johnny

Between Softplan and CA there is no real comparison in my opinion. I've used Softplan, buying a copy to fulfill research, and I didn't like it at all. Chief may be a bit more of a learning curve since some of the things Chief does is very unique.

You can draw this in 2D with Chief - but a fair warning Chief isn't a very good 2D drafting app...in fact, i'd say a weak spot for Chief is 2D drafting. 3D is sort of its thing in which you get 2D semi-automatically created. For a structural engineer I don't think Chief would be ideal if you are taking other people's projects and having to draw 2D details for them. If you are designing structures/homes from scratch and doing your own 2D details from your model that is a different matter and Chief is ok from that standpoint.

Let me ask this of Eric and Joe - do you guys keep your roof planes on the actual level you're working and just using layerset/annosets to control the plan type or do you move them to the attic level? For me, i personally like to move them to the attic level - or the next level up if there is a lower floor area covered by roof only. I do this since i like seeing the attic walls in conjunction with the roof planes.

You mean on the off chance someone in the Lumion forum might use Chief??... Perhaps, but seems like an unlikely possibility. Chief has developed more than just a forum...a community of people willing to help each-other from issues related to Chief, code issues, design issues, or in this case 3rd party rendering. You've been a very helpful contributor as well. Chief's decision to allow their forums to be used this way is a real strength IMO and they should be complimented for developing this type of atmosphere. In the end its them that decides how their forums should be used and i've not seen them object thus far to talking about post-production Chief work using 3rd party apps in conjunction. Chief is a major component to getting this work done so I personally see tons of relevance.

As a requirement or just what you guys do? Thats interesting, that isn't common at all in the states I work in.

Yeah, they typically have a slab or deck framing to tie together. So if you have a slab or deck you guys use pads/pier footings to post - right? I am doing a project in Laguna Beach (CA) right now and that is what we are dong.

I think you guys found a bug...it doesn't seem to work the way you'd think. What is interesting is I remember Michael helping me with a similar issue - it was a "railing" wall used for a courtyard screen - and it worked exactly the way you'd think. The reason I believe this hasn't be an issue yet is its so rare to build full foundations under porches. Typically its just a perimeter footing or pad supports for the posts/columns.

I guess since this is a additional tool (not a replacement) I can't see how this is an issue. I'm sure Chief would say something if they thought it was a problem, but in the end this is about taking files from Chief Architect (starting point) and making them better.

In the case you highlight that isn't a bug issue but rather a setting issue. Chief may lack some features/abilities I want but I dont know it to be "buggy". I wasn't here 8 year ago but I can tell you Chief is pretty stable overall. I use it with a fair sized team and everything works fine. Its going to take some time for you to learn...

Jintu is Lumion 8 worth it?

if I am designing a complicated roof/house design I find turning off auto-attic walls very helpful. Until you have all your rooflines in position, Chief auto creates walls sometimes that are just in the way, and can often lead to some strange connections and fragment wall areas that can cause problems. On more simple homes auto attic wall is wonderful.

Sounds good...

I tried that even and it didn't keep the settings....perhaps we are supposed to have one in our default plan to start with..?

Is there a way to edit terrain defaults??? I'm refining my template file and I dont see anywhere to edit the parameters of a terrain.

"free" is a bit relative. Yes, Unreal is currently free to use for Architect/Designer. I suppose that will change once there is a market created - and i've noticed the folks at Unreal really pushing for architects and planners to use their app. They wouldn't care that much if they simply planned never to have that be an income generator for them. I expect in the near future they will start to charge for Unreal when used for architecture/planning. Also, unlike Lumion there aren't really any packaged resources for architectural. There is a whole sub-industry (like Apple and Windows Store) of selling resources - and the cost adds up quick. You can create your own, but that is just exchanging time for money - and you all know the saying. Lastly, to answer Scott a bit - Unreal doesn't currently accept Collada or 3DS files directly. FBx is emerging as the primary "resource" file type for those engines. Autodesk makes a converter that is simple enough and free, but one thing that really makes Lumion nice is the ability to update your model file when changes are made. Unreal you can do similar things but just more steps and adjustments. Most CAD/BIM apps support Fbx but for some reason Chief hasn't provided this yet. There are some good reasons to use Unreal over Lumion though. Right now (pending tomorrows release) Unreal is MUCH better graphically. Even after tomorrow Unreal will be better but if Lumion is like their demo id say "MUCH" goes to "somewhat". I guess we will see. Also, Unreal allows for some very cool additional things like letting future owners tour their home via game machines such as Xbox and Playstation using their game controller to move through the house like a video game. You can also have interactive elements like turning on/off lights, plumbing fixtures, garage doors, and other cool animations. Beyond that you can also do things with selection generators which on the fly change materials and colors at the users command though slick pre-built UI.

I think they will deliver too... Its just im not going to upgrade until I know for sure. I've been learning Unreal but Lumion would be more practical for the reasons I noted above.

I agree - Twinmotion looked promising and in the end was total garbage. Learning Unreal isn't easy - and Lumion really has an advantage there. Also, what I see from Lumion is more direct output of desired media vs Unreal is designed to make games and so getting output the type we want isn't nearly as easy. All that said, id have to say Unreal is the future. I believe someone other than Twinmotion is going to come up with a focused architectural module as an overlay to Unreal. Until that day arrives though I do agree Lumion is probably the most practical if it can really produce results like their demo. I am a bit skeptical they've only release a couple teasers and the app is supposed to come out tomorrow. Twinmotion looked like it was going to be awesome until it was actually released.

Yeah, that really looks amazing. I am probably going to upgrade, but the only thing holding me back is that Unreal is really pushing for architects to start using their game engine for renderings and walk-thru's and its even better than this. Oddly, unreal is actually free for architects right now too. The expense is in buying high res texture packages and resources like furniture and other staging items. Unreal is much more complicated to learn - but the results are truly way above anything else...even what you see here from Lumion. I want to make sure this type of quality if actually achievable by Lumion ... it could be an advertising teaser that is actually impractical to get results similar to. I just dont know yet.

You need to simply learn about making roof planes intersect with each-other. You cannot think just because the exterior looks find that you've made the roof correctly. Except in rare circumstances you need to make the roof planes intersect so that there aren't overlapping sections of roof. Valleys need to be joined like they would in real life. Keep in mind, the roof planes are the "skin" of the roof, not the "trusses" or structure necessarily. You probably think the front gables will be over-frame where they intersect into the main body roof - but when it comes to roof planes it doesn't work that way. Here are some videos that will help you. https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/724/joining-roof-planes.html For truss overframe: https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/6025/roof-framing-stick-frame-and-truss-frame-dutch-cottage-design.html?playlist=123

Actually this is an important detail to the framers since it explains how they must build the tread. If they placed any overhang to the tread in rough framing then later add this 1-1/4" bull-nosed the stair wouldn't be code compliant. In fact, they will need to give special consideration to making sure that edge is flush flush and not kinda flush. Also, if you are covering the riser face that could change the framing depth (run).

I would probably use the stair tool too - but in Grahams defense on his suggestion he may have thought you wanted to build the stairs to "real world" specs. In that case you could get an exact profile with the poly-solid tool.

You may get better help if you attach the file. Just curious are you a Premier user or Home Designer?

I agree David - and 5+ years ago i'd say the concept of having to work within different apps to accomplish modeling one project was perfectly normal. Today, that trend has been disappearing. Now, Sketchup is promoting the concept of using their app to go from concept to finished permit-ready documents (where before they didn't) and other BIM apps are taking huge steps to ensure people can model nearly anything inside their apps, or have "live" flexible views at worst case. There are many strong reasons to use Chief - and I generally view the app favorably. However, its glaring weakness is generic shape modeling. We can export/import all day long but that gets a bit tedious when you need to do edit work a lot.

I dont know if you are right but i like the idea of making it a clear order like this. To me, currently, its a clear as mud.

Chief can be very frustrating for someone looking for simple modeling freedom that Sketchup provides. 3D generic shape tools are not intuitive, buggy, inconsistent, and difficult to control beyond ultra-simple objects. Id personally give Chief a failing grade for modeling with shapes in comparison to where other modeling apps are. Chief is awesome at modeling the bones of a home - and ultra-strong on roofs, cabinets, and generally fairly fast at model development within the framework of a "standard" home. If you are modeling fine details, and you only want to work with Chief - then I couldn't recommend the app. The ONLY way i've been able to make it work is I use Sketchup or Vectorworks to model elements and then bring those into Chief as an un-editable symbol object.