robdyck

The tool you initially referred to (Edit CAD Block) will ONLY edit the 2D representation of the symbol; it will NOT affect the 3D view of the symbol at all. If I'm correct, I think you were hoping that would be a simpler form of size adjustments than using stretch planes.

You are wrong.

That is correct. An who cares about that line, really? No one else but you will notice it...probably:) You probably noticed in Michael's video, but at least you can get rid of the angled 'stringer' line by setting a large stringer distance below the tread.

No, but I will now. You got a couple of kick-ace CAD tricks up your sleeve! (No I'm not from Boston) Thanks Michael!

This is exactly what I was referring to. Think of all the different types of stairs you may have made over the years. A decent way to access them is to place the ones you'd like to keep in a warehouse plan. Then, a simple camera overview can help you browse for the ones you'd like to use. This can be much simpler than going through all the settings in the stair dialog. Summary; style pallets for stairs would be awesome. I was also illustrating that a simple p-solid concrete step can be easily altered to a more complex shape. I used the solid subtraction tool, then exploded the faces to be able to change the tread material. Super quick. Using Chief's tools, you can also quickly model concrete steps including formed voids for accurate volume material takeoffs of a very complex shape. A handy thing if you are in close contact with the individual forming the step (which I did for myself when I was building steps). I do it for me, because I'm a caring person.

I notified tech support about this issue as soon as SVP's were introduced. The solution (for now) is to switch views by double-clicking the SVP in your project browser INSTEAD of selecting the window tab.

If one really wants to model concrete steps accurately, you'll need to understand all of Chief's tools as well as your contractor's construction preferences. Many of my customers use site-built cast-in-place concrete steps with a tapered nosing. When / if I need to show the full meal deal, I'll start with Chief's stairs, then use a p-solid over top. A ramp or a railing wall can be used to show decent aluminum railing. Here' I've pulled back the p-solid concrete step to show Chief's stair underneath. This one uses a ramp for the railing. You can block some of these and add to the library, or you could make a warehouse plan file and copy stairs and other objects into that plan for future use. Here's the same concrete step showing an exposed aggregate tread similar to what's available from many precast suppliers.

Exactly...because nobody does an imperial house plan calling out dimensions in fractional inches. I honestly want to know why it's so complicated to get elevation data from the model to report as feet-inches throughout the plan. There's what...maybe 5 Chief users in the world who can do this? People can down vote all they want but accessing elevation information for consistent use throughout a plan should be simple and this particular long-time Chief customer expects it to be so. Currently all we can do is: use this information for our own reference, and then type the correct format into a marker or text box, which can lead to typos or other errors pay one of those elite 5 to write a macro which will probably work, most of the time, (Evaluation Error doesn't look great on a completed plan set) show the fractional inches letting your customers know you're a bit lazy, and don't really care about the finished product. I've happily paid for some macros and my hat's off to these users who can and do provide this service, but if we're being honest, some of those macro services just shouldn't be necessary. @Alaskan_Son provided me with a great macro that reports the elevation information (imperial - relative to top-of-main-floor & metric - geodetic) in elevation and section views, but every foundation crew and excavation crew I've ever met wants foundation elevation changes shown in plan view. Top-of-footing and top-of-foundation are critical and all we can do is look at the information that's just teasing us, and then start typing. I use the available macros in a text box on a reference layer that does not display on my final SVP (the bright pink text). So close it hurts!

One might think that elevation data within the model might work when used with...wait for it...an elevation marker! What a concept. Meh; now that I think about it...that's just silly. It's not like this information is needed on every house plan.

A person could (but wouldn't of course!) swear a blue streak trying to get this information to display in plan view using an appropriate number format. Like so many things in Chief...it's almost useful! Somewhere there's a former (or current) Chief employee laughing their ass off at us.

You wanna know what else is weird with this macro? The arrow doesn't have to have the head attached, it just needs to touch the wall. This global macro can replace the old "Special Use" arrow to identify footing elevations! Sweet! Now if only Chief gave us proper control of the number display this POS could be properly useful...maybe just maybe a few more versions down the road! Then we could actually use this to call out information instead of just to find out information that we then need to type into the plan.

No plan posted, so we're in the dark here, but does the roof plane with trusses run underneath the framed roof plane? Or do they join at the valley?

So you're to blame...

Hey Mark, my old (2 years) pc had the same graphics card you have and I couldn't generate ANY 3d views in X13. I had to spend 4K on a new machine to be able to use X13. I chose to go high enough to get really quick PBR-RT views. I take it yours i working with X13?

It looks like the wall material is producing a sheen from the recessed light above. It's just barely visible in the X12 example. The lighting and some materials are being rendered quite differently. Makes it tough to predict the outcome.

Because you didn't post the plan!

There certainly is. Just don't show furring as framing!! For those who insist on attempting to model framing as accurately as possible, be prepared to do a lot of additional work. Chief provides good, basic modeling for basic material takeoffs and visualization. What Chief does not do is provide accurate wall framing details automatically. These will always require user input. The fastest way to change the layer of most of your furring is in plan view, using the Framing Set of layers. Select one furring stud, then use the match properties tool to select all others with similar properties. This will trigger turning off auto framing, and it will not select horizontal framing members which are not shown in plan view. Another method may be to use a customized framing material that is partially transparent, however this won't really clean up any rendering technique that uses lines. I'd suggest that for anyone whose plan sets don't actually include wall framing plans for each wall, accept the fact that Chief cannot read our minds and does not have a setting for all the different scenarios that exist. For those who like to work for free, and waste time at the computer as opposed to doing something valuable with those minutes or hours, keep calm and carry on! It's also worth noting that for those attempting to show the framing accurately, you may also want to come to grip with the fact that you may think it's accurate but you've got a lot of things wrong anyways. But I digress...

Further to this topic, it may be worth noting that adding under-slab rigid insulation that does NOT cover the footing (and provide a thermal break around the slab perimeter) would generally speaking not be considered good building practice as it misses the point of continuity of insulation by a painfully small margin and in some regions would not be compliant with building codes.

There is no way to do it automatically. You can set the rig. ins. to be in the floor structure then manually drag the bottom of fdn. walls up to u/s of slab OR you can manually create the insulation using the slab tools.

I feel for you. Like the insects, every solution leads to multiple problems!

I can only imagine how many more can fit in there compared to vinyl siding gaps, for instance! Footings might need to be larger to carry the additional weight.

In X13, symbols in the user library will not retain the setting for Auto-Generate of the 2D cad block. I have many symbols with an assigned cad block that doesn't remain. Now, I need to place the symbol in plan view, and if it will be a stretched item, I need to reset this for the symbol in Plan view each time it is placed from the library. Is anyone else experiencing this? This particular symbol is a closet shelf with a closet rod (with mounting brackets) using a cad block that I created for it for a simpler plan view display. In previous versions, the 2d cad block setting was retained in the library.

Did you get it figured out?

AMD used to kill my productivity. Nvidia only from now on. That being said, X13 does crash a lot even after spending a $#!+ ton on a new computer. My take: X13 has some great features...but it's expensive!