johnny

I'm curious why you don't like this option? As I understand it, Chief uses the "attic" profile to fill in with truss/web parametrically, and whether or not you raise the roof profile or go through the menu options.... its basically the same operation. If i'm wrong and there is some other reason i'd actually like to know. Obviously if you're saying raising the roof by 12" means you're heel is greater than 12" i understand that part, but you can set it to be a net of 12" fairly easy. I'm curious if there is some operational advantage doing it through the Dbx.

We simply take the roof planes and shift them up 12" in elevation (transform/replicate +12" z axis). The webbing doesn’t represent a true truss structure anyway, so relying on Chief’s generated web design just ends up displaying something inaccurate. While you can go into the truss specifications and adjust settings like “energy heel” and so on, you’re still modifying an automated web layout that’s only meant to be illustrative...not structurally correct. It’s not worth the extra effort.

The entire premise of this discussion I thought was to find a layer-based method that avoids managing multiple files. That’s where a contained or “blocked” option system has a clear advantage....everything lives in one place. What you’re describing, on the other hand, is essentially accepting the multi-file workflow. The issue becomes obvious in a typical scenario. Using your example of three separate plans.... if the client hasn’t finalized their decision but you still need to keep developing the project, you’re forced into a difficult position. You either: Update all three plan files in parallel to keep them consistent, or Move forward in just one file and risk investing time in an option the client may not choose Both paths introduce inefficiency and risk. If those options were contained within a single file.....organized as blocked or grouped alternatives... you could continue developing the project once, while simply toggling between options as needed. That eliminates duplication of effort and keeps everything coordinated. I understand that Chief Architect defines spaces as rooms....and that’s really at the core of the limitation we’re discussing. That said, I don’t think it fully justifies the current workflow constraints. In principle, it should be possible to: Group or “block” elements like walls that don’t actively define a room boundary Edit those grouped elements without fully breaking them apart each time Right now, Chief’s handling of architectural objects makes that kind of flexibility impossible.

I’m going to give you some hard-earned advice....don’t build this the way you’re planning if you’re in any kind of semi-wet or snowy environment. Earlier in my career as an architect, I designed a number of homes with terraces built over occupied living space. I loved the aesthetic...clean lines without protruding decks...but what I didn’t fully account for at the time was how these assemblies perform long-term. Over time, vibration and live loads inevitably lead to small penetrations, and water has a way of finding even the tiniest path through waterproofing layers. I ended up spending countless hours...sometimes doing the work myself...tracking down and fixing leaks to make things right for my clients. In my experience, the only truly reliable way to build this type of condition is with a concrete layer (even lightweight) incorporating Xypex. Beneath that, you should have a waterproof membrane, and another membrane above. I also recommend running the top membrane up adjacent walls at least 24 inches...I’ve seen failures occur right at those wall transitions. If the client wants a decking surface, use pressure-treated sleepers installed parallel to the roof slope. That said, the best-performing finish is typically an exterior paver or tile system. As for modeling this in Chief Architect, I’d approach the deck using a roof plane. Most of the detailed work, however, will need to be developed in 2D CAD.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I guess you could use all ceiling planes for the triangle shape with 0 pitch. I'm not saying its much different modeling complexity but at least you'd have some layer control if you wanted to put a plywood furring layer instead of drywall.

I’d highlight that if Chief (a) allowed us to block all elements, and (b) enabled editing within a block without having to break it apart, then the grouping block layer (as an override to sub-block object layer) would give us a much more elegant solution to this problem. It would let us edit the contents of a blocked container (version) seamlessly and toggle layers on and off in the same x/y/z space effortlessly. one day i hope....

Yes, it’s useful to know how to rotate a cylinder in Chief....and honestly, the program could handle 3D rotation more intuitively. That said, after reading your post a couple of times, I’m not sure why you’d need to rotate the cylinder in this case. When it’s brought into Chief, it’s already oriented vertically along the Z-axis. Assuming your goal is to keep the pole vertical, the better approach is to draw the polyline solid in a 2D elevation view facing the pole. The issue here isn’t with the cylinder itself, but with the perspective you’re working in. Right now, you’re viewing the model from a top-down (plan) view, so you’re only seeing the top of the pole. In other words, the pole is already positioned correctly....you’re just looking at it from the wrong angle to then draw the sign part. Again, i'm presuming its a traditional sign-like condition where the sign orientation (front) is being "held" by a vertical pole. If thats not the case, then i'm not sure what you're trying to do.

This is an example of like-for-like drafting of a 2D shape in Chief by Rabbit (who i respect a lot) and in Vectorworks. I think this highlights well the 2D differences in an example that occurs regularly. #1 in Chief.... #2 in Vectorworks...(sorry i used teams to screen record, if I do this again i'll try and use something better) I’ll add that even though I’m working in 2D, in Vectorworks the behavior carries directly into 3D. If I extrude this shape, the 2D geometry remains fully editable....so I can adjust the underlying 2D lines at any time and the 3D object updates automatically. Also, if there are multiple instances of this shape in the model, I can modify all of them by making small edits to the original with no need to duplicate or reposition anything. That level of flexibility really starts to leave Chief Architect behind, and highlights how effectively 2D editing can drive precise and efficient 3D results.

100% agree. To me I dont even understand why they don’t fix this since its seems like such low hanging fruit.

Very true statement

+1 I fully agree with the suggestion...but i'm curious Joe, are you using the specific client selection of fixtures inside your ConDocs? What you're saying makes sense regardless of your answer, but i was just a bit curious. FYI i think this was meant to be in Suggestions.

Ah, good catch. When I looked into this detail, I noticed that the (4) target line is positioned behind the fill used for the truss. That said, fixing the layering would only address part of the issue. As a general practice, I instruct my drafters to avoid crossing the target line with other elements whenever possible. In this case, the (4) should be placed above the other numbers on the left side. I’ll have them correct it.

Thank you. The font is Universe 45....we probably spent 40+ hrs looking at different fonts and arrived to that one due to its ability to read well at full-size 1/4 scale Ansi D but read very well still with the same layout 50% or 11x17 (Ansi-B) while simply using the print function out of Chief for those two sizes with no different template required. Rendering? Don't you mean real photo? ...lol...no, you are correct it is a rendering though the actual home turned out exactly like it. We export out of Chief into Blender, add elements like landscaping, trees, and hard surfaces and a Corona plugin that lets you use it for Blender. We then run it through a quick AI detail opimizer which just puts the finishing touches. Before you bother with all that, I do believe in the short future all this will be for not. I've seen my team do some crazy things with just AI. I'd say the only reason we still use a strucutred path is to get predicability and fine controls over the end render you don't have with AI.

Joey does great work, but just to show you another "format" ......for this project we do a full size plan set and then a detail workbook (letter size) for supplementary reference/details. Its a method where you can provide details for reference with different conditions we may not have thought of. However, we do a completely different interior spec/detail workbook but I can't provide on this project here in the forums. This is arch only. FC_WALKER_PLANS_ANSID_5_18_2022.pdf Walker_Detail Packet.pdf

I want to say (as i wish someone made this point clear when i started).... Depending on the complexity of the homes you’re working on, this transition can feel rough at first. About 80% of the process will genuinely impress you...you’ll find yourself moving faster than you expected and wondering why you didn’t switch sooner. The other 20%? That’s when you’ll be tempted to throw your computer across the room. You’ll quickly hit moments where you question whether it would be faster to go back to your old software. But then you’ll remember just how efficient that 80% felt, and going backwards won’t be very appealing anymore. It’s a constant push and pull. Some things will surprise you....in both directions. The 2D CAD and generic 3D tools can feel shockingly limited, yet at the same time you’ll be amazed at how quickly you can assemble complex roof structures. You’ll turn to the forums for help and find one of the most responsive, genuinely helpful communities out there. But when it comes to advanced problems, the solutions often aren’t straightforward....they’re clever, sometimes obscure workarounds rather than direct modeling approaches. However, its best just to accept...."this is the way". You’ll start to realize that the software can do almost anything....but not always in the way you expect. Often, the solution involves using a tool that seems completely unrelated to the task at hand. Over time, you build a mental library of these techniques, and that’s when things begin to click when you can triangulate answers to your own solutions. Just make sure to recall the pythagorean theorem when trying to solve your probelms. There are strong invisible forces at work in your model space that have some setting in some part of the app that can help or wreck you. In most BIM applications, you directly model the exact thing you want, step by step...which can be precise but also tedious. This software works differently. Think of it more like a dance partner.......when you make the right moves, it responds in kind. Once you understand how to guide it, you begin to unlock a level of automation that makes routine tasks incredibly fast. That’s when the real value becomes clear...even if you arrive there a little begrudgingly. In the end, it’s very much a love-hate-love relationship. Good luck.