Bill_Emery

Thanks Arthur, The viewer has already been upgraded to X7. This is different from previous version where the Viewer has lagged behind. We're really no even out of Beta yet.

Has the Client Viewer been updated for X7 yet? I've not transitioned any active jobs to X7, as the Client Viewer is often how I communicate with clients and contractors.

What you refer to as "battens" we call "purlins" in my region. Lock the truss envelop, raise the roof , build the roof framing and drag the lookouts across. You can delete all but one of the lookouts in each roof plane, and then transform/replicate at whatever spacing and size you need. When you transform/replicate, no need to worry about the Z values, they will follow the roof plane.

http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?58849-Slopped-ridge-roof-plane&highlight=turret See this link for the cricket.

Usually large plans sizes are associated with having a lot of CAD Blocks and Details. Those pattern lines really add up. It's not so much the type of pattern line, but the density of the lines (how close the lines are together). Surfaces have become less of a problem in recent version through the use of instancing; but I don't think that there is an easy fix for pattern lines.

I hadn't realized that the porch ceiling had moved up in the plan I sent you earlier. To correct this I've specified no ceiling for the porch, and have put in a manual ceiling plane. I agree that this is more work than it ought to be. Box Window - second floor3.plan

Attached is a plan with my take on the problem. I've added a 3/8" layer to the balcony floor, I've changed the pitch of the porch roof to leave room for the corbels, and used a pass through window to create the interior opening. Box Window - second floor2.plan

Yusuf, I've got a stair that has eleven, 30 degree segments or 330 degrees total. I can get it to work, but making minor changes can be disastrous. I'll play with it more, but is easier and more reliable to use Joe's method for now. It would be good to be able to specify the degrees of rotation, and the diameter and have them lock. The segment and the total degree rotation are controlled by the tread depth at the walk line, the stair width, and the number of treads. It's quite difficult to keep all of the variable under control. Using Joe's method I've set up plans with Salter's A,B,C, and D configurations, so I can easily create a model with varying number of treads, and riser heights, with variations of the landing detail.

I've been trying to use Yusuf's method for a spiral on a current project, but it's just too hard to control the diameter and the degrees of rotation, so I've reverted to Joe's method. I'd like to see better control of this aspect of stairs in X8.

Looks like California conforms with the model code; often California is more restrictive. 9.5" rise on a spiral on a small diameter spiral feels good under foot, it becomes more like a ladder.

For general information here is Salter's chart for code stair packages, with floor to floor heights, number of treads, and degrees of rotation.

Perry, I'm using the new reflective material, but it seems to have a problem coping with cabinets in an old plan brought forward. It works in most situations, but not as a material applied in the DBX for cabinets. It does work on custom backsplashes (not associated with a cabinet) using the DBX. It can also be made to work using the eye dropper tool. I'm thinking that next time I'm faced with bringing something forward, it might be good to copy the essentials to a new plan.

Dennis and Lew, Thanks for the feedback. I tried a new plan, and everything works fine. The problem occurs in an older plan brought forward to X6.

I've just noticed that when I use Chief's mirror material for cabinet door glass, or for a backsplash it will not reflect in render view in X6. It will however show reflection when ray tracing. Oddly it does work for a custom backsplash, but not for the backsplash in the cabinet DBX, nor will it work for the panel in the cabinet door when using the DBX. Of course it's relatively easy to work around this by using the material eye dropper or a polyline solid, but I am a little puzzled by it.

I like using Chief, and there are things it does exceeding well; but I do have to say that Wynsong has a valid point. Chief has a lot of features that barely work, or only work for certain common scenarios. Here are a few examples. · Stairs are an example of a feature that works for common stairways, but is severely limited when the stairs are a little out of the ordinary. · Schedules (as Wynsong pointed out) are quite limited in their formatting capabilities, and are so fickle that it's impossible to have a comprehensive door schedule on more than one floor even though they were updated for X6. The formatting issue would not be so bad if we were allowed to use macros to create the formatting that we want. · Ruby and macros, although they have some usefulness, are simply a dead end. · We still don't have the ability do get doors and windows right, even though they've had some attention over the years. · Foundation walls which have had recent attention will only work in very common situations. Try putting together a slab foundation with insulation layers, steps, and interface with existing slab, and you're in for a tremendous waste of time. · Don't get me started on the material list. I know the system well, but I'm still exporting to excel and sorting endlessly to get what I need. · Components are another obtuse area of Chief that leave me shaking my head. I think the problem comes down to resources. Chief is a relatively small company with limited resources. They are in a competitive market and must keep it's capabilities on a par with its competition. What I noticed over the years that I've used Chief is that features that are added are so rushed that they are just developed to the point where they barely work, work in some situations, or are simply an incomplete solution. Sometimes things get fixed with a patch, but often it's just called good enough. I like improved features and capabilities, but I think it's important to make these new features fully functional. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to go back and fix a lot of things that have just been incomplete or broken for a long time.

Yusuf, I didn't fully understand when you posted this solution earlier, but it makes sense now. How did you ever figure that out? Joe, I like your approach. It works very well with the kit spirals.

I use a recent version of PSP. It does what I need it to do for my work, and as an amateur photographer. I like the 64 bit version.. I've tried GIMP, but it's not a particularly easy interface. Photoshop is like autocad in that it is the dominant program of its type on the market and carries a premium price. However the subscription service for Adobe Creative Suite is quite reasonably priced, and I have found that tempting. On another note I'm finding the subscription service for Microsoft Office very temping as well. "Jasc" is derived from the acronym, J.A.S.C. (Just Another Software Company). Founder Robert Voit needed a name to protect his assets legally, but at the time had not decided to make a go of the company so he came up with a tongue-in-cheek name. Later when the company took off, he realized that was not the best connotation for a company to have so he publicly "changed" the acronym to (Jets and Software Company) because he was a commercial airline pilot prior to starting the software company.

Alan, My mistake, it should work now.

I think this is what the original poster is looking for. I've expanded on Glenn's solution; but instead of adding an invisible layer to the wall to create the offset, I've placed an invisible wall next to the the partition wall with it's own footing. I think that this takes care of any criticism that Scott may have of Glenn's solution. interior slab footing solution.zip

Scott, You shouldn't need to disable the on board card. Simply open the Nvidia control panel, and under program settings tell it to use the Nvidia card for Chief. The advantage of keeping the on board graphics available is that you can take advantage of the power saving features, which can be important on a laptop.

It works properly on my 50" 4k. Although the process of placing markers is not difficult; it's an item that should be automated. The level line marker should seek it's height from the height box in the DBX. These little things add up in terms of lost efficiency.

Here I've used the Transform/Replicate tool to copy a marker set at zero at four foot intervals. I then use a baseline dimension tool to see their relative heights. From there I can use the room DBX information to adjust them to the proper height using the dimension. From there I can open the markers and either enter the height in the text box, or use the height box. If I use the height box, I must place a # in the text box so it will report the height. I suspect the # is a bit of unfinished business on Chief's part, as it makes no sense to have this feature unless I can use it to actually set the height the of the maker. Level line markers should be smart enough to know their own elevation. I might just add that to suggestion forum.

I've given up hope of having any influence on. Chief windows; they have actually gotten worse in recent versions. It wouldn't be so bad if custom window symbols weren't so limiting. Window and door realism and precision is sadly lacking.

I use Manic Time, and it works well for me. I can create detailed reports; but have to take it into Quickbooks for billing

The attached texture works better for me.