VHampton

ARCAT is web site which has a compilation of many brand name vendors from all the various divisions of construction. It's a helpful source for product details (in CAD): https://www.arcat.com/products/building_products_categories.shtml These came up in roof vent categories: https://www.arcat.com/manufacturers/rafter_vents https://www.arcat.com/product/durovent-baffle-170969

Really nice work Alan. I cant't help with the PBR question though. ...Have you tried changing the glass setting? Maybe to a different type of glass? The refraction in that rendered view is probably true to the real world to some extent, since glass will act like a mirror when it's got something very close behind it. Observation... The darker tone is showing up in the edges as it would with real glass. Aside from exploring another glass type/setting, how about making one of the sample sections paper thin - like 1/8th of an inch. Maybe you'll pick up a bit more transparency? Again, I have no absolutely idea, but it can't hurt to try.

The program can build the top rail if you want. ...but as far as glass coming past the treads & stringers ...and the metal stand-offs... it's poly-line solid time.

That works. Obviously the program isn't quite set up to build more than one level below Floor 1, but it's possible The method in the plan which had been attached was set up so that the ground floor is still on Level 1 in Chief.

Yep. I see the frustration. It is possible to build a first floor as a Pony Wall. By lowering the first floor elevation, that will allow a lower elevation for the floor framing. No walls on the foundation level, even though the cross section shows otherwise. Untitled .plan

Code in CA seems to suggest that frost heave may occur. When basement foundation walls are warm, vapor build-ups. Extreme cold = Freeze = heave-ho. Interesting. code

Very interesting. I've watched many episodes of Holmes on Homes and I believe they had a project like that. ...anyway, it looks like you may have a great solution thanks to Ryan.

A landing could be used over the slab. Why anyone would want to build a basement without a slab however is curious. The thermal break between the heated basement space and cooler soil temperature will create vapor. It's a recipe for dampness, then mold, and possibly rot, unless the framing is treated. Edit... unless this is an elevated floor which has no direct contact with the soil - and with fresh air flowing below the framing. My guess is yes based on your cross section. ...and yes - Ryan's observation on the stairs is absolutely correct. Edge of tread (nosing) to any overhead surface. 80" is the minimum allowed by IRC regulation.

You're very welcome Larry. I took the plan apart so that you could grab the p-line solids only. ...check your message box... the entire plan file was just sent.

Poly-line solids. (1) for the deck surface (1) for the deck thickness (1) for the solid rail walls. One thing I noted Larry... the real world deck is higher than the first floor roof (as compared to your model). When I first explored the balcony (based on the size in your plan), it's wider, and therefore it won't appear similar to the as-built photo... So for the sake of making it appear like the reference image, the lower hip roof was dropped, and the roof deck was made narrower. Anyway, those ingredients in the attached plan will get the job done. The ability to use boolean tools with solids is incredibly helpful. You can shape-shift them however necessary to match that condition precisely. 460680887_roofdeeck1.plan

learn something new everyday Joe. ...I mean Yoda. lol When they used to give out the manuals - mine got used as paperweights. I'm a self taught Jedi master.

This works every time. What is meant by this, is that the stair stringer on an L shape (which is open to a room) will sometimes become extra wide, for no apparent reason. Placing an invisible wall against the stringer can stop the width from increasing. ...and if the intent was to have a starter tread with a turn-out on one side only, the invisible wall method reins the unwanted "flare" on the straight section.

You could either change the default ceiling height on your plan (and lower it)... which will fix the way the rafters intrude into the room, and then the splay disappears. Or ...take a 3d view of the model, click on every roof (open the dialogue box) and raise them all - by plugging in a greater input on the z axis. It looks like a 2 to 2-1/2" offset. The rafter depth is affecting how the roof is "birds-mouthing" over the top plate. It's an easy fix... but definitely frustrating when learning. Hang in there... it'll work out. ...and as an FYI, you'll probably get a request in the future about posting computer specs. etc. in your signature. There are many good people here who like to help. Invariably the hardware spec.s as well as which version allows them some perspective in being able to provide a solution.

This thread may be of interest... Un-do re-do settings in Chief are often set to 50 by default. Not saying that this is the problem with what the OP described... but any large plan file (with many 3d objects) will move much faster and without lag if you don't mind working with a smaller safety net - meaning only a couple of undos instead of 50. Before computers came with massive amounts of memory, the culprit to lag time was often the amount of undo/redo's which one had set the preferences to. A small cottage would be negligible in terms of how much lag would be apparent, but a large project is a different story.

On a side... the Clay rendering technique is a wonderful preliminary view tool in that it provides the design concept in such a clean manner. Per the original poster's intent (in providing the client with some spatial relationships only) this could be a good approach. There's no need for detail, and better yet, it pretty much shuts the door on them being able to play architect. Wondering if making a clay view and then exporting that as a symbol would work. Then open a new plan and export the model to the Chief viewer? If all else fails, you make quick movie file and upload it to YouTube or Vimeo. It tells whole story and they can freeze frame when necessary. Per my initial suggestion... in retrospect, that's not a really great idea (to suggest that they download the trial version), Even though it would work, most younger clients grew up playing video games and things of that nature. Their perceived expertise can often entitle them to want to join in as co-designer which can prove to be quite an undesirable experience.

The Trial Version will open a model. Unfortunately this is a slippery slope. Giving a client the model could only be likened to handing the keys to the car to a ten year old. They'll start asking for changes, and ultimately, it's better to keep the work methodology a mystery. Option A... If they're only interested in the exterior, what you could do is take an archived plan. Do a "Shift select" and delete every interior wall and object on each floor. That would greatly reduce the model for an upload to the viewer. Option B... -Have you tried exporting your project as a 3ds or .dae model only? -Or perhaps even converting the entire house into a symbol? ...then you could open a new plan file, import the model (or symbol), and try uploading that to the 3D viewer. This may or may not greatly reduce the file size for the client viewer, but it's possibly worth a try.

You're a genius Eric. Thank you!

One day hopefully... If Chief can show doors w/ swings (in plan), then windows should be no problem. Regarding the solution, like others have posted, both methods work. Meaning using doors as casement windows. That said, the CAD block method works just as well (to show swings) The only minor issue with the door method (and calling doors casements) is that it'll mess with the window schedule.

Yes... Agreed. They should make the signature specs. a requirement in signing up so that new folks aren't unintentionally given a cold welcome. The signature helps in allowing members to be of help. Regarding a general observation, it could be any number of things. Like too many 3D objects in the plan for example. Anything with large surface counts can cause the RayTrace process to become laborious even with a good work horse of a computer. Suggestion... try turning some object(s) off, and see how that goes. Sometimes this can be the culprit. 3D cars for example from the 3D sketch warehouse can often have over 11megs per object which is huge. Same for furniture and things. Chief's library however has an excellent inventory with lower surface counts, yet sometimes too many of them will eventually add up, and in turn, bog the plan file down. Not just for renderings, but in redrawing 2D layout views. Alternatively, open a new plan and build a really simple house. It usually only takes a few minutes using the auto roof. Add some windows, and give the Ray Trace a test run. If it's a nice glossy result with great refraction on the glass (without taking more than a dozen passes), then the solution could very well be narrowed down to how large the troublesome plan file might be. Chief also has sample plans available to explore and download. You could also take a look at one of those and see how fast it does under the RayTrace option just to get a better sense of perspective on what might be the issue. All the best to you with trouble shooting the possible cause. ...and per Joe - set a limit on the Ray Trace to around 20 or so. They do get better with each pass, but at a certain point, the clarity is almost indiscernible between 20 minutes and and 60 minutes. It depends on how perfect you need it to be I guess. Some of the rendering professional companies leave them on overnight! That said, Chief can do an excellent job when the ingredients are just right - and more importantly, when the hardware meets the specs. A farm truck may never win a drag race against a turbo boosted Chevy Nova, but it can get the job done. Again, that's why the signature spec.s get asked for so often. The program settings may just need some fine tuning. All the best.

The fit to paper option works well. For an 11" x 17" 95% is usually the ideal fit. It's not to scale however, but the clients don't usually scale drawings. At least not yet anyway.

Agreed. ...many many years ago, the initial release of X1 was a nightmare and the program crashed almost hourly. This was when most computers were lucky enough to have a single gig of RAM. Pretty much everyone had a dedicated hotkey (with a save function). That said, doing a save every so often is simply a good idea, especially after a plowing through a couple of hours of work.

With the certain file in question open, go to the main menu on the top left. Hit "File" ...then the drop down menu will lead to "Manage Auto Archives". as per solver, if by chance the auto-saves are not set to a regular interval, then the back-up won't be found there. It's not a pleasant learning experience, but if it's of any consolation we have all been there.

Rain water run-off from the main gable is going to cascade against the outside wall - (where the lowest portion of the roof slope terminates) That's where he wants a cricket - inside the wedge. You could copy the main roof. Rotate it. Drag the ridge down to make just a small triangular section. Manually connect the dots and place the cricket in such a manner until it's snug against both outside wall(s) and where the new valley occurs.

Agreed. This a relative General Question. That said, as per solver, you will indeed be able to find threads on how well the M1(s) work with Chief. Although NVIDIA has always been the optimal card for running Chief - along with many other programs which "render" using CPU vs. GPU, the M1 is performing well. In June 2021 Chief tech support was initially uncertain about the performance potential (or lack thereof) w/ the M1chipset. This was when X13 was relatively new. There weren't years of history behind the possible minor glitches which could occur. On a side... X14 may very likely include improvements which will optimize the chipset to its fullest. All the best.

As a general observation sometimes it's better to leave "decks" on the ground level. Yes, that feature is readily defined as a roof 'deck' in the real world, but the program can have a mind of it's own. Designate that deck/terrace as a "Balcony".