robdyck

Select the rooms that have the cantilever floor, open the room specification dbx and under the materials tab, change the materials for 'cantilever underside' to 'insulation - air gap'.

Rod, it only became a problem when I started switching to full color plans. Some of my clients prefer the full color option for the additional context it provide to trades and suppliers. The color fill offset is rarely a problem, but when it happens it's kind of gross to deal with. I haven't been able to recognize any pattern for when or why it happens, so I posted my workaround in hopes it would help some who are dealing with the same issue.

Richard makes a great point. You'd probably be better off removing all drawings that indicate structural elements and outsourcing that work (which you can add a markup to) to the either a draftsperson or engineer, as required by the appropriate jurisdiction. Indicate in your general notes the engineer of record for the project and that those drawings shall accompany your drawings and that either set is incomplete without the other. Sometimes looking after the engineering yourself is beneficial and profitable, other times, best to let the client do it.

I'm experiencing more color fill issues and wasting enough time dealing with this that I could just about learn a different software program. At any rate, until Chief fixes it, here's my workaround: -2 matching cameras sent to layout -camera 1(elevation or section view), sent to back, live view, all lines settings turned blank -camera 2(elevation or section view), sent to front, plot lines, NO color fill. Still a complete waste of time and energy and disk space and 2 layouts to update with each change, but at least it doesn't look like a 3 -year old got a hold of your pencil crayons. And you gotta love the support system of mailing letters back and forth to each other while the days tick by and your clients wonder where their drawings are...

Perfect. Thanks to those who replied. This is a large garage with several rooms. I'll specify each room as garage type and change the names as needed. That should take care of it.

My description of my labelling issue doesn't tell the whole story. The mentioned entrance is an entrance from the garage only to the the exterior only. It's essentially part of the garage, just a separate room of the garage, and so only an interior door is needed. The actual make and model of door is really not that important as the client will select it at a later date. For my purposes, I don't want it in the exterior door schedule.

When using a door schedule, specifically a separate schedule for interior and exterior doors, is there a way to tell an interior door to be an exterior door and vice versa? Example: a door between a finished garage and an entry serving that garage. Right now, it relies on the room types and the door between these two rooms shows as an exterior door, when I'd like it to be an interior door. I'll probably have to change my garage room type to an interior room type...

I use this layout method all the time. It's not as bad as Bill's but I'd prefer it dead on as well. In the attached jpg (made from the pdf of the final plans) I have very acceptable results.

I did open up a support ticket and I'll post the results when I hear back.

Has anyone experienced the cross boxes for diagonal truss members displaying backwards in section view? If so, any fix?

No simple way. You'll need to grade in between your main established points using the grade percentage in between. Easy on a rectangle lot, a bit more work on an irregular lot. Just replic ate your established grade points (separately) using the correct x,y,z, info and you'll have it. In my screenshots the established data points are metric which makes it way more fun. One less step if you're in imperial...I add elevation points every meter.

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.