robdyck

You can't change a staircase into a ramp, but you can create a curved ramp with the same specifications as the staircase that was used. You could possibly make the stairs look like a ramp by messing around with custom stringer settings or custom railing settings. That would probable take longer though.

This slight color issue is one more reason why I wouldn't send images to a pdf. I gave up doing that a long time ago, because of several issues relating to outcome and time efficiency. Instead, I recommend using a shared album from one of many available apps. This is fast and easy to share, reduces file size / storage, creates consistency in image output (for you), and allows faster image replacement through design development. If I had no choice in the matter and was being forced to use a pdf to share images, I'd simply tell the client that any perceived color issue is related to various screens / devices. But I just don't have time to tweak and fuss around endlessly.

From what I can tell, the point-to-point dimensions tool stops functioning when (in this case) you try to dimension to a point on a line that is within 0° to 0.5° from 90° or 180°. In your case, the lot line is at -90.173755°. If that line was angled at -90.5° or further, the tool would work as expected. I would suggest you report this behavior. The solution to creating these dimensions (using point-to-point) perpendiculat to the wall instead of the property line is to stop short of the property line, then select the point and drag it ot the property line. The End to End dimension tool will still function as expected, but it creates dimensions perpenciular to the property line, not the wall. Obviously you may have your reasons for your dimensions, but generally speaking, the dimensions from property line to the building would be created perpendicular to the property line. The end to end tool does this well. EDIT: the behavior I first noted was how it appeared upon intital testing. Further testing yields varying results using the point-to-point tool.

In this album, the vanity rendering is the only image not rendered with Chief. Everything else is rendered with Chief.

Maybe @solver can shed some light...

@jtcapa1I'll jump in even though I wasn't asked! D5 is simply a better tool for interior renderings. That doesn't mean that it is always siginficantly better or even necessary, but there are times where the improvements are worth using. Here's one example. In these images, I wanted to explore the close-up render of one aspect of a scene. The most notable improvements were in the mapping of the materials. Notice the curved marble molding, the vase, and the brass faucet. In D5, these just work! In Chief, the molding and vase will not map correctly. Chief X16: D5:

Would this work for you?

This topic has been discussed in sveral posts, but I thought I'd share this recent render by Microsoft CoPilot: From this: To this:

A plan file maybe:)

Hey Lance, I'm not sure exactly why that's happengin, but I'll share my settings. I'm not experiecign that issue, although I am still getting 2 temporary dimensions even though it's set for only 1.

Awhile back I had made a feature request for an elevation line that would allow different heights at each end and with straight line interpolation along the line.

Hey Jim, I can't get anything to work with a shaped window.

To set elevation lines or points in an even ascending or descending grade, simply use the transform/replicate tool and include the z-axis elevations. It may be helpful to calculate the slope percentage before performing this task.

@Chrisb222That's pretty sneaky!

If the higher window is wider, I will place it on it's own layer so that I have line control. If this higher window cuts the wall's main layer (where there would still be some framing below), I will fill those areas in with CAD polylines with a lighter fill. I place these windows on their own layer because this provides line style control which is too limited if you use the vertical stacking option. Because we have more than just the plan view to convey the structure, I really don't worry too much about if it's perfectly clear at a glance. It's not too much to ask the plan's readers to look at every drawing in the plan set, and even to think a bit:) Here's a recent example:

There are 2 possible settings to adjust wall stud spacing: Automatic Framing Defaults>Wall Wall Type Definitions: adjust the framing layer to use the default setting for universal control from Automatic Framing Defaults or assign a stud spacing specific to that wall type. By default, in at least some of Chief's template plans, at least some exterior walls do NOT follow the Automatic Framing Defaults. In my opinion, a template plan should be set up so that exterior walls DO follow the Automatic Framing Defaults.

I'd suggest that you explore the Orthographic Full Overview camera, then select 3d>View Direction>Top View. This will display the pattern used for the material. To adjust the pattern lines, simply edit the material (if needed). Experiment with rendering styles and toggling color / shadows, etc.

First thing I'd try is unchecking 'Roof Over This Room' in the lower pop-out room. Second thing I'd do (if that doesn't work) is add that layer to the floor structure specification for the balcony.

This would require manual modelling as there are no soffit settings on a 'per wall' basis. You could either use multipl roof planes, or a single roof plane with manually modeled soffits.

I did a quick experiment. While my cad block lines were exactly drawn corner to corner, I got similar unexpected results at each corner for the relationship between the center of the line and the center of the muntin. Upon inspection, I can see that for these muntins, the cad lines represent the top edge of the muntin. So, I can adjust the cad lines to move to the top edge and re-load the muntin. First Try: 2nd Try:

First, try setting the camera Tilt Angle to 0 and then inspect both views. This will result in the least amount of variation between the 2 views. The difference in the backdrop postion is due to the Index of Refraction of the glass material. A different refraction value will also affect the appearance of the position of the backdrop.

If you ensure that the deck is built on the floor above the roof planes, then you should be able to avoid this issue.

@Renerabbitt Hey Rene, thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail! Your effort to reply in video (not just to myself) is always appreciated!