johnny

That is a native Revit file as far as i can tell. What is the product? Perhaps they have other formats?

Being honest, CA 3D shape model tools aren't very good at all - hands down the worse in any of the apps i've tried. I'm hoping this changes soon, but as much and I miss those tools in other apps i've come from (Vectorworks) CA is much faster and easier in many more complex things. For me its been worth it.

You can't customize this at all?

To a lot less scale I need/use these types of tools often. Not for major support columns at an international airport, but all sorts of smaller things in residential projects I face. The first video on Vectorworks is a good example for how modeling shells can be a quick way to develop and idea. I just wish CA took some of the modeling tools more seriously and had the ability to allow mixing 3d shape tools with "object" tools.

My comma wasn't in the right place - I was saying "walls/objects with layers/classes/views/rooms, vs shapes". The point is the other apps let you start from shapes and work back to a structure. CA needs rooms to build a structure. If you jump to 13:20 this might explain a little of what i'm talking about. Here is a fun video in Archicad showing how shapes form structural elements. Obviously this is extreme, and I dont expect CA to do this, but its just a completely different approach to the process if you dont have to worry about rooms.

Well, I guess if you are saying "workflow" I would admit they are all similar in that regard. I'm thinking more (in part) fundamental differences in how they treat walls/objects with layers/classes/views, rooms vs shapes, 3d shape objects which can be any building component, and "blocks" vs symbols/components/families etc etc. Though I wouldn't say its "as-large" an issue as the room paradigm, a fairly large issue with CA is mixing custom 3D shapes with intelligent objects. In those other apps you can make walls/roofs/floors connect to 3D custom shapes that represent architectural elements. I realize this could relate back to the room paradigm issue, but that is why (to me) CA is such a different approach....the room paradigm effects and controls nearly everything you do.

What everyone else is saying is key - the person you got this file from simply exported 2d (which may be all they have). You should just start placing your own furniture - unless they are using a particular brand of office furniture. Then you will have a lot of work in front of you if that company doesn't provide their system in 3D.

i'll lol too then.... i wasn't trying to be rude sorry (although txt often sounds worse), but before landing on CA I ended up taking extensive courses in those apps (and purchased a copy of each). I felt that between Vectorworks, Archicad, AllPlan, and Revit they all had their own terminologies, but it was only a matter mostly learning like-for-like methods in each. I've used Vectorworks and Archicad to complete projects. Revit stood out slightly more unique than the others, but since the others are owned by the same company that could be the reason. My experience lead me to see CA does things their own way. If you've found Archicad and Revit to be 80% similar to CA then great. I just haven't found that to be anywhere near the case....and I say that as a compliment and a criticism depending on the tool type. Cheers!

In that those apps have walls, windows, doors etc - but there is very little similarities to those apps and how they handle things compared to Chief. The paradigm you mention is a good example, and its not a minor thing. Some of that is good, and some of it isn't.

Can I ask are you switching from AutoCad 2D to Chief 3D? Meaning...did you work in 2D or 3D primarily in AutoCAD? ChiefExperts is a good option - i've learned some nice things from them. I've also enjoyed http://www.chieftutor.com/ as well (and its free). However, ChiefExperts is much more up-to-date with the recent version of CA than Tutor. I'm not a huge fan of Chief's own video library as it stays on the surface. As a tip - you need to clear your mind and start from scratch learning CA from the ground up. For better or worse, CA decided to do things completely different than other apps and its probably the least user friendly app i've used from a transition standpoint - but will be amazed at how well it handles otherwise complex issues. For residential 3D home modeling it stands alone as far as its speed and process.....so it can also be very rewarding. You are making a good decision.

Is it kinda like this? (all but my comments)

This should help

Sounds good - I'll request this as well.

Is there a way to covert a molding poly with the profile into a solid that can be joined or subtracted with other solids?

Not sure if this helps, but nothing exists on layers - nothing. Layers ONLY effect the view settings of the object/item per floor (or with reference sets for different floors). Everything exists on the level you draw it on and even though you might turn on/off a layer, again its only changing the "view" its not actually "on" that layer. This nuance escaped me until Glenn shared it with me. Once I realized that it helped me understand what it was I controlled.

GREAT tip yusuf on doing this! Perfect.

So you guys know, I open the file and it works fine.

Are you saying "final view" is taking a long time? I dont know what a "final render" means different than raytrace. I believe final view is based largely on your video card - vs raytrace is based on your processor.

I'm curious if CA believes their software could be used for the Farnsworth House and end up with a true virtual version of that house. I think it would be very easy to make a nice 3D representation of that home in CA, but I have my doubts it could be effectively modeled exactly the way it would be constructed. Here are details from that home.

Have you tried dragging the triangle grab handles of the "point" you want to delete into a point you want to keep? Here is a quick example. Does this answer the question? (Alaska answered as I was making this vid - but he is thinking the same thing, but this is a quick demo)

Since you're only showing us PDF's I wonder if the actual file looks this way when you zoom in?? Perhaps try another way to make a PDF or print directly from CA.

Actually, if you blur your eyes it doesn't look that bad... (a joke)

Yep, it the house was modeled in CA. I actually modeled everything in CA this time - even the details. Although, I have to say that so far Im having a bit of a hard time understanding all the secondary rules CA has for modeling shapes and objects. You can only model/modify in certain views, and if you combine other objects modeled in other views (blocking) you can really mess things up. Not a fan of this.

Thanks Alaskan. Believe it or not its just pics (not rendered) from the new Lumion Pro. It took me about 30 min to import and model the environment and place a few people/furniture etc. For the final work i'll do an actual render and video etc.

Here are some preliminary pics of a project i've been working on that is literally "on the water" here in the San Juan Islands. I'm starting to move beyond the concepts, but this is a project Glenn and Alaska have helped solve some of my issues. Its coming along...