johnny

I just want to say i've had a similar issue Liz is having - and I had to extend the wall out longer one side, move the window, and then shrink the wall back to the correct location. I'll watch Alaskan's vid to see if there is something i too was missing. (added after watching video) OK, so I see that it appears that Chief isn't moving the windows but it does anyway. That is the nuance I was missing too. Thanks for doing the video, that was a big help.

I dont know your age, but before I knew what I wanted to do (architect) my father, who was a builder/developer, had me go work for a summer under the direction of the architect I eventually became partners with (after going back to school and then formal internship). Had he handed me a copy of a program and said start drawing my homes that would have done neither of us very much good. You dont have to be an architect, but I would recommend going and working for someone that knows what they are doing and then work on your fathers stuff from that office to begin with.

I can't speak for Alaskan_Son, but I have to agree the initial question was odd coming from someone "in the industry". Learning "how" to use CA isn't going to teach you the profession of being a draftsman/designer. And to your original question - yes, be prepared to do a lot of drawing even though CA makes the process much less drawing intensive than other apps.

When I opened the file it appears you send things to layout via images? ...or is that caused by not having the working file?

As it is currently is CA already markets the app for light commercial. I personally think "light" commercial is where the line should be drawn, as the app is nearly there now and light commercial isn't very far off from residential construction methods. CA development in this area would benefit residential only users as well. I agree though the focus should remain residential.

I designed this initial concept in CA of a commercial strip mall. The largest thing CA lacks IMO is any method for creating "components". Commercial often has elements (both large and small) that are repeated. In Sketchup, Vectorworks, Revit, ArchiCad etc etc you have the ability to make master components and copy those while retaining their link to the master (or then isolating as a new individual component). CA has "blocks", but the limitations on what you can put in a block is too great to be effectively used for this purpose. Modular design for hotels, schools, office buildings is a major aspect of commercial architecture. CA has no support for this currently. This project was a great example of why components are necessary - I had repeating elements that included walls/doors/windows etc that I couldn't "group" (block) and reuse in other areas of the design.

Yeah, i just double checked and it is showing the correct font. I guess I should report this as a bug?

Typically the designer is the owner of creative works. Unless you have some special arrangement otherwise, I can't see why you'd have an issue - so long as you dont share information on your client through the file.

I've sent all my default fonts to a certain preference - different than the Chief Blueprint font. However, when I go to use rich text, the "default" reverts back to Chief Blueprint. When I use that same dialog box to follow through to see what font should be defaulted, it confirms the font I choose. Is this a bug in X8?....or is there something I am missing? Thanks!

I've not seen specific controls in CA - but you can customize the spacemouse per application using their software. You just need to setup a profile for CA. What you do is make the last application you want to edit "active" - meaning current selection (just have it open). Then, select the spacenavigator that should be running in your system tray. The name of the application should be in the upper left side of that new window. Make your modifications on how you want it in that app, and then exit. That will make a custom profile.

I have nearly that exact system, but didn't opt for that type of graphic card since CA doesn't support it - meaning, it has no special integration like some other apps do. I got a Nvidia Titan and it works great.

Glenn and I had a skype call on all this and everything is working now. Thanks Glenn!

Thanks Jon - yes, it was very confusing but glad to at least know it wasn't me just missing it.

I thought I would try terrain again in X8 - and having a very tough go at it. What I dont understand is why when you place terrain elevation lines CA doesn't simply connect the terrain between those lines (keeping them the same location and elevation) but rather uses them as a "suggestion" and then crafts its own terrain model in a (often) very sloppy way. Is there a way to have terrain lines be actual lines used for precise terrain? Perhaps I am missing a key point to this. I've attached the file I am working on - also attached are pictures of Sketch-up terrain and how each line represents the actual elevation point on the terrain. Thanks for any help. final_site.zip

I am trying to work on smoothing out sections on my terrain model, and in reading suggestions on fixing this from CA, there is a comment I dont understand. It suggests - "group the terrain lines in sets of four"...? I select the lines but can't see a way to "group" them. Any help is appreciated.

I've tried the mapping but I dont get the edges. You get the straight on surface with undulation but it doesn't read correctly around the corner. Perhaps I am doing something wrong. Here is an example:

I think what we are saying is slightly different, and I agree if it was just for this type of use (as the OP mentioned), it may not be a good use of programming time. However, I personally would love to see profile wall options for various other reasons.

Yes, from Raytrace to even just the elevations (and in-between). I do a lot of "weaved" corners and its actually a fairly big hassle currently in Chief to modify everything to display correctly. The details, I agree aren't as big a deal....but I do generally think a Chief model should strive to be "real world" accurate at some point. They seem to be moving in the right direction, but I dont view this issue as a waste of time.

Seeing the difference between a model with with "flat" surfaces for siding/roofing vs a model with profile lines to emulate the textures provides a fairly substantial visual impact.

I've played around with doing this, and had some good success using the molding poly - but its not "quick". I think CA should allow us to set profiles for wall layers.

For the OP - I often use 10' ceilings in my custom home designs, but I specify to frame down ceilings in small areas to 9' or even 8'. Floor and ceiling specifications are both very much needed.

I think it was Scott who did a video about converting demo walls to CAD - just for the plan overlay. Unless you specifically need to model the demo walls/doors, 2D representation is probably fine.

thanks guys.

I agree it isn't the norm for residential yet, but it will be close enough. It would be wise of CA to simply make these editable items in the foundation wall dialog box. I've been getting more and more request by builders to provide "data" on projects for bid purposes.

rgr...so I do need to make a poly 1st?