johnny

The problem is most likely in your roof design in relation to what dormer you want to see. I can fit a auto-dormer in, but you have to enter parameters that work....although, the roof space is a bit tight in that area to make it work.

Why not just use a "floating dormer"? If it doesn't need to connect to anything inside that probably would work.

Thanks for the info guys!

Thanks for sharing - very interesting.

I'm having a noobish issue (perhaps) where I can't get my fonts in an imported survey file to change based upon the layer I assign. I've created a new layer, assigned a default text style, and am trying to change text by re-assigning the layer properties. This seems like it should be working, but im sure its probably something obvious that i'm doing wrong. lot13.plan

Part of me thinks this is Home Designer...or another DIY app.

You may have better luck using the framing tools and then doing manual edits from there. I say that since you need to set the correct widths etc for the framing to even work. If you post your plan with an explanation you will have a better chance getting a quick answer.

....or your PC is so good that you have everything turned on in final view all the time. How I know this is I bought a 27" tablet for portable presentations, and even though it has an nvidia card its not the quality of our main office systems (although I am the only one in the office that uses CA). For my 27" tablet going between final view with shadows and not is a big difference. If you know your computer isn't very good then its probably unable to display better.

I haven't yet but would be very easy in CA since, at this present time, Chief only uses a texture image for siding (well, you can add a bump map). So - just go download a tile-able pic (or make very quickly) of what you see on the internet and you'll have it.

I know many like to find ways to get CA to frame automatically, but I have yet to see many examples where it does so (a.) correctly*, and (b.)faster than using Chief's framing tools and just manually modeling it. It is pretty cool you can use all those tools in CA to frame things correctly - and if you want to mix with auto-frame sections just lock your hand-framed sections. *I say its worse to show something framed incorrectly than simply not showing it.

http://www.structuralsoft.com/wordpress/product-demo I know its wishful thinking, but CA should look at providing some sort of reporting for a project that could be used for designing lateral and vertical resistance. Most all the data extract is math that exists already in the walls/doors/windows/roof.

Yeah, sorry I was down to the issue about the batt issue - if you look at the image above the shadow isn't working correctly for the batts. Although, did you say the file was fine on your system?...so it must be an issue on my end.

Get rid of the casings - set the frame to the width and depth you need. Obviously no sash either. The big problem with Chief right now and duplicating this is that you cannot size the frame differently on each side. Since you are placing 2+ windows side-by-side to mimic the combined visual, it leaves either the center frame too wide or the side too narrow. Alternatively, you can size the overall window and place poly solids to replicate the middle frame sections. However, in commercial work you need to be ultra-accurate in frame/door sizing. That is why getting the actual manufacture details and using correct sizes are important. http://is0.gaslightmedia.com/wojanwindowdoorcorporation/CKImage/is16-1309551703-21596.png

lol...is that in the library? Thx btw.

Although, I will say that there is an issue with the shadow glitching out over the batts.... I sent you the file Scott if you wanted to look at that. Perhaps that is a bug? The first pic is from Layout, second is showing there is no issue in the main app.

Thank you Scott - and everyone else. I was missing the fact you needed to set the view to have the shadow. I thought if I sent the view as I saw it then it would keep the shadow....i was wrong.

Just a word of advice, you are showing trimmed frame - which isn't how these systems look. The devils of commercial work is in matching what you draw to a real window manufacture - what their window extrudes look like. If this is just concept work - at least eliminate the casing and size the window frame accordingly. Here is a quick example of what they would kinda look like (this would be good enough for presentation - but again try to match RL manufacture, as often the middle frame sections aren't wider than the outer ones):

Here is a proposal presentation I did for a client in Florida - wanting a spec-buildable Caribbean/West Indies design for some narrow lots (on a small island). I have a lot more detail to add (especially the roof/overhang details), but it is a fun project and a break from my norm. I'll add that from Chief to Lumion was 20-30min max.

Could someone look at this and tell me what I am doing wrong?

I've been trying to send my elevation in (1) color, and (2) with shadows. I thought x8 made that possible to send in vector....but do I need to send as a pic still? ..or is there a setting i'm not selecting to get the shadow to come along? When I watch the x8 video I do exactly that and no shadows.

I may be pointing out the obvious, but when you "auto-build" your roofs you dont have the required clearance for floor 2 - regardless of the dormers. If I was you, I would review the process for manually creating roofs. Yes, you could setup auto-roof to probably build a lot of this, but i've not seen a auto-roof process work fully with this sort of complexity. I mean your roof looks simple, but its really not that simple the way you are handling the pitches. Do you have SSA? If not, try ChiefTutor youtube channel. The website looks down right now.

It may be worthwhile to hear from Chief on this subject - since if they are setting the visual display of their "standard final view" based upon the screen pixel setting, then exporting to a higher size simply stretches the pixels - it doesn't actually add resolution. When I test this myself I get marginal differences between export vs screen capture. Perhaps there is some key element to this I am missing as well.

This is an interesting topic. Honestly, for me i've been just doing a quick export/import into Lumion 3D - as that app has a very quick photo process which also allows me to use camera focal lengths. If I am just doing an export/import it takes me about 10 min or so and then pictures are a snap - and every revision thereafter I dont even have to setup the Lumion file again, I can just update the model. Below are quick picture examples from Lumion 3D (this scene was slightly more difficult, but it really only took me 30 min or less and I could do movies from this file now). Most all the home textures are the same from Chief (except glass - but that is like 2-3 clicks to change).

For $700 difference Premier is worthwhile. Just looking at what interiors doesn't have would make me nervous if I was in your position. Did you know CA offers a "rent-to-own" program? You can break-out the cost of your software over time which might help. (at least I think they still offer that)

I dont exactly know when, but coming into X8 i was very happy the software seemed to be "snappier". Since the last (final) release, it seems the gains in speed are gone and id even say I find files are slower than X7. Has anyone else experienced this? Am I alone? ....do I need to change a cache setting or something? My issues is that every operation on roof's or other 3d element has a lag between click and operation. Its really noticeable.