johnny

100% agree. I for one realize Chief may not be able to consider every condition in their Dbx, but they could make it so much more simple to edit concrete walls.

Fully agree!

Interesting. So should this be called a bug? Since the app typically functions correctly with live previews on other objects, is this an unintended problem that could be classified a bug? I'll tell you of all the locations an instant preview window would be helpful, this may rank at the top of the list for me personally. I have to do some trial and error on this often. Dermot, would you let us know if this should be reported a bug?

Im trying to set stretch planes on a symbol, but in the "preview" window its not actually previewing the proposed changes as I make adjustments. Anyone else getting this?

I wouldn't think of the "hatch" tool as the method for displaying a hatch in all your walls. For that sort of thing just change the wall layer settings in the wall specification dialog box. I'm not 100% sure what the wall hatch tool is supposed to be for, but I use it on occasion for special wall structural/lateral callouts for shearwalls etc.

I agree there are many variables, and too many to program each one as a possibility. However, id suggest for a 2D foundation plan view 90% of the time the top of the pad along the footing matches in flush - so at least having the option like RL said would be simple and smart.

I agree - that would be a good thing.

Glenn and Michael, I ran into a problem using that increased footing method on the wall when its next to openings (like a buck-out for garage door). It automatically tries to fix/connect the walls. Any ideas on solving that? Thanks for the advice.

So i tried that - and I get this (on the right) - which isn't horrible, but you still get 2 lines intersecting (at least not 4). So is this what you see too Perry?

Is this what most everyone is doing? Im kinda surprised more people haven't brought this up - seems like a common issue for foundation plans to encounter.

Yeah that does work fairly fast - thanks for tip Glenn. I do think Chief should fix the dedicated "pad" tool. It shouldnt read the same as a pier.

Right now using the pad tool - under pier tool. Here is a screen. In the toolbar they have the correct designation, but both tools seem to graphically be similar (other than shape). Yet one is a pier and another is a pad.

Does anyone know a way to get the footing lines inside a pad to disappear? The way the plans read isn't correct with these lines, as the way it shows in 2d would make someone think the pad was below the footing almost like a pier - when 90% of the time its in line with the footing. Graphically what Chief indicates as a pad is showing as a pier - completely different things. The second example is what the common condition should look like.

If i am not mistaken the OP is a structural engineer.

Fully agree with this....Chief isn't adequate for this work for many reasons.

Probably the best $350 someone could spend in their new home or remodel project.

Graham is giving good advice here, as I had a similar issue and fixed it the way he is saying. My newest system has a GREAT cooling package and I am able to render with all my cores active now - but my last computer not so much. AMD chips run much hotter than Intel - its one of their characteristics. You may want to add a water-cooling system to your chipset. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/67008-28-cpus-generally-hotter-intel This is what your processor looks like when rendering:

Id bet money your roof framing materials aren't set correctly. However, as others say posting your plan is key.

Text in Chief is a joke nearly all around. Did you guys notice that if you have standard text vs Rich text, but set to the same size, they are NOT the same size on many fonts? I agree its not off by a lot, but if you have multiple lines of text its enough off to cause problems.

Thanks David and Javatom. I ended up redesigning that intersection of the roof - though I needed to reduce the overhang of the "main body". The problem with the work-around solution is the framing and everything else would be off - and i am making a concerted effort to keep everything as clean as possible. This issue of "connections" is my #1 problem with Chief.

Hey guys, i'm having a bit of a connection issue on a duplex townhouse plan where i have an intersecting eave with fascia (both sides same condition). I've tried some different solutions myself and I seem to run into issues whichever route I go. If the problem was simply the siding layer Id just place a MR in this spot and call it a day, but there is actually a structural goof-up with the shape so i'd like to correct the problem if possible. What is interesting is in the dbx the visual of the gable attic wall seems fine. I appreciate any help. LG_brian_townhouse4.plan

Hey Glenn - It would do a few things that would be helpful such as apply layers of finishes like we do for walls/roofs etc. Imagine if you had a block column but wanted to have it with stucco finish, you could have the layers needed to show properly. Also, would be great if once you made a connection between a column and beam you had the option to keep that connection true if the beam is changed in elevation. Giving us the option for its base (foundation/footing) would also be very nice. Things like that.

Chief Architect has a beam tool - just not a real "column" tool. There is a "post" tool but that isn't even close to being a column tool.

posting your plan is key for questions like this.

Im afraid it doesn't - i wish it was otherwise, but unless you use a font that is mono-spaced (and there aren't many good ones) the spacing in Chief is all screwed up between the Dbx and what is actual.