johnny

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.

Unfortunately, in Chief we dont have any control grade/slope settings of the road/driveway modifier that I know of. You'd have to manually do the calcs and set the terrain to make it work.

Looking at 1 column like that isn't going to help anyone assess if there is enough steel. That said, it does "seem" light - but they obviously have yet to place the horizontal bars. If I was you, id go down to the City (assumption) and get a copy of the entire plans/engineering and hire an analysis done by an engineer of your choosing. For all we know they could be mixing other elements for structural (lateral and vertical) like steel moment frames etc which could offset the loads for the concrete (alone) drastically. Looking at one picture though its all guesswork.

Id say he's still an architect - a master architect. All the "architects" through history from Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, and other ancient cities/cultures which demonstrated incredible competency should be considered architects based upon their achievements and whatever process/training/schooling they had at the time to identify as a professional.

Not sure if anyone knows but in many states today you still don’t need a college degree to become a licieced architect - or an attorney. You can intern under the direction of an architect for a period of time and then request to take the state examination after showing competence. In fact, I believe the NCARB has a program for this as well.

You have to remember the app you bought is $150 (on sale right now) vs Premier is $2,650. Equitably, you'd expect some fairly serious limitations in comparison. Upgrade to Premier and join the cool kids group.

Which is a confirmed bug....I hope Chief fixes this in upcoming releases.

Very nice... i personally like this style in some ways more than RT.

If you are specializing in remodels, and inexpensive remodels, that is a hard gig. I've done a few of those a lot time ago only to know that is no way to work. Fip side i've done remodels where the client was spending $200k just on the kitchen cabinet package (Snaidero), and over $1m+ on the overall remodel and that did pay nicely and was very fun. Id think that sort of high end remodel work would be around your location? Personally, I found a niche in development/community design/planning and love it. I design all over in multiple states and work/live where i want (island in San Juans).

It may have worked for you Larry - but the fact you were a general contractor means you had some idea of how a building goes together. If you guys read my comment again it wasn't a "Architect vs Designer" post at all - it was a comment about wannabe designers out there. I see there posts in this thread all the time trying to ask for help in Chief but the REAL problem is they don't know how something actually goes together. The scary part is they are selling their service as a "designer" to whatever poor soul decided to hire them. But since you brought it up.... architects are humans like anyone else and prone to mistakes. Lawyers make mistakes, doctor's make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. However, if someone wanted to have the best chance of getting a building designed well, and a nice set of Condocs - i obviously believe picking an architect would, in of itself, give someone a much better chance for success than trying their luck with random designers. I'd hope that statement isn't even up for debate.

What I am about to say may be very unpopular, but I feel there has been too many entering this business due to CAD/BIM applications that make someone think they can design/draft plans for people - kinda like in the 90's when everyone became a "graphic designer" because they knew how to use MS Publisher. It used to be the technical know-how of preparing Condocs kept the standard relatively out of reach of wannabees. We need greater restriction with mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing even for "designers". I'm not saying people need to become architects - but there should be some level of competency required before designing buildings.

Its actually just a porch in Chief. Id use a custom railing without the rail, make it a room. When you make the roof plane just extend it over like your picture shows.

I agree....im not a fan of Chief RT. However, with 3rd party tools getting as sophisticated as they are I am not sure Chief needs much else...in 5 years I believe most people who still use in-app render tools will migrate over to using those 3rd party offerings.

Thanks. Actually that is version 6....