johnny

I was just playing around with this using Orthographic floor overview and a "slab" for the PL, the new cross section slider. However, when I move the slider around at different "z" intervals the inside line of the walls disappear at random locations. I'm curious why that is. Otherwise this works pretty well.

Thank you both for the help. I've done these windows in Vectorworks and have to say it is much better in CA for creation method. The only difference in Vectorworks is I can save this type of window setup with the walls etc in a block to use over and over. Wish that was true in CA - but I remain hopeful. I've actually learned a lot about that window "overlap frame" issue so that was more helpful than even just my issue.

Thanks Glenn - yeah, I wasn't looking for mullions but the wall as you said. However, I did turn the exterior casings off and it still didn't give me a wall like that. I'll have to play around more with it.

The first few box windows i've done have been using corner boards and material regions. However, i think the more logical way to do this type of treatment is using wall layers/thicknesses to relate the detail i am looking for. The windows should be "inset" into the finish layer. I made a video to explain the issue since its hard to type it. issue_file.plan

I honestly didn't know what to expect when I opened the file, but I would recommend you find an architect/designer to finish the plans with you. There are code issues, and impossible build elements throughout the plan. Its not a criticism of the plan/design as much as seeing too many to list issues and problems that need to be solved and re-worked. I think you could use this as a stepping stone to get where you want to go, but the design as you have shouldn't move forward without some major re-works. All the best...

Ah, this probably solves my problem - thanks.

Works well for the general arch, but what about the molding poly? For some reason when I convert the arch to a molding poly it doesn't retain the curve but goes to line segments. If you have a arch you want to place molding around can you not match? I'm trying to duplicate this so I know if I ever run into it while working on a project.

I've been trying to narrow down my issue with line widths. When I send prints to be made I use PDF - but I notice that when I print in-office (but smaller size often) my line widths seem "off". The issue could be on my end with the way I am making PDFs, but I wanted to see if anyone has an issue with Chief's line widths and changing page sizes..? Do they all remain the same width for you guys no matter letter vs Arch D/E sizes?

For the double wall/windows I would use material regions below and above - so you have the stucco correct - and the plan is more controllable IMO. See attached sample, but please keep in mind I just roughed it out to show a basic example - obviously you'd need to set the correct depth, and have the correct window details. material_region.plan

Yeah that would work well too. If I actually did remodels more often I could see putting some time into this to perfect it, but to me it looks like you could do some cool things.

Could it be possible to have 1 file be the As-is condition, make a "symbol" of the entire 3D model and then import that symbol into the "remodel" file and display the as-built symbol in a graphical way to help? Maybe make it some sort of semi-transparent material?....perhaps you would need to make a symbol per floor so the 2d block made sense? (added) i just did a quick test and this method would have possibilities if you played around with it some. Turned everything to a "grey glass" and I had both the 2d from the symbol and 3D so it showed a transparent grey where walls on the original plan were. This method is definitely classified as a "work-around" but if you wanted a graphic for your client it would work well for that sort of thing. For CD's 2D block way to go.

I've noticed you need to model very cleanly inside Chief or these "glitches" can become issues. Just looking at your model you don't have very clean transitions between roof-lines - and you can visually see the "glitch" in elevation - so you may need to clean up the model if you wan to eliminate.

As i tell my wife it happens to us all.

Glenn and Michael show that isn't isn't very hard to make - for this task. I do believe you are correct though, there really shouldn't be a limitation on what view you draw things. CA is so good at so many things, but I hope most of us agree it could see some improvement in this area.As a side note - you may want to convert your multi-part solid into a symbol and not simply block. If you make an architectural block and start messing with elevation of different copies on different floors i've had some real screwy things happen. Making it a symbol will stabilize it immensely.

Thanks for the input - too bad this is so difficult. I realize its a minor thing, but when you have lots of cross lines it begins looking odd. I've tried placing lines but then you lose edit-ability on those lines (lose connection).

Is there a way to have the line segments for dimension different styles? So far I haven't been able to mix styles for the extensions vs dimension lines. I'd like the lines meeting the sides/objects etc appear in a dash format but solid for the actual dimension.

Yeah, but I think you guys are missing some interesting elements of his example. Notice the exterior walls are full height, other than the walls closest to the camera location - those appear lower. Not to mention most the interior walls appear at a cut height different than other items. That example view, if you are wanting to copy it exactly, is highly custom - perhaps using multiple other views combined. Was that example done in Chief?

Nice - thank you for the tip.

Actually to followup my roof framed with the sub-fascia with truss when i set it that way. I did nothing but leave the sub-fascia selected as an option in the roof framing.

That is interesting. I am kinda curious if Chief sends shadows to layout as 2D poly line boxs - if so could we fill with a hatch if we wanted? Sorry, not to take away from your issue, I just find that interesting for another reason.

Subfascia is rare when you use a truss system. Often for trusses it would be blocking between the ends of the truss (if you wanted some sort of extra nailer), or build-out from the fascia if it was a visual thing - in which case your fascia would be the "sub-fascia".....but we call that a "build-up" fascia detail. The blocking is super easy to add in CA using the blocking tool. However, im sure a chief expert could figure this out for you if you really wanted "sub-fascia" on a truss end - good question on sequence.

Yep, after you posted your comment I took a screen shot of that option I think you are talking about. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think the OP wanted to make different walls in the same plan frame differently - whereas that option overrides for all the walls on that floor - right?

Brown, yes I too think its a bit odd placement for the option - but oh well. As Michael said too you can override the wall framing spec in the "material" field to what you want. However, you aren't limited. If you notice you can create your own material - call it what you want "Non-fir Framing@ 6" OC" and specify that 6" OC in the spacing. Notice you also have control of the "x" dimension as well. You can then also create a new wall type, and set that wall type to use that "material" with the 6" OC (or whatever you want). That way you can have any wall framing spec you want per-wall.

I just answered my own question, and hopefully the OP. Its a bit interesting, but the way it appears you control framing is in the "texture" (material) Dbx. Seems odd to me for some reason, but it is what it is - and now we both know. Filling the main wall layer with a material that states the specific spacing is how its done I guess.

I guess I have a question about this as well. I see under the framing specification you can "override" what was the wall setting. However, in the wall specification dbx it lists 24" OC under the "texture" and continues to relate it under layer settings below. What, if any, does the wall texture have to do with the framing spacing? To me that seems odd, unless you can edit it here and have a meaningful change for the wall....but its just a texture right? Or does changing the texture to 16" OC actually relate to the framing?