johnny

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?

If you look at the picture and want it without the furniture, it would take less than 5 min. to re-make inside Chief (dont you think Glenn?) . You could then put the outside (through windows) image into Chief (place on a ploy sold or slab) or just do that part in Photoshop. Either way, the room is so basic you might as well remodel it.

That is tricky. There are 3rd party plugins for Sketchup that help do this sort of thing, but I am going to tell you right now its a rabbit hole that may lead to spending much more time than simply rebuilding the scene in CA and taking another render. Can you share the picture here so I can see what you're trying to do specifically?

your welcome sir - this forum is probably the best forum of any product i know of, and makes CA the product it is to some degree. always nice to try and give back after so many help me.

Under line -

You can easily assign them to any layer you want. Make a new layer, name it, and then go into the specifications Dbx and change that items layer to whatever you created. As a side point, i've been starting to make my columns with the cabinet tools - much easier to use, and you can make fast adjustments as necessary. However, if you are trying to break the sections out as you mention that wouldn't be possible with the cabinet tool as far as I know....but I usually supplement with 2D section showing molding buildup etc. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/8636-using-cabinet-tool-for-column/?hl=%2Bcabinet+%2Bcolumn

Photoshop does support 3D imports, and there are some very cool things you can do with it, but exporting back out to CA from that point may be doable, but very tricky. Both apps support DAE. However, Id really love to know why you would want to do that - what are you trying to do?

Yeah, so far I am liking grey-scale for everything. Footnotes are more about accuracy than anything else. I've found notes that exist all over a page are more easy to make mistakes with since you can miss them. When I check plans before they go out it takes 25% of the time with footnotes, and a lot of subs I talk to like them for a similar reason. I guess its a preference thing.

I use Acrobat to convert a color print to grey-scale for a pretty good effect that actually makes the outside lines show are darker lines - but yes, it would be great if we had profile line control - or an easier way to make these lines by hand if we had to. What I really wish is that the story-pole dimensions worked better. Current_without_detail sheets 6.pdf

I just went through placing a bunch of random lighting fixtures and I didn't see it once. Someone will ask you to attach a plan to show...

I wasn't using the revolve tool, but check it out if you work it in other aspects more. Its not a crash each time at a certain place, since I can reopen CA and start wroking again - get past that point it crashed before, only to have it crash down the line again. Its so unstable I dont think you can work with it inside CA.

I've dove into unreal, but still use Lumion for everyday work product until I get more comfortable. Unreal is the way of the future without question. You can actually develop charterers that someone can control on their Xbox or PlayStation (or PC obviously) at home and interact with their future home. Turn on and off lights, open cabinets, turn on water, get in a car and try driving into their garage with a virtual car. I'm learning all this right now, and its amazing.

Scott - you have to launch the 2nd app through your terminal window. 1. Launch your terminal. 2. Type "open -n -a "APPLICATION NAME" I believe you can make a shortcut/script so you have an icon if you want to launch in the future. Obviously dont type the quotation marks.