robdyck

You can also convert your arrow to a spline for a more hand-drawn appearance.

Ahh, metric (sigh). Not many canucks jumped into this one but my experience with metric isn't fun. Some province require metric plans which means showing both units, which takes more space (often you run out), and require different offsets to accommodate two line of text. Then there's the site (plot) plans which are for the municipalities and these are all and only metric. Again, requires a custom anno set to dimension. No big deal, except for all the area conversions which need to be done manually. Then there's the window area calculations on the home plans which is specific building code info so more manual area conversion of glass to wall ratio. Then there's the energy efficiency calculations, again, referencing specific building codes which requires showing R values and their metric equivalent RSI, more manual calculations. All not a huge deal, until the client starts making changes towards the end of the project, and then a 5 minute changes turns into 2-3 hours of weeding through every affected manual calculation / conversion, while you sit and watch your wage plummet...How much more could be accomplished if it was only one? The numbers of metric seem simple on the surface, but it falls apart on site. The segments of feet and inches make for simpler math because the metric units are usually imperial conversions. Most guys on site can find the center of 24'-6 1/2" easier than 11 594. Now if that was designed in metric and the measurement was 12 000, no problem. Just like the window schedule above, a metric built window isn't 5' wide, it's 1 500 (like it is here in Canada). Simple right? Try using all metric windows in an imperial plan and you'll have mess soon. But if you don't, you're framing model is not exact (if it matters). Using both costs me at least one full day for each set of plans. It'd be worse if I had to produce framing diagrams with the correct window sizes. But you do what's required, and you try to do your best at it.

I've made my own objects for glass railing. P-solids for the glass panels, and standoffs. You've only got to make them once, and then you're good to go. I did exactly what Perry suggested, and made symbols / arch blocks for each standoff, bracket, etc.

Preferences / Edit / 1st box

WhistlerBuilder, I'm curious as to how much of the extraneous modeling you had to provide (like trees, plants, roads, curbs, exterior furniture, etc). I do my own renderings for clients marketing purposes, and they certainly do gobble up the time.

You'll have to make everything yourself. P-solids, 3d moldings, etc.

I'll add one. Here's my most recent rendering.

Not a frustration share, but rather I was wondering if someone else had a solution to this using Chief's settings. There's been times where I've built my own soffits using ceiling planes, p-solids, or 3d moldings. I've only done this when an accurate rendering has been required by the client. Otherwise I clean it up in layout. The plan is posted.. helgeson 2018.zip

This has to have been discussed in length somewhere, but I couldn't find anything. I've got this problem on every plan, so it's either the program or my roof settings. The soffit won't miter accurately. There's alway a small wedge sticking out where a boxed gable soffit meets a boxed eave soffit.

There's no 'button' to click to reverse a freize, base, or crown molding. You'll need to create a CAD drawing of the molding in the reverse state, and add it to your library, or draw a 3d molding that gives you more control.

I hear what you're saying but in the image you'll see why a white line doesn't work. I do everything in color.

The whole view.

This is only a year late, but here's a portion of my version of a 'pretty drawing' in a reasonable time frame. It takes several steps, and a combination of formal drawings, camera views, and transparent fills, and, oh yeah, not one of Chief's default settings for anything.

None of our business. I'd suggest getting it close, than making the adjustments manually, then clicking 'retain wall framing' to lock it. It can take longer playing with Chief's settings to try to get it 'right' than doing it yourself, but then again, I don't know what your end goals are. Is it just for visualization or do you need to produce framing diagrams for this wall? I do have a couple of other suggestions (that you may already be aware of so forgive me if it's a moot point): -use the grid to layout your plan accurately on x and y axis. Or turn it off. Locate ZERO and move the whole building so it starts (bottom left corner) there. This will place your studs and rafters more accurately seeing as there's no framing reference marker used. -dimension accurately. No framer (or anyone else) wants a wall that's 24'-11.48893746" -if you're producing a framing diagram of the gable end wall, the framing should be symmetrical from the center. It's easier to cut sheathing to fit the wall, then have different sizes of mitered studs.

Your window method intrigues me. I've played around with developing my own window symbols but haven't had the time to complete anything. That would really help with accurate modelling as I do a lot of my details in 3D.

Thanks Michael, I figured I'd need to do that. That's how I make folding glass walls ( like Nana Wall or Panoramic Doors) appear accurately.

Does anyone know how to show a door in elevation view without an opening indicator. Example, a fixed sidelite as part of an entry door unit. I currently just delete the line with the 'edit layout' tool. Obviously this little task has to be repeated...

I believe that in the framing tab for the o/h door, if you set the bottom R.O. to match the slab depth, then the slab will extend to the foundation walls exterior layer.

Exactly. However, perhaps GDB means is that he doesn't need to draw 'how' to build the cabinet; but rather just 'to' build a cabinet. In that case, I wouldn't waste time trying to get to technical with the drawing unless I know the cabinet builder in questions is actually needing those types of details. Like Michael says, to draw it 'exactly' you have to know exactly how it gets built. Then you need to find a supplier who agrees with you. Typically the drafts person is no longer involved at this stage of a project...

Otherwise, you'll need to build a symbol, or literally build the cabinet with p-solids and place the door as a freestanding object

I'd probably use a typical rectangle base cabinet to get the correct door width at the front. Add partitions as panels to surround the back of the island, then I'd draw a polyline with solid fill to cover my fake cabinet. That way it would look correct in plan view, elevations, and renderings (except for inside the cabinet).

Open the foundation wall dbx, go to "Structure" tab, check "go through floor below".

Generally speaking, yes. There are several factors that come into play, obviously, however I discuss it with the builder and/or client and then we decide together which path they'd like to use. Most people will choose to go prescriptive because (generally) it is the cheapest and simplest way to comply with 9.36. There are no limitations on glass area, which is helpful from a design point of view, and the extra costs are spent on insulation, instead of paperwork (the extra costs are almost identical). The upgrade to R-22 fiberglass batts for above grade walls is about $250-300 per house (Medicine Hat) and the increase from R40 to R50 attic insulation is about $250 (Medicine Hat). It also means I can finish my plans in a more timely fashion, as I don't need to wait for an Energy Advisor to have their input and possibly make changes late in the design stage.

Gerard, have you opened the Nvidia control panel to make sure that Chief X10 is using the graphics card, and not the processor?

Not to be argumentative, but that's not entirely true. A qualified energy advisor is only "required" if a performance path is the compliance method for section 9.36. You can specify everything yourself if you follow the "prescriptive" method. I am aware that many designers outsource this as well. I've had no trouble with providing the proper information on the plans for a "prescriptive method" through many jurisdictions in alberta, and in BC.