robdyck

Show the sheet, double click to open

Holy Cow! No doubt you're confused! Maybe delete 90% of those... At any rate your trouble is you have more than one type of dimension set to auto-refresh. I blame Ken Suffridge, a no-good trouble maker for sure!

Have you adjusted the scale of your drawing sheet to coordinate the scale of the detail? The line weight will adjust according to the scale of the drawing sheet and many people don't bother to adjust this. In the screen shot, the heavy line is 1/4" scale drawing sheet, and the light line is 1 1/2" scale drawing sheet. It's the exact same line, with the exact same settings.

You can group select all the needed rooms to make the change (-12"). And of course, you'll need to adjust the roof as well. I'd do that by making a copy using the transform / replicate tool to make a copy 12" lower in the 'z' axis. Then, drag the roof plane side for length adjustments.

It has nothing to do with that. Here's your image with ceiling planes that match the pitch of the roof. All I can say is don't keep trying the same thing and expect different results.:) I'm suggesting the ceiling planes for a reason.

With A 4:12 vaulted ceiling plane. Having a ceiling stops the light bleed from coming through the vented soffit and the untaped drywall corners!

A few things to consider for PBR views: reduce the backdrop intensity to around 500, adjust the sunlight to around 1000, use a light set for each camera. For the great room, I'd suggest adding a ceiling plane. And use a backdrop with a nice view to the exterior. Don't use a 0 thickness layer for ceiling finish, just edit the ceiling material and use 1 layer.

I agree. The tool itself is great, the visual presentation of the model is horrid. Especially interior surfaces; almost impossible to see where one surface ends and another begins, unless your design has a ton of contrasting colors.

Turn off the electrical layer, it makes a noticeable difference. That cuts the surface count in half! If you want exterior electrical to display, put them on their own layer. Also, don't use the 'concrete' fill pattern for large items (like a driveway or foundation walls) in plan view. These fill patterns will slow things down. Instead use a solid color fill type.

Also, if you're going to show shadows in your elevation views, you need to adjust the sun angle. I'd suggest you "Use Generic Sun, Sun Follows Camera".

It's probably because you're using a Line Drawing technique with shadows on. Switch to a Vector View, then send to layout using Plot Lines. It does seem to act buggy, but still, you really shouldn't use the Line Drawing technique for elevation or section views.

I refuse to use Chief's auto deck framing items for any components that I need to show accurately. I usually need to place beams, post, and piles. For this, I have a group of these items blocked and in my library ready to use, set up to suit the code requirements for the regions I draw in. There's no point messing around with the auto garbage for decks; Chief gives us plenty of tools, some are sharper than others. The auto deck framing is a toy, not a tool.

If you are doing a structural deck plan for permits & construction, you'll need to make manual edits. If it's just for visualization, then probably best to make manual edits. You may be able to force them in the direction you want (automaticallly) by adding some invisible walls. Experimentation!

I agree.

It's not invisible, it's just really bright! If you post the plan I'll take a look and offer some suggestions.

My advice wouldn't be technical but rather practical to deal with the issue as-is. I'd suggest removing every layer that you can handle removing from the display of your section views. All cabinets, terrain, electrical, furnishings, etc. that doesn't pertain to the structure of the building. Of course, that may not be acceptable to you.

Several versions ago, Chief did indeed use the logical fascia height, that is the top elevation of the sub-fascia. There also was a time when one could group select roof planes and make an adjustment using the fascia height, which currently remains greyed out for this type of function. This issue has been raised and suggested repeatedly, but for some reason we are stuck with one data point that indicates a finish material as opposed to the actual structure. Currently there is no way to alter this. Rather one must specify elevations based on the Baseline Height or Ridge Top Height. Keep in mind that for a Baseline Height to be utilized correctly, you must be aware of where it located in plan view. Side note: finished fascia and shadow boards should build OUTSIDE of the roof plane line, or at least we should have that option.

I'd be happy to discuss how I could help. I'll send you a PM with contact info.

Awesome! Glad I could help.

No offense, but there are a quite a few problems with the roof planes. You may continue to have issues with modelling if they aren't corrected. One example: of course, this may quite accurately model how it is framed!

@Stingray The roof plan rebuilt correctly when I got rid of an unnecessary line segment. Select the roof, the click on the tool pointed out in the image below.

Paint the incorrect soffit material with the material named "Use Default". Delete the incorrect roof plane. Copy the correct one using the "Reflect About Object" tool, and select the ridge for a perfect mirrored copy.

Yes! Line styles without text and a legend to help identify them. Otherwise...you could reduce the size of the text to the minimum appropriate for the scale of your drawing. I'd suggest that if you're printing at 1/4" scale, you could use the line style for 1/8" scale and it would be adequate (0.05" text). I'd still add a legend, though.

I use CAD details at all assembly junctions at 2" scale or 3d illustrations. These can be re-used across various plans. For your purpose a single line can not have a transparency, and if the line weight gets too heavy, a custom dashed line may need to be created. OR a polyline can be used with an invisible line style and a transparent solid fill.

For stone on the foundation I'd suggest using a material region, or pony walls.