes as they apply to your region, you will be shooting in the dark.

Respectfully, I said it would be a nightmare for me. Other users may have different results.

I started with X1, and I can tell you that bringing even an X1 file into X9 would be a nightmare for me. So much has changed that it wouldn't even be worth the effort of using an existing plan file. I would likely just open it as a reference, and redraw everything. That way it is in my current template and using all my current defaults, wall styles, etc. etc. etc.

Or if the automatically generated handrail had edit handles and nodes, like a molding polyine, that we could grab and adjust. And then the ballusters would follow suit.

You probably should post this in the general forum. You might get more answers there. The suggestions forum is for suggesting new or improved features to chief architect.

I think we need an indicator in dimension fields that are rounded, that indicates that the number has been rounded up or down. If it read something like 6 15/16 (-), so that the (-) indicates the number has been rounded down. Then a user change will not show a rounding indicator, and will clue the user in to a possible problem like the one I describe above.

I've made it a habit to never accept a dimension as shown unless I have entered it myself, and this is a prime example as to why I do this. It's really odd to see this in a wall thickness. I've discovered why this happens, and I think it is a bug. I began with the OOB Siding-6 wall and changed it to a 2x4 wall by resizing it in the wall DBX. I changed the wall thickness from 6 15/16" to 4 15/16". I checked the wall thickness and it was 3.49". Noticing that the housewrap layer is actually 0.01", I then removed that layer form the Siding-6 wall before resizing it in the wall DBX. I checked the wall thickness and it was 3.5. So when you resize the wall from the wall DBX, chief takes this 0.01" away from the main layer. So the OOB wall has a housewrap layer that appears to be 0" when it is actually 0.01". I manually changed the housewrap layer to 0 and then changed the wall thickness in the wall DBX, and I got 3.5". This may not actually be a bug, as the program is doing proper math, and the wall thickness shown is actually 6 15/16" plus 0.01", but that 0.01 is lost to rounding and doesn't show to the user. And even changing one digit in the wall thickness field is read as a user entry, and that extra 0.01 that is hidden due to rounding is lost, thus it is taken from the framing layer. I'll report this to chief if I get time, but if you want to instead let me know. Chief should not package their OOB wall definitions like this if it causes accuracy problems and headache. I will also need to go over all my wall definitions to correct this.

I think it might be helpful to know what you would like them to do for you.

Hi Peter, I don't use the wall elevation tool very often, but opening your plan and the camera, that is exactly what I expected to see. I don't think chief is acting out of character, but perhaps you can create a post in the suggestion forum and describe what you would like to see.