johnny

Yeah, I’ll do that. I’m assuming it’s a bug....because if this were intended behavior (like railings not having footing options), you’d expect that to be consistent across both plan and elevation views. So either it’s incorrectly showing up in elevation views, or it’s failing to appear in plan views. I can’t see a logical reason it would be acceptable for it to display in one view but not the other, regardless of the intended functionality. I'm obviously hoping its a bug not showing in plan view.

We actually have a specific case-use for it, and whats really odd is the fact the footing is there in other views other than the plan view.

I’m trying to display a footing in plan view using the DBX options for a "wall" (aka railing), but it won’t show up. The footing layer is turned on, yet it still doesn’t appear in plan view. However, it displays correctly in both elevation and ISO views. Is this a bug, or am I missing a setting? To clarify the situation: When the wall is set as a railing, the footing does not display in plan view, even though it shows in all other views. If I convert the wall to a standard wall (full or half), the footing appears in plan view as expected. Based on this behavior, it seems like Chief doesn’t allow footings to display in plan view when associated with railings, despite them being visible in other views. This feels like a bug, but I’d appreciate confirmation or guidance if there’s a correct setup I’m overlooking.

If you’re open to it, sharing a photo of the actual condition would really help clarify things. To be honest, I’m having trouble visualizing how what you’ve sketched would work in practice...especially the part about it “extending to the ground,” so I may be missing something. I bring this up because I’m concerned that answering the question as it stands might not lead you to the right solution for your home. The method being discussed by everyone is sound, but I’d be surprised if it gets you exactly where you want to go. (Respectfully.) Also, i'd really love to see something i've never seen before....

...except if you're changing an existing plan with already different variable heights (which for us is most homes). Then, the select all roofs and add depth keeps everything the same in a relative nature.

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.

Its called "vertical plank siding"...and i'm nearly positive it's in the default Chief library under "Vertical Paneling" or something like that.

I should have added that all the notes, CAD, and callouts which don't flip with the plan. Obviously the plan flips so does everything else in a live view. Its just we have all those extra things so the box beforehand makes it easier.

We developed a fairly efficient method by first drawing a bounding box around the outermost X and Y elements, then placing a centerline through that box. From there, we perform an area select (grabbing everything), and use the mirror tool....excluding the box and centerline from the selection. This process is repeated for all elements that need to be mirrored, including sections, elevations, and any other drawings. It’s a bit faster than other approaches, though not perfect. One advantage over the "reverse plan" tool is that it generally keeps the page layout elements in roughly the same position. Overall, it’s the most effective method we’ve come up with so far.

I'm curious if anyone has successfully found a way to publish material list data inside Chief as a schedule?

You’re better off investing your time in learning how to move from Chief to an AI-based, controlled rendering workflow. That’s clearly where things are headed, and after a lot of research, I’ve figured out how to get predictable, controllable results from AI rendering. It’s too complex to fully explain here, but once your node matrix is set up, you can re-render new projects in under 30 minutes (with adjustments) for a perfect 4K output. The challenge, for now, is training yourself to control the AI and build a consistent workflow. In my opinion, learning Lumion or Twinmotion this late in the game isn’t worth the time, and I say that as someone who knows both tools well.

I think it would help if you found an example or sketched something to illustrate. When you say "walls to create a shed below" really threw me.

100% agree. Dare I say next to impossible to manipulate effectively post union. Not to mention, if you plan to do any wood texture for a rendering etc you have to have a texture per direction so per wood member (which kinda sucks). I really wish we could build wood structures out of framing members (which auto rotate the texture).

I'm noticing that I can't use both the automatic (follow me) sun with added user lighting. Is this correct?...or is there a method of getting both? Thanks!

That does look good - i'll try.