robdyck

You can add that railing right from the landing, but the handrails will probably not connect.

I'll show some screenshots from a simple example. Plan View: On the 2nd floor, the roof baseline has been set at 109.125 + 16.875. Section: Attic rooms have a 3.5" floor structure & no floor sheathing. Bonus Rm has sheathing over 2x10 joists. I've manually added the sloped ceiling planes. Build roof trusses. Manually adjust the truss profile where needed. In the truss detail, manually add the 2x10 bottom chord.

I'd suggest using a wall (no room definition) with a wall cap. Use CAD lines and arcs to create exact geometry for reference and snapping. Work on one side of the stairs only and copy/reflect about the center when complete. Draw the wall at an angle. In section view, manually lower the top of the wall to be parallel with the rise angle. Then, in plan view, curve the wall and set it's radius to match your CAD reference arc. Use the point-to-point move tool to align the arc centers. For the stairs, first add and shape the flare and I'd also make sure winders is checked.

I'm not sure that Chief has ever had that function, but it sounds like it would be a good option to add next to the Open View function. For CAD details, you could consider placing each detail in its own CAD Detail view. This can help you organize and use the details with specific naming, scaling, and view cropping and centering in layout.

If it affects the model, then in one form or another we could assume it's still there. Did you accidentally place it on an non-displayed layer instead of deleting the wall? If you can post the plan file, I could take a look and let you know what I find.

And change all the building materials, hardware, fixtures and appliances, etc.? https://vdc.aareas.com/?beaverhomesandcottages#/alpine-sc This app functions extremely fast and has a lot of options. It's not just an orbital viewer. Just imagine trying to change all those materials on the fly during a live design meeting in Chief. You'd need to do a lot of setup to get even close to operating this quick and seamless.

The company providing that service is listed in your link and in the bottom left corner of their views. You could contact them for pricing, but one could assume that you'd have to have sales on par with Beaver Lumber or Brookfield to afford that type of service. https://aareas.com/

The grade level elevation setting has been moved to Plan Defaults.

For walls, you can place the cladding on its own layer so that you have the line control you want (wall specification dialog). This is NOT available for roof planes.

I made a request for this type of function during the beta round. A revision entry in layout will auto enter the current date and retain that date. We need the same function for plan issues and probably a few other categories.

If you examine the Wall Settings at the bottom of that dialog, you can choose which layer of the wall assembly is used for dimensions.

I prefer to start with an elevation or section view and plan the curves out with cad lines and polylines. Then, I'll know the proper dimensions, elevations and radii before I draw the roof planes. Using construction lines will be helpful to also provide some guides in plan view. Draw 2 roof planes, one or the bottom curved portion and one for the upper curved portion. Set the top and bottom elevations of each roof plane and assign the proper curve. Connect them to each other and to other roof planes. Copy / reflect these to the opposite side of the center line.

Agreed! From my previous post: I've had some more complicated projects with multiple foundation wall types or multiple foundation floor elevations where moving everything up a floor was practical and helpful. As for the bakeoff, competing on number of steps never crossed my mind...no foundation pun intended, simply what makes the most sense for all parties who are actually involved. And I am ALWAYS interested in exploring and discussing new methods to see if there's a better way of doing things. BUT, what one person finds to be simple, another person may find confusing and there's room for that, right? Drafting standards and graphic representations vary by region (and sometimes by builder). And I adapt my plans to ensure a builder and their trades have the information they need in a way they can understand and that is reasonably familiar to them...at least that's what I aim for. In summary, I don't think there's really a one-size-fits-all approach to foundation plans. That hasn't been the case in my own office. Each project has to be evaluated on its own conditions and there are a lot of factors involved to determine and implement the best methods to achieve the desired end product. And I would agree that posts in a forum are not the most effective way to have a thorough discussion.

All I can say right now is that experimenting with no room definition changes the lines in unexpected ways. If all those footings are 'no room definition' I get this: Changing interior footings to 'no room def..' gets this: Spec the room as unexcavated gets this: