robdyck

Just a little tease, huh? Show us more! Looks like a great project!

Depending on the type of final docs you need to present, a lot of thought needs to be given to how you'll model / draft it. I'm working on a project with a fair amount of timber frame posts, beams and trusses and I can tell you that IMO P-solids are the most stable and flexible for designing the timber components, however if you need them in a schedule, you're out of luck. You'd then have to use a note schedule for that. If you're client wants exposed timber framing, it'd be best to decide ahead of time if you want it exposed to the exterior, interior, or both. I definitely recommend keeping the posts / beams separate from your exterior walls though. Do you have a bit more info on the finished style you're considering?

Bob, if you could post your plan and layout and we'll try to help you sort it out.

Hey Charles, It is a nice looking plan, but it's not mine, It's Levis' (see the OP). And that door you're referring to is a door opening under the stairs, correct?

Also, if you have any "live" section or elevation views, that'll slow things down to a crawl. Interestingly enough, on color sections or 3D views, a live view doesn't generate as crisp a line as 'plot lines' but it does at least color inside the lines, whereas 'plot lines with color fill' can have unpredictable coloring results.

Without a posted plan, my only suggestion is to close everything, restart your computer, then try again. I've experienced similar crashes and a restart certainly has helped in my experience. Also, if it doesn't reduce your quality too much, reduce the DPI to 300. That'll make a huge difference. Also, I'd never use the watermark function. I feel it slows things down. I just place my own as a CAD block or picture or text, on its own layer.

I knew you had a reason and that makes complete sense. Hope it didn't come off as critical. I gotta say, one of the reasons I (jokingly) picked up on that is because I've seen far too many floor drains that end up being way too high, often so the cement finisher can use the power trowel right up to it, instead of having to hand trowel around the drain.

@LevisL I've also gotta say great work on that plan! Very nice job. I did notice one thing: the cement finisher has a built-in excuse for ponding on the concrete floor! (just joking of course). You probably know this but the approx. symbol is (alt247) ≈ FWIW

Every now and then you get lucky!

Open the roof plane that has the missing ceiling, STRUCTURE tab, uncheck "Use Room Ceiling Finish"

I had the same thing happen recently. The wall surface below my railing partially disappeared, quite randomly. Unfortunately I can't post this plan as it exceeds 200MB (and I don't have permission). I'll take a look at yours if you post it. I've had a couple of bugs that I've reported and Chief wasn't able to come up with a solution. This may be another bug.

Thanks Joe, that's quite logical and would be quite simple to apply to an existing template for a builder's plans where the different layouts may not vary significantly. It's not much different than what I currently have setup with fixtures or cabinets for example, I've just never done that with the room boxes. I'll give it a go and see what I think on the next one! That being said, do you or others see value in the idea of a 'room painter' or eyedropper type of tool? On a custom home design, if the client asks for major layout changes, wouldn't it then be nice to simply drag in or paint the new room types?

That doesn't work as a method to define rooms if you already have your layout complete. For simple plans, I rarely turn to the Space Planning function. And resizing the room boxes would negate the efficiency I'm suggesting. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that currently, a CAD block of frequently used room labels would be the simplest method to identify spaces for a set of plans as described in the OP. I may have to add the 'room painter' idea with predefined label characteristics to "Suggestions".

I'm aware. In an earlier post I mentioned that I'd only do this as a time saver for 'builder basic' homes where no one sees the model. Those types of projects I also price at a lower rate for volume builders who aren't interested in any of Chief's bells and whistles. That lower billing rate prompts one to start looking deep for time saving methods. Obviously decks and attached garages would still get their double click, however the rooms within the home don't really affect anything, do they?

That's what I was thinking about doing. Do you use rich text or standard text? And here's a thought: if I need to have room labels in the library, why not have a library of the actual room names, and just skip the room definition? For many house plans, where a client won't be viewing a 3D model, there's not really any reason to define the rooms, is there? Just thinking of saving time on repetitive tasks for builder basic homes.

All good ideas! Not quite what I'm looking for. On a slightly different note, here's a similar repetitive task: Resizing the room labels for small rooms. I suppose one could save a blocked room label of different sizes and then drop them in, but that's hardly automation. Powder Rooms, Pantries ,Walk-in Closets etc. I reduce their size on every single plan I do. Am I missing something really simple here?

I was thinking more along the lines of a quicker method to define all the various rooms in a house. Like quickly dragging the "Room Type" from a pallette. If you multiple select, let's say 3 rooms to be bedrooms, you can't choose their Room Type all at once. If the drop down menu could be something like a floating pallette when you need it, you could just grab and drag (at least that's what I'd envision)!

Is there a method to 'drop-in' room types? If there is I'm embarrassed I don't know about it! It'd be so quick to drag and drop in the various room types after the walls are laid out instead of double clicking each room to open up the dbx to define it.

I had an instance similar to this that required site built glazing within the members of a timber-frame truss. It was at a gable end so I used a custom wall type to represent the glass, and my timber truss was a p-solid that was in the same location as the wall. That way, there were no frames or sashes visible. It is an expensive construction method. The same process could be used to show factory built windows by adding a 3d molding in (elevation or section view) around the spaces of the timber truss to represent the sash, frame, jamb-liner etc. Then, by using a separate layer for those moldings, it's 1 click to show both options.

Interestingly enough, I get opposite results from a 3d molding vs a shadow board and neither miters correctly.

FWIW, I'm in Medicine Hat.

Interesting and helpful to get multiple viewpoints on this. To be honest, I switched because I was running out of space on my layout page and the 2d symbols took up more real estate! So far it's 2 to 1 in favor of the 2d symbol (and I was a bit undecided) so I'll probably revert back.

Can you provide a bit more info on the product you have in mind? Maybe a website, picture or model #?

Valid point. What if the key note symbol is id'd in a legend? Do you or others feel that's clear enough for plan readers? Or just stick with those 2d symbols?

I agree that it's probably not worth the effort depending on the amount of notes in one's schedule and if you're absolutely certain as to how much space is available for your schedule. Here's what I chose to run with: No border, gridlines in grey. I'd like to hear what you or others think of this appearance. Perhaps a topic could be started just to discuss and share styles for things like this.