johnny

Thanks - I figured it was an acronym for something....now I know. My pic is one of my fav taken of my son, who's name is johnny too. I saw glenn put a pic of his son (or grandson, not sure how old glenn is) and thought that was a good idea.

It may be just late here but I am scratching my head wondering what "ALDO" is.... ?

I was trying to follow your instruction and am almost there. How though do you differentiated the numbering for different revisions? When I place a 2nd, 3rd, etc, etc revision note all the callouts change to that number.

I have to agree with you - its very odd Chief doesn't have labels for revision clouds (as most polys do) - at least then you could simply place a triangle over the label.

Just place a fireman's pole from the top story down and you should be good to go.

I don't blame the OP - I really wish we could set a way to show cleaner sections as an option....sort of like "main layers only" option for floor plans.

Is the point an actual placed point - or just a point of reference? Interior dimensions need something to dimension - so the objects have to be in existence. You could try to draw a temp line and dimension to the line instead of the "point". If you are trying to use a specific Chief point, then try the point-to-point dimension tool. You may have better luck, and I personally use that tool more than most other dimension types for the condition you describe.

This looks pretty cool. Is the entire thing live?...meaning notation, dimensions, etc?

Graham - you keep trying to actively defend Chief and its lack of ability, and we have a system of me making a statement, you challenging it, and then me following back up with a response. This discussion isn't about leaving things be with Chief and using another app. There are many things about Chief specific to residential that appeals to me and its a useful tool. That said, in the course of discussion on the forum I don't want Chief to think everything is great with their shape modeling. I want them to read threads like this and seek to improve their tools. Massively overstating the ability of Chief doesn't seem helpful to new users, or Chief itself.

Thanks - and yeah, I know it can be done in Chief, but it would take substantially longer and more frustration. Then on top of it, changing or adjusting 1 later would require manually changing the rest. The buttresses I have modeled in Vectorworks are BIM/detail accurate - so the connectors are all correct and detail-able from the model. I can double click each area and it isolates that component for me graying out the rest of the model. Very important features when modeling these sorts of elements.

Those flying buttresses being BIM accurate (meaning can pull details right from the model) would be a pain in Chief. I speak from experience I had with a similar project where I had all sorts of issues (see below) but I did finish in Chief. When you have multiple parts and need to group/block items made in different views Chief doesn't handle that well. Not to mention, since Chief has no instancing all the duplicated resources have to be changed 1 at a time if adjustments are needed.

Unless I am missing something, it appears in your video you only truly break and change the top surface - as if you are looking down on the poly solid from plan view. You dont ever modify the sides themselves - right?

Actually, what I do is use the simple "hatch wall" command and make sure to break your wall where the SW starts and ends. You can find it under "build/walls/hatch wall - or you can do what I do and customize my toolbar so its quick access all the time.

Shape them the same you do in the front - where you can break a line and then shape the poly....or do a Boolean operation There are many, many many times i'm trying to model something and need to model from multiple directions. Im kinda curious why Chief decided to limit us... Last couple days i've been working on a light commercial building - but having to use Vectorworks since I felt Chief simply couldn't model some of the details the way I wanted. Sure..it was possible, but it would have been way more difficult.

Thanks Glenn - the video helped. Although, I think the issue is the same - meaning, if you see in your example you can only really fully edit the top face (perhaps bottom too?) of the poly solid. You cannot edit the sides except for height adjustment. Does having a 3d view add to the edit-ability of a poly solid?

Glenn, I know there is some minor editing you can do to a poly solids in "other" views but its so basic its impractical. Not to mention, you lose the few Boolean options completely (holes etc). You also mention editing the poly solid in 3D but I just checked that out and I dont have editing ability in a 3d view - its about the same. Perhaps I am missing a nuance there. When you are saying in elevation mode we can use the dbx to change the polysold - you can change a few things I see, but you can't fully edit polysolid like you can in the view it was created. I think my point is Chief has put some ridiculous restriction that i've never seen another 3d app place on editing polysolids or shapes. In a 3d app why wouldn't you want to edit a shape in all views? Downright bizarre if you ask me. ...plus the huge issue where if you piece multiple polysolids in different views and then block those solids and try to use in different places the program goes haywire many times and can't handle that for some reason.

That sort of modeling is just fine in other apps that allow "counter-tops" to interact with solid shapes or have modifiers that interact as if it was a standard 3d shape. In Chief no such ability exists. This means only within the confines of the tools ability does Chief allow use of one object to substitute for another. i.e. you can use counter-tops to make columns, but you could never use what you could model with the countertop tool to its fullest and get anything but a block of slab when you convert to solid. It doesn't retain all the modelings for instance....which is a real shame. Graham, I have no idea what your background is. However, if you think Chief is a good shape modeling tool I would advise you to try out some other tools and then come back and give me your assessment. Hell, at it stands now I cannot model a poly solid in 1 view and switch to another view to refine edit that shape. Poly solids can only be edited in the view which they were created. Further, you get crazy instability if you make, and group poly solids not all made in the same view. The list goes on and on....

Yes, I fully agree Chief already has the backbone to do almost any sort of modeling it wants - its the tools we lack to adequately control the modeling process in a precise and fluid way.

Very creative method Yusuf - but you'd have to admit to bring it all the way home to a completed couch would be very difficult in Chief. So everyone knows I am not trying to suggest Chief should have 3D shape tools like 3dMax - that would be way overkill. I am also not suggesting Chief needs to be good at designing furniture. I'm arguing against any notion that Chief's shape tools are adequate as they are. For some reason Chief has neglected this tool-set and we are stuck with 90's style shape editing. I get frustrated when I go to model even simple objects and am met with unnecessary complexity and limitation. In fact, I bet 3D shape modeling abilities in Chief haven't changed much since early versions of the application - not that I know that for sure. Just a guess.

I certainly can see that working (and even semi-practically) for straight edge, flat stock items with multiple parts. I dont see that practically working for more complex shapes, or even basic shapes made of 1 solid, since in Chief you can't re-shape solids without doing some sort of Boolean operation or converting to faces.

I'm curious then, since I went back and read your post. How is it you get different surfaces on a solid object to start with?

I agree that is pretty good for Chief. Though you and i know why you decided to do this on a flat non-undulating surface....right? Do you think you could reasonably apply this to a piece of furniture like a sofa?

Mark, the OP said " I design a fair amount of custom furniture, primarily conference tables, consoles, benches, sofa and cocktail tables, etc " - so the comment was based upon the original OP discussion, and I broke out my initial answer in those 2 parts. If you think you guys answered the mapping issue - I would wholly disagree. You've only offered a crazy work-around which then limits future editing - not to mention, creating sub-faces does hold answers for radial shapes....which furniture is filled with. Face-by-face modeling of 3d surfaces was available by one of the first DOS based 3D apps made available in the 1990's - and yet some claim that is somehow the flagship answer to Chief's modeling solution. I think the conversation gravitated to upholstery since I used a couple examples of simple furniture modeling - which upholstery is a big deal in furniture design - after suggestions Chief is just fine for furniture design. My goal here is to simply counter the cool-aid drinking Chief apologist, so there is no confusion just how bad some of Chief's tools are. Solid modeling tools are ridiculously bad in Chief by any reasonable, current, comparable 3D modeling standards.

I'm in full agreement Chief shouldn't be judged on its lack of ability to design furniture. I'm just surprised so many think Chief's tools are adequate - and its concerning when that narrative is pushed out there as if Chief's 3d shape tools are somehow capable/practical for complex modeling. Hands down Chief has some of the worse 3d shape modeling support of any program in this price range. There are many free 3d shape apps that put Chief to shame in this category. As Glenn points out there are other very powerful reasons to buy Chief, but if your focus is on furniture design (like the OP asked) Chief is a terrible option.

Here is actually one of the simplest example of modeling a sofa in 3DS. I can't even contemplate how this could be done in Chief.... I say the above is easy, compared with say this sofa model - and yet the presenter calls this a "simple" sofa: