VHampton

Not exactly dormer... Those are referred to as gables. Reverse gables to be specific. Meaning that they run perpendicular to the primary ridge line. Shingle style houses are known to have the roof edges begin at the first floor eaves. Here's an example. Two primary gables with a dormer in between. A dormer is smaller by nature.

Man... Never knew this until today. All the more reason to visit the forum on a regular basis!

This is quite true Michael... For what it's worth, I never export .dwg files with fills or patterns. The receiving end always wonders why the walls have hatch patterns and a fill, which is what us old timers refer to as poche. The question arose about how to place two plans side by side, and that method works. On a side... A CAD detail (made from a plan) still appears to maintain the line properties of whatever gets converted to CAD. For example, when the program does the CAD conversion, a fixture such as a toilet will appear as a block. Interestingly, that block will maintain the layer property of "Fixtures, Interior". This is actually quite helpful in that an AutoCad user can still toggle through the various drawing layers. Anyway, great observation on your part. ...Likewise, I only export one floor plan at a time. As soon as they import to the same AutoCad file, that's when the plan offsets can be done. ~ All the best!

Open the 1st floor plan and make a CAD detail of the view. (under CAD tools) Go to the 2nd floor and do the same. Copy/replicate the 2nd floor plan in the CAD detail, and move it however far you like. Example 100 feet. Copy the offset second floor plan and paste it into CAD detail of floor number 1. The two CAD plans will be side by side. In large text you can advise the recipient of the 100 foot offset. In summary, you'll be making a a single (and helpful) comprehensive CAD file for export. This is often far better rather than trying to export all floors at once which can be quite a mess for the end user.

For fun, I tried an AI rendering resource. In 20 seconds or less it spews out a life-like view. They take an uploaded photo (or sketch), and the cloud based rendering computer spews out a Frankenstein-ed version of the original design (even if it looks nicely rendered). The problem is however, is that the AI won't hold true to the original design. They added a second floor outdoor shower to the house, when it was initially shown on the grade level. But that said, the rendered result is pretty darn close. (Now if CA had the bandwidth to provide a cloud based rendering engine... that would be really great). Everyone always posts about making more realistic renderings, and this AI stuff is literally everywhere. ...anyway X-17 is probably going to have some form of AI tools. Still curious as to what new features await us in the X-16 tool box. Time will only tell.

It's coming. My guess is in a year or so. Many of the softwares are heading in this direction. On a side... No wonder NVIDIA has a 2 trillion dollar evaluation at the moment. Everyone in this industry may require a hardware upgrade just to keep up with this.

As noted... a layer may not be checked off correctly. What's going on there however is slightly unusual. For instance, it's strange how the terrain in Glass House mode isn't "glass". The solution may be as simple as recalibrating to the default setting for the various camera types under "Technique Options".

Interesting. For what it's worth, the symbol method has always been the 'go-to' in terms of multiple structures within a single plan file. I believe that it frees up the program in terms of speed as well. Auto-rebuilding of walls etc. is minimized. Anyway... glad that this thread was started. Glenn's post is quite insightful. ~ All the best!

Thanks Glenn. Very interesting. Residential work doesn't always require this intricacy. Meaning that that the average user most likely draws one plan only. One and done so to speak. The benefits of this however are quite interesting, particularly when dealing with possible multiple iterations (options) to show the client. ...it's always great to keep learning. Thank you!

This is tricky. If every apartment were fit neatly together on a layout sheet to create the sum total, that could work. So lets say there were apartments A,B,C,D, E etc... Each .plan file has a viewport which is cropped tight to the outside walls and then joined together on the layout sheet. The groupings of the individual plan files on one sheet will essentially show the sum total floor plan of the entire complex. Each apartment can be stored in the layout file as an individual plan file on some other page. (The plans for each unit can then be modified independently). When going back to the primary layout page, the "overall" apartment plan would illustrate the modifications. Not sure if that helps, but it's a unique way of being able to alter each unit.

I could be wrong, but you could draw just one "apartment" plan. Walls, windows, doors etc. Convert the sum total into a symbol. Import the new symbol back to the primary plan. Then it would be possible to duplicate that one apartment many times over, but as a symbol only. It could be placed side by side with other "clones", in addition to being stacked on top of another module. Not sure if that answers, but it's a plausible option rather than having to draw the same apartment umpteen times. What's great about Chief however is that the build floor tool can repeat the floor below as each new level is created.

Alternatively, the initial house design can be made into a symbol. Import the "symbol" house back into the primary plan, but for use in demonstrating texture and color changes only. So in sum... it's conceivable to create a streetscape with 3 or 4 or 5 identical house in a row. Then switch them up as necessary. Example... Model 1: Siding Type A w/ Trim Type A Model 2: Siding Type B w/ Trim Type B Model 3: Siding Type C w/ Trim Type C etc. etc... The important thing would be to create a new name for the siding and trim on each house "symbol". This way, a material change for siding won't result in a universal change across the board with each model. Most importantly, the original structure wont be changed.

Thanks Jason. This observation is spot on. The wall surface label isn't anywhere near the actual square footage of the wall. I probably have the wrong macro, but that said, thank you. And thanks again Mark. I was monkey typing with the label designations. The glazing input was something which I was trying to show elevation view. It does however appear in the schedule, where the surface area can be done with a high degree of accuracy. Really appreciate the tips.

Thank you Mark. I've tried adding "glazing" a variety of different ways within the macro, and glass area doesn't appear. Having said that, I realize that the sashes are resulting in a larger surface total. In any event, this macro provides a rather helpful approximation. Again, this is new to me, even with the many years of Chief experience. %thermal_envelope_area%

Thank you as well Mark. For years I've been ignoring the value of "rubies" and macros. Somehow I wound up going down the rabbit trails of our old forum and there were some posts circa 2010. Thank you both once again. This is a great help.

Excellent. This is exactly what I was looking for Rene. Thank you so much!!

Thank you so much Rene. I have the macro for width x height, and figured that it should be straightforward enough for a label to indicate "15 sq. ft." Unfortunately I'm not adept enough at the macro process to fully grasp how to make this work. But I will keep at it! Really appreciate the tip.

Is there a way to create a macro for the square footage of a window or door? A local building department requires a glass to wall ratio. If the window label could indicate square footage vs. width and height that would be quite a time saver. Thanks in advance if there is such a thing.

The tray ceiling tool can offer varying depths. The required ceiling "niche" can be as minimal as 2" if necessary. What this does however is "drop" the entire ceiling while leaving the floor components above untouched. (If this is for modeling purposes only, then perhaps it's a viable option.) The cross section however will show the newly added ceiling thickness. Option B... Change the "z" axis offset for the custom light fixture. Calibrate the input so that the flange passes through the sheetrock layer. This might require having to "flatten"/reduce the depth of the symbol to get the bulbs to poke through as well.

This is really clever Adam. Meaning the use of moldings. Within 2 minutes I've got a viable column which is extremely easy to resize in plan view. Better yet, it can made into a symbol for future reference as an "adjustable" column. Thank you!

Everybody's got their something. 3D solid for the columns, w/ a molding for the bases. All of the above work. The cabinet idea was clever. Soffits as well.

Good questions is right... I've just begun using the time tracker after all these years, but lean on the plan view for the results. One way to confirm the time usage is by going to Manage Auto Archives. The auto saves should provide an indicator of the starts and stops on the clock. Both in layout mode and plan mode. To lean on the side of accuracy, the majority (if not all) of the work is done in plan mode vs. layout. Those findings should be more accurate.

Yes... sorry for not adding the details. Per Eric... the auto roofing works incredibly well. My guess is that they were manually constructed perhaps, and this is where that minuscule variation can cause a blip. So you did the right thing in using the rainbow icon to highlight the sheetrock which pointed to the wonky roof. For whatever reason, that section of roof on the left side didn't have a clean edge. When the join roof tool is used, right before they join, look for a slight grey highlight. I could tell that the edge was "off' by the way the left roof kind of turned into a big triangle. (Usually a sign which indicates that you shouldn't join them). Solution... deleted the problematic roof, and copied and pasted the good one from the right side. Problem solved.