robdyck

That particular picture has no window trim. The stucco and the stone are finishing right up to the window frame. In order to get a proper stone sill at the bottom of windows, or at the top stone (in this case the same thing) you'll have to make it. I use a molding p-line to place my own stone sills that are sized to match the actual products used (in my region).

That's what I do. You can convert those to a fixture if you find the need. Warning: save a copy of the p-solid before you do that.. You can't nicely edit the fixture. I'd skip the tapered stone pedestal, unless the client insists upon it. Don't forget to insist upon proper construction detailing of the stone pedestal to timber post connection. Those are extremely expensive timbers to let a contractor bury in concrete and have them rot inside the pedestal. I use p-solids for everything here, except the stone capping which is a custom molding I made. You can use a tapered cap from the library, but then you'll have to modify the detail anyhow.

Thanks @Ridge_Runner.

Yes you would! Thanks for the video explanation. I appreciate the effort you put into a response. Of course, I have my drawing workflow structured quite different and possibly it's not the correct format for Chief. I'll try to briefly explain. I have all my section cameras (that will show up in the CD) displayed as callouts and placed on their own layer. In layout, I've used a detail callout to highlight all the locations that I felt details would be required. I did this because it's simple, meaning I can see multiple sections at one time, and I can flip pages instead of opening new cameras and dealing with a model rebuild. Also, this home is very complex, and while there's different ways to organize details, I chose to organize details based on order of appearance in the final CD. I felt that would be simplest for reading the plan. Here's a screenshot of a layout page ( and a closeup) of cross sections with my detail callouts in blue (they get turned to black at completion). All my sections are cameras, not CAD, sent as plotlines with color fill. My details are generally speaking, clipped section cameras, in the same location (plan view) as the section camera. The detail cameras are on their own layer and won't show up in plan view on CD's. In the detail camera, I may include more than one detail. Here's a plan view example, and a screenshot of that detail camera opened. It contains 3 separate details; 1 at each junction. And here's a screenshot of 1 of my layout pages of details. I send that detail camera to layout 3 times, and name the layout box. The numbers on my layout page are part of a template that allows for 12 details per page. I currently have 4 pages of details and I'd like to include an index of details that indicates its drawing #, page #, and reference drawing #. In my layout template, if I decide to omit the drawing that is in position 10, then I'd reposition the other drawings to fill that new, empty space. This is where it gets annoying working with layout. To my mind, it seems I need to be able to classify my layout boxes, and make schedules of them. Long story short, I understand the concept of specific note types and I use it to cover other 'limitations' (which I should post in a separate topic). I'll see if I can sort out a system using the notes. And, sorry if the screenshots are annoyingly blurry.

I suppose I could use my layout callouts for reference and organization only, and incorporate the notes and callouts directly on the sections. Same for plan view details.

I thought about that. I guess part of my problem is that theres so little function in layout and I try to keep section details to reference general cross sections. Ideally, note schedules would be available in layout as well. Or custom fields for layout boxes. To me it seems that each layout box needs to be able to have custom fields. And the ability to make a schedule of them.

Does anyone have some decent ideas to keep track of details? I'm working on a large home that has over 40 details. If I decide that a particular detail, let's say it's #5, is redundant or not required, that means I've got 35 details and their callouts to renumber????? I've been calling out details from the cross sections in layout, specifically so I don't have to open each section view (which is so tedious) in order to place callouts. But there's no schedule tool in layout to make any sort of auto-numbering system. And no linking system from the callout to the detail camera (I like to keep them live) or to the CAD detail (which I use for less dynamic details). This is as bad or worse than the issues one runs into when using room numbers. Surely there is some system within Chief for actual architectural plans?

I design walk-out foundations all the time, and I prefer to keep the basement at the default level, Floor '0'. I find it simpler to keep the main floor at the elevation of 0'-0" and subtract for the lower level. If you're using pony walls for some of the foundation walls, the display options for pony walls work well and provide plenty of options for plan view.

I've made plenty of feature requests that deal with the actual "drafting" of plans. I don't like to complain, but there's a lot of functionality missing on the drafting end, but there's around 50 cabinet libraries?? And not being REVIT compatible is becoming a bit of a problem. I'm worried that while at one point I was ahead of the curve (compared to others in my market), I'm going to be left behind where my 3D software is too dumb to play nicely with others who have true BIM capabilities.

Portions of text; that makes sense. I've alway just used polylines, but I've never 'highlighted' any text in plan view. I typically do this when identifying a particular portion from a table or schedule.

That's an interesting idea, for sure, but just curious, why wouldn't you just use the text fill style for something like that? At any rate, I wasn't specific enough in my OP. I was referring to section details, and the idea of adding a transparent line, as opposed to a dashed line, to 'highlight' a thin layer without needing to explode the layers to create the drawing space to identify membranes, films, etc. like in the example below. This would also require the ability to truncate an individual line separate from the default settings

At one time, wasn't there an option to add transparency to a line? Is there any way to do this now without drawing a polyline? A heavy line with transparency essentially acts like a highlighter and is a great way to identify 'zero' thickness layers in wall assemblies, like vapor barrier, for instance.

You can replicate your stairs and change materials and settings to get the desired end result. I've made complex spiral stairs (but not quite as complex as yours) that way using multiples of the "same" stairs, one stairs just for treads, one just for the stringer, one just for the railing, and so on. They can be group selected and converted to a fixture if needed. The spiral stair makes nicer curved than the 3D molding IMO.

You can "save" a plan view, and you can "save as" for a plan view. If you don't have the tool on your tool bar already, just look for it in customize toolbars.

I certainly debated that option. I used p-solids for timber lookouts with a profiled end-cut. I've also got rafters, posts, beams, architectural blocks of timber trusses, an so on. Of course if I convert to fixtures, I can't edit the end cut and there could be changes to the design. I'm currently using a customized note schedule. It's laborious, but I feel like I'm forced to pick between the two, and I guess I've made my choice. Simply accessing more properties from p-solids would be nice.

Is there way to make a schedule of polyline solids? For example, several exterior trim objects created using p-solids and on their own layer. It would be handy to be able to create a schedule of items on a particular layer set.

I just completed some renderings with B&B on every wall. The correct look requires slightly different spacings to achieve correct centering at windows, doors, gable ends etc. I used the material region technique mentioned, and did every wall separately, provided 8 different versions to the client all in about 7 hours. I needed the shadows to look correct which means a 3D object as opposed to a flat pattern. It's quick if you want it to be. In this case, the budget for my work was predetermined so I had to deliver acceptable results while still making $. Below is 1 of 40 renderings (8 versions of 5 saved cameras, each with different solar angles and lighting).

I know how to make them perfectly using Chief's tools but it's way too complicated to describe in a post. I'd jump all over Joe's offer, unless you work for under $10/hour:) and don't mind spending a whole day on it! You'd feel like a genius when all you have to do is import a perfectly fitting symbol!

That too. In my area, I need to show percentages for several items: -building area (as defined by our building code) -building footprint (as defined by local zoning bylaws) -impervious site coverage -glass to wall area ratios on certain elevations (relating to fire codes) -percentages of finish materials (as required by architectural review boards) and more...

In the walls dbx, General Tab, check "foundation wall". Structure Tab, check "bearing wall"

Does anyone know of a way to get an automatic percentage calculation for something like site coverage? I have macros to display the area of the site and footprints of the structures (using polylines), but I also need to show the percentage of coverage. I hate doing this manually because I'm human and I occasionally enter a typo. The same thing applies to other parts of a plan, like displaying the percentage of windows on the elevation of a home, or the percentage of cladding types. These are just a few examples of where percentages need to be shown for permitting authorities.

use a ramp to make the railing. You can manipulate all of its settings to get the rail where you'd like and keep the actual ramp invisible.

They're nothing special. Just CAD lines that you'd assign to their own layer with their own layer style. You'd use them to establish a story-pole of often and consistently used dimensions. Example (for cabinet elevations): start with a line at your finished floor, copy at the height of the toe kick, the countertop, underside of wall cabinets, or light rail, underside of range hood, top of wall cabinet, top of crown moulding, underside of finished ceiling. You can build it once, with dimensions or elevation markers and copy and paste it into each cabinet elevation. Then add supplementary dimensions as needed in each elevation (ie: the underside of a vanity desk). Using the drawing order tool you can choose to have these lines on top of, or behind the elevation drawing. I typically keep them behind and use a medium light gray dashed line with a heavy line weight. I like to make sure the lines are visible on the left and right side of the elevation view.

Absolutely. Ever since saved plan views became available. Really helps to focus your work to the actual drawings you'll be showing in layout as opposed to messing with things in the model that ultimately will never be seen by anyone. And each time that you make an improvement, then export and save those layer / anno sets to a folder to add to your templates.

I figured I'd show the difference between Chief's handrail placement versus a code compliant handrail placement. I've put a request in to Chief to allow us to specify the offset of the handrail. In the screenshot, the 'y' bracket I placed is the minimum distance from the wall according to the National Building Code of Canada. If we could specify the offset, that would simplify the process and allow the visualization tools to match real world requirements. Curious if anyone knows how to get Chief to connect these handrails? It can't be easy because Chief currently doesn't draw handrails on walls following stairs correctly. Chief holds the handrails' height as the specified distance in the 'z' axis meaning a 2" rail doesn't measure 2" perpendicular to its direction, but holds it as 2" vertically. Hopefully this also gets corrected soon.