johnny

If you simply match the spans each side it will fix itself. Obviously the span you have on gable is larger than the other side. This is using auto-roofs if that is what you are doing. Manual fix: If you take the "front" gable and just flip it along the ridge you should be golden.

Thanks again, but one thing odd is I was looking through layers myself seeing what is used and that I could turn off, but the layer that is using shows as not being used. Bug?

Thank you!!

Sometimes I workup modification concepts (floor plan only) based upon existing plans I have for developments etc. However, if I have roof plan for a home that i dont want to mess around and fix for the floor plan concept, is there a way to turn off the "clearance" or "full height" lines that show up on the floor plan? Is that a layer? Thanks!

Apple's professional Imac products are for sale, and they are purposed for our industry (as well as others). Very spendy, but their focus is cores as well. I really think for processors cores are the biggest deal. If Scott got a quad core system like he probably already had then that is probably causing the disappointment. Apple's entry level "Pro" computer is $5k.

The key is cores i find. I currently use 6 cores but right now building a new machine that will have 12. We have both 4 and 6 core machines in our office and the 6 core machines really have a noticeable difference. Also, the new Titan video cards are speed demons. If you look at the price of Mac vs building your own system you can have 10x the system in PC world for the price of a Mac. To me its just not worth the nice looking hardware to give up on speed. i9 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117811 Video Card https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIADRA5YN3915&cm_re=titan_video-_-9SIADRA5YN3915-_-Product or https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIADRA68J8413&cm_re=titan_x-_-9SIADRA68J8413-_-Product You pair that up with SSD and 32 gig ram you will scream.

Sorry, I took your question as designing the entire project when you said "i will be creating full plans"....I took "full" as all the drawings for construction. I've had some experience with clients coming to us after having what they thought was a plan set for their multi-unit buildings (over 2 per IRC). The "designer" had all their notes and details based upon IRC - and the client asking us just to seal the drawing set. Not only are their differences in ingress/egress and major/minor code differences, but firewall assemblies/fire protection systems can be budget breakers if you don't plan for that type of construction from the start. Good luck on your project.

Are you an architect? The project you are describing sounds like you will be subject to the IBC - not IRC. This type of project requires an architect to be intimately involved through the process. Its not a matter of "post-design" getting your engineer to review the plans and calling it good. An Architect may sign off (sometimes) on a home here and there that might require an architectural seal, but its unimaginable that would happen on a "development of condominiums". The IBC is a completely different ballgame that requires stringent design adherence through all phases. In this day and age its not something you can just wing, and we've been called into clean up several "messes" by designers thinking they could. Trust me, it didn't end well for the designer. Just a fair warning...

Thx - That explains it well. In the back of my mind I was hoping it had something to do with "edge"/profile lines - but i see now its just all the same type of line in the drawing.

Chief isn't particularly strong in 2d - that is for sure.

Honestly i have no clue what that box checked is even supposed to do - i can see what it does, but what is the point exactly? Initially I thought this may be for "profile" lines, but that didn't turn out to be the case....or its not working correctly. I love the idea of profile lines but that isn't working how profile lines would be used. Its been brought up at one of Scott's webinars but i'm not even sure anyone there fully understood it.

Hey Glenn, I would say I expect the layout file to display the same file it references. Right now, it will automatically display the newly formed file but not link to it. If Chief just had us manually change everything I would be fine with that too - just looking for consistency.

Yeah so if I have an open layout file, with all existing links, but then do a "save-as" on the plan file with a change in name the layout file automatically updates to show the newly formed file - but when you "drill" down (open) the link is still the old file.

Before making a suggestion, i wanted to see what fellow users feel. Should Layout make dynamic changes to linked plan files, but NOT actually make the link different? This video explains. http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cFVDYooDin

Thanks Eric - yeah, it is doing the same thing. I've attached the file in case that helps. denali_snohomish_prelim_2.zip

Is this a bug??? - so now I am trying other symbols and the same thing happens. Shouldn't a symbol get its line value from the layer its on?

Is there any way to set the line thickness of a symbol already created? I turned off "auto edge lines" and it still shows a very thick outline. Honestly, in the parent file I made this in there is no line issue, so its extra confusing. My layer thickness for this object is set at 2 - so its not the layer. Thanks!

I think you need to read Mick's response again as well, since that is typically how it works in the field. I dont actually understand what you are using the 2x4 for on your section. If you are using trusses they can simply land on the perpendicular beams coming from home. I often frame down or place a beam on the end just to visually tie everything together, but its actually not even necessary most often. In your detail it appears to be the most important aspect, so I think you should rethink this.

Here is a video i found recently on a Lum 8 render - just nuts how realistic it is now. I jumped on the Lum 8 bandwagon due to seeing they were nearly on par with Unreal. and then here is the vid of him working on this.

Id love to see a better way to do this. I ended up just manually editing - placing in 1 column but then copying into 4 duplicates and going back to delete the text in each column.

...or was he talking about this. If he was, I can tell you this is much more a PITA than I thought it would be in Chief and very manual. Not the end of the world, and fortunately you don't have to mess with this stuff often once you have it in layout.

Yes, but keep in mind when a plan company sells a plan their income is MUCH higher over the life of that plan. A typical peer-2-peer singlular relationship, like you probably have with your client, changes that dynamic. Charge accordingly.

By default the law places ownership of plans into the designer/architect. There are major conflicts that occur in ownership if you release digital files. You can contract around this, but to enforce you to hire attorneys etc. I dont agree with Lew - a customer pays for the service not the intellectual property.

Chief has yet to give us this ability in any reasonable fashion. Much work-around required. You can get close using a ramp instead of a wall but there are some down-sides to that approach (yet it may work for you). Checkout this thread.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer but my experience is Chief Architect has been one of the most difficult applications to "fully" learn. 90% of what you will do in Chief will feel incredibly "user friendly" - but the last 10% to complete a project can be very challenging - this app can both amaze and frustrate like no other.