johnny

Wow.... i've heard of FormZ but never seen a video. The few I just saw where very impressive - looks more intuitive than SU. Here is a 5 min. creation of a Wright house. I'm going to check that out thanks.

So I know, if I can select a room and label it automatically that would mean there is a positive definition - correct? Otherwise, what is "room definition problem"? Here is a selection of the space. Now, the space is a basement space but I placed a slab floor in there - does that mater?

Again, since this thread it talking about the subject, I thought I would show you a quick reference on 2d shape to 3d shape to 3d model to 3d structure video in Vectorworks. Please forward this below video to 13:04 and see how this process works in Vectorworks. btw...even though VW is much faster at concept work, detailing in 3D later in the project flips to Chief Architect being much MUCH better for residential projects. This is why I am trying to force myself to learn CA.

Thanks guys.... I was able to use a 3d poly and fixed the issue. However, I find myself in yet another odd issue. I have my terrain set to "hide terrain intersected by building", but its not doing that. So essentially its hidding terrain I want visible and making visible terrain i want hidden. My frustration level is rising quick, but I do appreciate (again) all the help. I couldn't use this app without this help. ashok_mallya_residence_b.plan

I had the same issue when I started - only to come to the realization Chief simply doesn't work for this type of process. You need to use something like Sketchup to start (I use Vectorworks). Some people will say they can "design" fine using CA, but when I do I get too wrapped into the minutia of the details. What I want is a free flowing method like Sketchup/Vectorworks has - but even they too are a bit restrictive compared to truly sketching.

Oddly, I dont seem to have that wall type in my defaults.....

Thanks - will try that. Here is the plan FYI (was in another thread so wanted to link instead of take more CA drive space) https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/6320-2-odd-issues/

Adding to my last post - I guess a terrain feature doesn't work since it gets clipped too. Man its things like this that just ruin my work-flow. I realize once I get it I will get it, but it kills my scheduling having to work through these issues. (mini-rant over)

Sorry I wasn't trying to call you out on that - but pointing out someone would get the idea the "no rail" option would work. Thanks Scott for all your time and help. TO ANYONE: Just cause I dont want to create another thread - one issue I am not having is trying to "close" some terrain that exists under a floor structure on a remodel project where it is supported by beam/posts. The terrain is cutting itself - which typ would be fine, but in this case I want it to show. Should I just do a poly/terrain feature or something in that area, or is there an actual way to control the terrain for this area?

Thanks Scott - I will do the 1/16" trick then. Though there is an option for "no rail" so shouldn't that turn off the rail? I dont claim to be a literary guru but one would get the idea that option would turn the rail off - and yet nothing happens. Again, thanks for the work-around on this.

I wanted to have a single line representing my deck area (existing) - so I turned one of the lines off (set to none) in the wall Dbx (as shown). However, my deck outline still shows 2 lines...?? Is this a bug perhaps?

Just as a helpful point on the design, you typically wouldn't have full window casing on the exterior of a window/door/vent which is on a brick clad wall. I mean you can do whatever you want, but this is unusual for that condition.

Thank you both for the responses....the terrain I was able to "mostly" fix, but the deck issue is still odd since I dont have railings for that deck. I will try to send the "shape" to that layer I guess and perhaps that will work.

I am working on a remodel (which I dont often do) adding a larger living room and small balcony that will be the basis for a future stair to lower existing deck. 2 issues I am having. 1. The terrain starts to "freak" out on me when I place a terrain modifier to flatten area around pad, and 2. I placed the existing lower deck on a layer, and have that layer "off" in my 3d render view but its still showing. Any help would be appreciated - I am forcing myself to use CA though this. Here are pics and the file of course (please remember I am actively working on the file and its a remodel). ashok_mallya_residence_b.zip

Real quick on another note - is there no perpendicular snap?

Yep the cad line option worked - thank you guys.

I have a remodel where there is an exterior wall on a semi-odd angle, and the client wants a new window config. I'd like to make adjustments in elevation mode, but when I try and run a section/elevation on that area with the "angle-snaps" off, I can't find a way to get that precise. Intuitively I thought I could simply copy the angle (deg) from the wall and apply to the section/elevation - but no go. I can do that to the label of the section/elevation, but nothing else. Second, I went to see about a parallel tool such as we can do with nearly anything else, but the section/elevation doesn't have that as an option. The only way I can see how to do this is to eye-ball it....but surely that can't be the only way. I guess I am missing the obvious answer and would appreciate any help. Thanks!

"I THINK I UNDERSTAND, AND IF I DO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU HAVE MADE MY POINT. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ALL THE REF SETS FOR ALL FLOORS ARE ALL THE SAME.... BUT MAYBE I DON'T WANT THAT, MAYBE I WANT UNIQUE REF SETS DEPENDING ON THE FLOOR I AM REFFING." Let me break it down this way, and I will use VW naming conventions just for reference. 1. Layers - Stories (floors) - Roofs/slabs/foundation - Any structural elements you want in addition and can have its own "z" elevation - There are no actual restrictions - so you can use how you want. 2. Classes (contained within each Layer and can be customized as well) - CAD Lines - Objects - Doors/Windows - Trim/Millwork - Text/Arrows - Sub Class Groups - Again, no actual restrictions expect this level is a child level to Layers Each Layer AND Class have the ability to turned off, greyed out, or fully visible....all this within a click. If you have a particular "view" you want to keep and quickly access, you simply save that view combination and can flip back to it whenever you want. You can also temporarily, or permanently change how a class or layer is displayed (line type/width/etc). Overall, this took me 10min. to understand when I started using VW. In CA, I really struggled the MRLS and still dont feel very confident in it. In fact, I watched the videos you did Scot for CheifTutor.com and I remember you being challenged in a few spots as well. (though don't take that as a negative thing, since I've come to find your "exploratory" way of teaching very helpful)

Its much more than symantics if you really think about it. Right now the MRLS works since it only has an additional floor to consider, but if you had many floors (MMRLS) and wanted to view certain layers on each floor combined with another floor's layers you would have to make floor specific layers of the same "type" for each floor if you wanted that control. Going in reverse, you can create sub-layers that relate to a specific layer and yet have the sub-layers all be the same throughout the file and reference-able. Having used both, I can tell you having a sub-layer level is superior in many ways to the MRLS - not to mention much easier to grasp. ___ Also, not bringing in a comparison of what exists in the market would be a disservice to CA. CA is judged largely upon how it relates to other software...as any product is. I've always acknowledge there are things CA does MUCH better that VW or other apps, which is why I bought a copy. However, there are many things the other apps do MUCH better and sharing that should be a positive thing.

There is actually a MUCH simpler way of doing all this than a MMRLS (which even the current system can confuse people). Right now CA uses Stories as a separate function from Layers. This creates the need to have a 3rd element we know as the MRLS. Instead of going 1 step beyond the MRLS, CA should move the opposite direction creating something "below" Layers which would embody what we currently know layers to be. In Vectorworks they are called "classes", but the name matters not. Doing this allows Stories to reside on Layers, and then layers can have visual settings option similar to "Onion Skins" where you can create any combination of visual options VERY SIMPLY. When you send something to Layout, you should be able to set visual options there on Layers/Classes to create nearly any "view" you want. Here are some examples of what I mean.

Give yourself enough lead time on projects concerning deadlines. I've been stuck many many times and had deadlines missed since I didn't account for getting as stuck as I did. Obviously every time you get stuck you learn how to get through the process, and the people on this forum have been beyond awesome in their help. Also, one thing that I am still trying to nail down is what object/type to use for what circumstance - and more specifically what view you need to start it in. If you draw say a poly 3d shape in one view, you end up restricting the ability to edit that shape in different views and so must return to the view you created to perform certain actions. Different tools have different rules, and coming from software that doesn't have that restriction was a real bugaboo for me. Lastly, dont approach CA with logic thats often present in other apps. CA has its own rules, and its own ways of doing things. That said, CA handles otherwise complex residential modeling elements simply. I've wanted there to be a software package out there that I could make work and CA is the only app i've found that can do the things it does.

Maybe I am confused - so really CAD details are simply for dumb CAD lines but you can have views which are in their own "container" so to speak "per view". For some reason we can place schedules in these areas that are suppose to be "dumb" but the schedules continue to operate. I guess I am understanding this better as a read, but I still could see using dumb CAD details with live sections.

Btw - thanks Larry for the video - very helpful. To me I would LOVE to have live details in the cad layers. I think from an organization point of view that would be very helpful. Curious why this is no longer possible.

When you guys are saying put everything not part of the main plan in CAD Details - I guess id love to understand more what you mean. Do you use CAD details for sections cuts of the building? You guys are ok losing update-able sections?...or are you bringing them in someway they can still be updated by the app? If CA is watching this thread, I would really love to see a video series on "best practices" for plan organization. The video library currently shows what you can do, but id actually like to see what we should be doing for the most efficient workflow.

Could you provide a link to your youtube again Yusuf...?