robdyck

build a room using railing, walls, or room dividers as needed, then define the room as "open below"

It's important to understand which will be simplest to convey the options to the client. If the terrain is more complicated than the structure, it may very well be beneficial (to you) to convert the house to a symbol to aid the client in the decision making process. That being said, a simple solid that is more or less the shape of the house would serve that purpose without slowing your computer down the way complex symbols will. If you start converting these complex items into symbols, you almost certainly will wish you had separate files as opposed to several repeats of the same symbol in one plan file. That would slow my computer to an unbearable pace.

Exactly. Super easy to show various site positioning options. Convert to a symbol and assign a new layer, like "Terrain Perimeter, Option 2". Once the client has signed off on the site positioning, you can move any CAD, text, dimensions, etc necessary for the site plan into the 'new' final position using the point-to-point move tool. Just place some temporary points to help with accuracy.

For this type of scenario, I create a sub-folder in the project folder, then copy and rename the plan and layout file as needed. Yes, if you need to use the 'new' layout file, you'll need to relink the layout boxes. I'll make copies of the plan as often as necessary in order to keep other plan versions which, like you alluded to, may become relevant again. Once the project is completed, I'll delete the unused files if they're of no further value to me. But to your original question, you could use layer control, and saved views to show an optional building placement. Remember, you move the lot, not the house!

'cause that's where it is. Logical, that's all. Also, it's easier to distinguish from another object that is in the same location in plan view. BTW, Solids built in elevation view will generate in plan view based on the floor you're on in elevation view, which of course is usually floor 1. 2 ways to control that: toggle the floor in elevation view before drawing a solid ( I usually forget to do that) OR copy the solid and paste-in-place onto the correct floor in plan view, then delete the original. As for the layer, I always expect that the 'working view' is not the layout view or final view. So, when I use a solid for the exact same thing as a material region, or any other object for that matter, I keep them on the same layer and that layer would not show up in a final plan view. I do that just to reduce the chance for my own error in display. For an exterior alteration, I usually simplify my wall layers just to speed up the 3d views. That means no building paper, no drywall, no interior casing on windows, no floor coverings etc. Anything I can get rid of that won't negatively affect either my 3d view, or the type of final drawing I'll present is eliminated.

Bill, I think the problem is the stub walls for the arched build-outs. They are creating a room that is undefined, plus they are occupying the same space as a solid. I placed a cross box to mark the location of the build out (just to maintain the dimension reference), then deleted all the build-out walls. Problem seems to be solved. Unless you need all the construction layers of the material regions to generate a materials list, I'd suggest getting rid of the unnecessary layers both for material regions and walls. It'll greatly speed up the 3d views.

Good tip. I certainly do have that configuration in this plan. Once I know my roof is complete, I'll uncheck the 'auto' and see if that cures it! Thanks!

They build correctly if I uncheck "Automatic Height". This is odd.

Has anyone else seen a bug like this? The lookouts are being positioned plumb as opposed to being aligned with the roof structure. I will be sending a bug report.

@rockyshepheard Hey Rockney, I took a quick look at your plan. The problem you mentioned will almost certainly go away once you have your rooms defined. That 'artifact' is due to the 'hole' that was in the floor, as opposed to a defined room (Open Below). Just draw railing around what I assume is the stairwell, define the room, and delete the 'hole polyline'.

Of course you need to balance what's efficient for your fee structure versus the permitting requirements. In my region there's a massive disconnect between what builders want to pay for plans and want included in a set of plans, and what permitting officials want to see on a set of plans. Here, it is quite normal that many pages of a full set of plans never make it into the hands of the trades or suppliers, but stop at the permit desk. But, to your point, I'd keep my spec's and notes on the plan set, and not in a separate page format. I find it to be a real time waster going between 2 different layout sizes, then different pdf files.

A few more options could be given within the dbx to aid in modelling these windows. -first off, there should be a jamb liner option that is separate from the window frame. The jamb liner would mimic the frame but to the interior only but would follow the opening only, not the window units. In the past, I've replicated this by using a pass-through window or door in the same location as a 'troublesome' window (just for better control of the casing). -we should be able to specify the depth of the frame at the mullion. Currently, the dbx for mulled units leads us to believe we can control it, but then we realize that the mullion Chief produces is separate from the frame. -we could use an option to add an astragal or other trim molding to cover the mullion.

Can you post screen shots of your printing process, or a screen capture video of the process? It'll make it easier to troubleshoot.

Great tip to eliminate that stringer line on elevation / section drawings where concrete steps are used!

Here's the plan for anyone who wants to use / modify it. I'm going to keep playing with this to see what I can modify to turn it into a symbol that doesn't mess with anything else. Bay Window.plan

I've made a bay window that properly matches a factory built vinyl bay window. So what's the best way to be able to reuse this work? Do I attempt to convert it to a symbol, or an architectural block? Is it simplest to just save the plan, and then group select and copy the items from there when I need them in a different plan? It has a lot of different parts: Pony walls, windows, solids, moldings, 3d moldings, exterior corner trim.

One other benefit is the quickness when a slight alteration is required. Its easy to replicate everything a uniform dimension and edit the affected portions of the new detail. Of course, I agree that when a new detail is complete, it's a good habit to place it in it's own CAD detail.

For me, I only place the details in a template if I KNOW they'll be used, for example, a layout template with details for 1 specific builder who maintains their specs for all projects. Where I work, every builder has different specs and many of them change specs on different projects which makes detailing a laborious task.

Do you find it easier to 'search' them when they're all on one screen? Otherwise, you would just create a CAD Detail for each drawing, and name it to match the detail, but then you'll end up searching by a list instead of visually.

An idiot like myself is just gonna type what I need! For example, mechanical room equipment labels, I just typed them out and made a block of the text and saved to my library of text items. Why...Because I don't want every other fixture on a basement plan to have its label on. Sure it doesn't use the program's ultimate capabilities, but it's dead simple. Each user needs to decide what works for them, but it seems like label layer capability would be a welcome addition to the feature list.

For residential drawings I NEVER use the terms 'north' 'south' etc to describe a building's elevation drawings. I only include a North Arrow on site plans and it does indeed point North. On site, few people know where north is, but everyone knows where the front is.

As far as I know, currently we are unable to specify layers for labels.

I can't get this to work (the way I'd like) because my windows have 'frames'. The frames remain along the mullion and aren't affected by the "mullion depth' settings. If the frames are removed, then the thin mullion can be made to disappear, but not using a value of zero. Also, removing the frames creates additional problems which affect the accurate sizing and appearance of the windows, the display of casings, and some control of materials. Example: to replicate the removed frame, the casing reveals need to be adjusted (faked). On the exterior, a negative overlap to simulate the frame size, means the face of the frame takes the exterior casing material, instead of the exterior sash material. It also means you can't properly replicate the depth or thickness of the window frame. One of the challenges in modelling this is that many types of windows (in real) have 2 separate components that Chief uses the 'frame' to represent. The 'frame' which wraps the sashes and is part of the structure of the window is different from the interior 'jamb' or 'liner' which can vary in its depth based on the wall thickness and provide the finished surface to the interior of the window.

You can't remove that. It's super lame.

Chances are its on top because of the order in which it was placed in your plan. Furniture objects will all be in the same drawing group by default. Simply use this tool to place it behind the other objects. Or specify the drawing group in the 'Layer' Tab of the dialog box.