BenPalmer

OK, so i'm trying to see the benefit of using Adobe for managing the process. If you are just going to combine files into one binder...how is that any different then just having all those files in one folder on your PC? I guess I don't see the value of an extra step of combining them if you already have them in different formats and open them up individually? Please let me know what i'm missing. Can you update the files? Or are they linked to the original source file and update in both places? Or they become static once they are combined? Maybe we are thinking of different uses. I currently use OneNote which will collect and organize things easily including colloboration. But not the best for managing the process of a project or projects. I too have been looking into process management systems similar to those linked by Joey (thanks for the links) and find them useful for both managing a project including my team and where each project is at and what needs done and which is the priority. OneNote and Adobe won't really do that job well, but could be tweaked to make do. Again, thanks for the dialogue and any additional insights.

Agree with above, creating a second floor to control the parapet is the best way to go.

Anna, they do need to explode it even if they claim they don't. Have them try it as a trial to see if it works, then you will know going forward. I deal with those files all the time and they come in great when saved as exploded. Sometimes they forget and send it blocked, and then I remind them I need it exploded and they make the adjustments and resend, and it works great. They tell me there are other clients they do the same thing with that use other software. Hope that helps.

I would love to see a way to change the overhang length universally without auto rebuilding. I work on complicated roofs that auto only goes so far and then there is lots of manual work, so auto rebuild isn't an option if we decide to change to a different overhang length.

I prefer other pdf software as well. HOWEVER, be aware that if you use transparencies in your drawings, 3rd party pdf printers will pixelate (raster) those areas of the drawings vs a clear vector output that Chief's built in pdf printer does. You can search previous threads for more information on this.

Daryl, I'm in Maricopa County (Gilbert), but I'm a couple months out right now, so if you need it sooner, Jared may be your guy. Maricopa is pretty straight forward to get through, at least compared to other local municipalities. Should be able to do the structure prescriptavely (no engineering) based on the drawing you submitted with a 10' plate and minimal wall openings, but depending on your lot location, you may need civil engineering (if you are in flood zone or on a lot with washes, slope, etc). Here is their check-lists for you and whoever does the project (make sure to follow the check list perfectly, or they won't even take the plan at the counter). http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/buildingservices/docs/pdf/Site%20and%20Building%20Plan%20Checklist.pdf http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/buildingservices/docs/pdf/Forms/SingleFamilyResidential.pdf Good luck.

I haven't seen it as much lately, but I can fix it the same way Richard does...just need to open and close. Having to check boxes might be a different issue?? Not sure.

See if this thread relates to you: https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/10714-bad-printing/

While you may save money for the production of the prints, don't forget the time you will need to spend to assemble and manage it. For me, my time is more valuable spent on drawing then printing and assembling. Therefore I push the print shop and digital files whenever I can. So make sure to figure your hourly time into that price and you may find the print shop price is pretty good. However, if you have a lower waged employee managing that without sacrificing production, then it may work out. Best of luck.

I used to have that issue, but an update along the way fixed that for me. No more large files on my end. However, i would still rather use my own pdf software as I like the options I have better. The integrated one is limited, especially when needing to print multiple views, cameras, floors, etc into one pdf.

I suspect you may have transparent fills?? in which case, you must use Chiefs integrated PDF creator to clean it up. More info here: https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/3893-x7-poor-print-quality-using-transparent-fills-in-walls/

Basic spread sheet functionality needs to be added to Chief without going outside the program. This has been requested before, but good to bring it up again.

I contacted Del offline since he was a fellow Arizonan and wanted to share some information specific to Arizona in addition to helping him with his file. 'out of the kindness of my heart'. Didn't see it necessary for that conversation happening publicly on the forum. Now I have helped with a couple others on this forum over the years and you run across those who you know want to take advantage of the situation and I quickly cut them off or discuss pricing. But generally I'm pretty willing to help out (if it isn't a direct competitor

Sent you an email.

Found the same thing. In fact, after invisible wall is aligned, you can then unalign it again and it will still build fine. Or just delete that invisible wall...don't see that it is doing anything for you.

Yeah, ditto. And I expect problems on older plans. It usually takes about 30 minutes or so to import annotation sets, defaults, changes some settings, layers, update windows, doors and other things to integrate into X8, and I'm fine with that as things have changed (for the better), so I get it and each time I bring a plan forward, it is now ready to go for the future. And it's worth it because the new tools are more refined, quicker and produce a better visual plan. But this foundation thing on some plans has taken me half a day to finally get it fixed. There have been a few that I can't figure out at all and just use polyline solids or cad to 'band aid' it.

...and my situation isn't a problem with templates, but a problem with bringing an old plan forward. So new templates wouldn't solve some of those issues. BTW, I bring plans forward a lot. That is part of my business model. I have done thousands of plans over the years and I will give a client a discount if they use one of my old plans 'as is', or use it as a starting point. So Chief needs to continue to support legacy plans. I understand that as a plan get's too old there may be problems, but the issues I'm having aren't special things. They are just foundations and defaults and pretty straight forward things that should just work.

I agree with the general premise that there are too many places for different settings and often the 'default' and what is being build conflict and it isn't obvious. Yes, it is what we are telling chief to do, but the work flow and dbx that Chief employ don't always make it easy to figure that out sometimes. Sure, once we figure it out, we know for next time. But, if it was better organized, we wouldn't need to remember, it would be fairly intuitive. For example: The other day I was adding exposed custom rafter tails (which I admit I don't do a lot). Went into the roof framing tab to set up the sizes I wanted and built the framing. Well, the framing didn't build at all to the numbers I just input. Come to find out the roof framing is actually following each roof planes setting instead of the framing dialogue settings. If that is the case, why do I even have the option to change framing settings in the general framing dbx when it won't even use it. There should be a note or warning or whatever telling me that I need to adjust the roof planes and that changing these numbers will do nothing. I kept opening the framing dbx and the numbers wouldn't change after closing and reopening the dbx. So I used the 'edit all roof planes' and changed the framing/structure etc. in there and it all worked and that changed the framing dbx numbers as well. So those numbers should be greyed out or explained what they are doing. Of course if I did the framing right from the beginning when building the roof, it wouldn't have been an issue, but I changed the style later on. This may be more obvious to those who do those a lot, but it was not intuitive at all and there are different numbers in different places and it gets hard to figure things out. I eventually wrote my self a procedure on how to do it so the next time I need to I can follow those steps. Just some thoughts. PS: I commented on Larry's original post on my issues with foundations that is similar to this, didn't feel necessary to post it again here.

I have this problem A LOT when I bring an old plan forward. Never have the problem with new plans either. No matter what the defaults say, the foundation doesn't follow them. Even after I click the checkmark to 'default' they go all crazy. Sometimes checking default on and off will fix it (even thought that doesn't make sense). I've sent it into support and they haven't been able to give me an answer that I've been satisfied with. There method was deleting and starting over with a rebuild. But that didn't always work, and I'd rather not delete the foundation when the work is done even if I can copy to a temp plan, etc. Older Chief versions were more tolerant then newer versions. I can typically narrow it down to a single offending room. Using the 'match properties' tool is the best tool to fix things to make sure all rooms match, but when I can't get even one room to be correct, then can't really use the 'match properties' tool. Through trial and error and lots of time I can usually get it to work, but there is no consistency on how to fix it. I use thick walls a lot, and the way X8 treats them and there connections seems to be a big problem with room definitions when it translates to the foundation. But it's different each time. Such an annoyance.

Thank you for fixing this in the latest update!!! Very much appreciated.

Yep, 30 seconds into that video and knew where they were going. I eluded to it in my previous post that I could workaround it with symbols, but was hoping to avoid this method. I may even work around this with segmented walls on layers and CAD lines for representation etc. so that I can have them live. Haven't decided yet. Just surprising to me that we used to be able to do this in an older version of Chief, then lost it with newer versions. Never understood loosing functionality with an 'upgrade'. It's interesting that they had to dedicate a couple videos to this. Tells me that it is requested enough that they had to address it. In short for anyone reviewing this. Currently this can not be done. I will add this lost feature to the suggestion section. Thanks again Chopsaw.

Thanks for taking to the time to research and post, I'll take a look at that when I get a moment and report back.

Will get it reported when I get a moment. I'm sure it is something funny I have in my template. Thanks for the reminder on the other tools. I use those as well. In this particular case the callout is at a footing, so it is a couple drags to adjust. Probably same speed as drawing new. However, the advantage of drawing it as you suggest, is that it will be on the layer I want. Which brings up a sticking point for me that the revision cloud should automatically assume the layer that it is devised from. I've created a list of things like this, just been too busy to sharpen the saw and report them. I know, won't get fixed unless I do. Stretched to thin right now. Appreciate the added input to help me run Chief as efficiently as possible.

The problem is a wall on a different plane then the other and therefore an intersection. Curved or not curved wall. Much like a 45 degree wall meeting with it would naturally make an intersection and therefore couldn't span the gap with a window in the software or in real life. However a curved wall in tangent with a straight should allow for this interaction. I opened up Chief 9.5 and I was able to make it work with no problem using Ctrl to override. But no such luck in X8 latest. However, I don't see how making the radius bigger helped. that just makes the wall more flat and therefore a harder intersection to bridge. Perhaps you are meaning to concentrically span things further making the tangent softer? Either way, this is the radius and center of radius I need on a project I'm working on. Thanks for taking a look at this. I can think of a couple workarounds from using symbols to multiple walls, but would like to get it to work normally. Keep the ideas coming.

How do I get a window to span a wall intersection? In the past I've would hold the Ctrl Key in elevation view, but that no longer does it. Figuring there is a trick, just not sure what it is. Attaching a quick sample plan for further clarification. Window.plan