robdyck

Thanks for the complement, I appreciate it.

yes, yes. https://cloud.chiefarchitect.com/1/pdf/documentation/chief-architect-x15-update-notes.pdf

My first preference would be a material, however for more realism, I would create a wall type with 2 layers. The outer main layer would horizontal framing, the inner layer would be no material or vertical framing. I'd place this on the lower level and assign it to it's own layer with no room definition. I would manually adjust top and bottom heights. You will need to adjust the bottom run elevation to be low enough for the lowest board. You can use another wall as a fence to create a trim board that follows the terrain. Just make it a railing wall with only a top rail and assign it's height to be 5.5" or whatever you need.

FWIW I would NEVER give out a file for use with the viewer! Never have, never will. This puts way too much information into the wrong hands! This conversation inevitably leads to the need for visual improvements to the online 3d Viewer.

Yes it does, however you can really help yourself out by changing the default camera settings. With virtually no effort, you can greatly improve the appearance which will affect the perceived value to your client. Here's an example of something I produce for clients regularly. This is my most basic level offered and is very inexpensive. https://www.instagram.com/p/CrEhPk3Pe1E/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Ditto. This is exactly how I approach it as well.

After cleaning up wall definitions and alignments, I built the roofs use auto-roofs. I then copied the troubling roof plane in place and edited the 2 roof planes to achieve the correct eave modelling. The roof plane cleanup took about 30 seconds! To achieve this, I had to overlap the 2 roof planes. The walk-in closet roof had to extend to the garage wall main layer which requires turning off special snapping for that plane.

The eave issue you are seeing is directly cause by the 'higher eaves boxed' setting. Chief is carrying the boxed eave across from the walk-in closet wall. Obviously this shouldn't happen so even after cleaning up the plan, this is worth sending to TS. That being said, the easy fix is to manually model the soffit by the walk-on closet or use 2 separate roof planes (even though they are co-planar) and hide the plan view line with a CAD mask. Auto roofs with flush eaves works fine except for one place: Boxed eaves work fine across the entire roof. Boxed eaves with 'higher eaves boxed' works fine except for one place: Flush eaves and higher eaves boxed works fine except for the same place as above.

Doug, I think this has something to do with your wall types. I can tell you 2 things for sure...Chief doesn't do flush eaves right all the time and Chief doesn't handle ICF walls well when all layers are shown. I would suggest some quick experiments: make a copy of the plan file and replace all the ICF walls with typical construction to see if the problem persists make a copy of the plan file and adjust all the ICF walls to use a single main layer that is the entire thickness of the ICF form. See if the problem persists. same as #2 except no flush eaves when doing the above, ensure all your walls align from floor-to-floor. There are too many alignment issues. when doing the above, ensure all main floor and attic wall use default top bottom elevations. Of course, you'll need to ensure the walls are located where you want them because there will be changes when re-defining a main layer. Following these steps, you should see a noticeable improvement using auto-roofs. Once that's done, turn of auto-roofs and proceed with cleanup and adjustments. They should be minimal at that point. My advice would be to leave the display of ICF layers for section and detail views.

I set those wall to default heights which help with some things but the lowered eave went away when I unchecked 'higher eaves boxed'. Obviously this creates other problems...

There's some pretty great materials in this catalog. Thanks!

You could draw a polyline around it and use the Edit Area tool.

If you know the square feet needed for the pad footing, you can simply divide by 2 to get the edge length, no?

A couple of options that may help would be to place elevation points where the existing contour lines meet the property line. This will still give the overall effect of the existing, unmodified landscape at the boundary while allowing you to modify the terrain to suit the new building. Alternatively, you can cut the existing elevation lines for a set distance around the building allowing you to modify the terrain at the building to create positive drainage. The technique you choose is somewhat dependent on the amount of modification you need to show and how gentle or dramatic the existing terrain is.

Hey Ed, what Chief did was to consolidate that function into a single layer set, as opposed to having it's own check column for every layer set.

Umm, I guess so

Further to what Gene mentioned, you have to build the floor for floor 1 using the 'build framing' tool. This requires that the foundation walls have the sill plate option turned on and sized. If you have manually drawn the floor, no sill plate will be built.

I've used an orthographic overview underneath a plan view, with a customized layer set just for displaying certain information on top. You can send the overview to layout at your desired scale and then simply align the 2 views using the point-to-point move tool. One of the nice things about this method, is that if the camera is saved in your template plan, and if you have a layout template for this purpose, relinking the views is quick and simple.

It usually gets worse as the plan file progresses to completion. At the beginning, there's no problem. But then again, who edits / places notes at the beginning?

I don't but I have always found that text notes slow Chief way down on my system. I still use them but sparingly. And while I can't prove it, I assume it is because of how frequently Chief is rebuilding the model and every 3d item that gets rebuilt, makes it slower. Generally speaking, I have 2 sets of text notes in my plans, only on the elevation views. Chief works much faster if I delete them all. So naturally I assume others must experience something similar at least some of the time...

I take it you don't feel that the 3d aspect of text notes make Chief slow enough for you? I wish for the opposite...I'd like Text Notes to completely lose their 3d function, or at least have 2 separate types of text notes.