MarkMc

Not so sure I wasted all that time, at least it kept me amused and I wanted to get an idea of how some of my plans compared. Pretty close . Just checked Larry's famous roof undo plan. Did not check undo again since we went through that (I was ever so slightly faster than him as I recall?). Plan, full overview, and interior perspective open, no layout. Opening DBX for: roof plane, psolid and a couple of other objects were on par with X9 instant; window and wall were just under a second, fireplace split the difference. Went back to Grandview and about the same as that plan. Didn't bother monitoring anything since results were close to each other-not terrible to me but would like to see it faster.

Scott how does your problem plan compare to Grandview? If similar get in touch, if worse you're prolly right. In any case.. I just diddled about on the Sager- took 3 plans I had brought over to X10 and grandview, then kept gpu-z, windows perfomance thing, and CPU-Z open. Oddly one or two of my files were a tad slower than grandview but didn't use as much resources. I had turned off anything extraneous at all when first test them, while I had rebooted prior to running grandview. Plans-H oddly the smallest-20 mb about 12000 ; Z-32mb-28k surfaces; P two plans 8 and 30mb w/ layout 2.8mb,and grandview layout and plan. Ran each one at a time but if layout then that and all layout files. Went through series of views, moved, changed vector-standard-pdb (PBR with full light sets where I had them RCS & bloom off but all else on); opened DBx's, moved roof plane and undo, full overviews with same cycles, send to layout live view, update individual views, opened views from layout...pretty much anything I could think of. Preference-edge smoothing high, horizon ON. Everything possible in my OS is set to max performance so a lot of cute Windows things are off all the time. In short- Only Grandview pegged my processor briefly to 100% and only with PBR on. GPU- only ever pegged for a second with PBR. The biggest changes I saw in GPU were memory and core clock (idle 162 - 1252 and memory usage (208 idle-1613). Highest was update vector live view. DBX - 1 to 1-12 seconds. slower than X9 but not annoying, library no issue. Managed once or twice to get the white screen after switching to PBR but went away after switching back and forth (occasionally 3 times). The only exception was that I was unable to clear the burnt out white screen if I had another PBR open. Memory used hit 6.8 gb but that was with firefox open and grandview moving and undoing a roof plane- (was fast enough) I have not got a clue what it all means in conjunction with what Graham had to offer, but was a good way to waste the morning.

I was rummaging around looking to see if there was a way to improve single core performance (because of Graham's observations). In the course of that I ran across some comparitive information on CPU performance using 3DS Max and Revit. I found it interesting and perhaps more useful than some of the benchmarks stuff I usually run across which often appears aimed at gamers. There is info relevant to i-7 (6th to 8th gen) Xeon, and Ryzen, that I found interesting, might be worth a read. There are a bunch of other articles there and I'm going to go back an rummage around more. Revit Article 3DS article Coffee Lake article I'd think about running both GPU-Z and CPU-Z to understand what is going on with Chief. I agree that the public beta has performance issues and I believe they will improve with final releases (at least hope so), not sure how much is all.

Here is done- likely have to move the invisible wall and cad if you need it blocked_and_made_parallell.plan

If you turn on your ALDO- active layer display-when you select the island you can see the layers, hence the objects- lock the cad and the invisible walls and you can then select and block

Unable to block usually means that you have either text or cad lines selected at the same time. Lock those layers and tray again Can add any angle to the allowed angles in plan defaults, or use transform replicate. Make parallel works best when starting from an orthogonal

Early on I made a shortcut key for rebuild 3d, that helps but I've found that just switching to vector and back to PBR (keyboard each) solves almost all problems (since public Beta I turn bloom off and usually have RCS off), haven't had to delete a camera. I have 3 or 4 for each project and use them live as needed.

The latest Win 10 update made mine worse. I'm going to try and get the patch or uninstall it to get rid of the Intel fix. Have no trouble on my Sager -have bloom off budon't usually

My take- I hope final release performs better-that's a wait and see. I know my little toy spectre runs X9 respectably but really struggles with 10, basically unusable. New hardware is due shortly for both Macs and PCs. I'm personally waiting no matter what. 9th gen Intel and Volta or whatever it is they name next GPU series are both supposed to be pretty large leap. End of year likely for first ones to hit the street. That said the reason I'm a PC is there are more hardware options for less (and I don't personally like the Mac OS) Dont' want to start a war, Macs are beautiful but don't have the same juice from what I see- maybe some really top flight ones or somebody can custom build one. I'd bet that the film folks using them have something suprer?

I don't like putting them in cabinets BUT the alternative can be an issue for some in schedules etc. So here are 3 options 18 DWs.plan I know that's not what you asked but this was faster, someone can give you the how, I've got an order to get out.

Here are a couple - these I are one of the few I use often and currently working with a client could be important (know what I mean There's 3 symbols, the base from the 5300 series with no trash pails, one with 2- 27 qt pails (may not quite sit on the floor and need adjusting, and not quite the right pails but they have no lids which is what I see most often), and another of the same that is made to offset to one side (this one sits at the right height) for use in a sink base. I did not get into fixing it so that the runners stay put in the cabinet- there are limits. (I have to open 2020 sometime in the next week or so and will see what if there's do? but I'm on Version 9 with that-maybe Cheryl could let us know? RAS 534X.calibz

Well, glad you brought it up anyway. At first when you indicated you weren't getting Z fighting I thought I might have made these from faces, checked and no. Just redid one and it now has no problem with Z fighting. I still have to restrict height resize for any. For frameless to go to the front edge I also have to restrict the depth but I may not use that all the time since it's minor and a PIA. Framed, as you show, have no issues with depth thanks to the frame. Similarly edges are not an issue with framed cabinets in vector, only in frameless. I don't remember if I had adjusted something to eliminate extra lines in vector and that started the Z fighting or if it was a problem to begin with. As I remember it was a problem with most of these inserts and had to offset a bunch of them. OR it may be possible something changed in versions since I first did these and posted them "where we can't talk about" Oct 31. I'd filed some reports about these things though not the inside inserts specifically. In any case glad that they are simpler now and will adjust mine when I get a chance. So anyone who grabs these may want to wait for new ones.

Guess you didn't open the cabinets-the "inside finish" symbol is added as a shelf. The other shelves added manually but then for most uses just set as default. Yes there are issues in vector with the shelves at the sides, worse than what you might imagine since the symbol stretch plane needs to be odd to prevent Z fighting that happens on the left side (not the right for some reason?) Since I would almost only ever do this for a closed door cabinet (comes standard with non matching interior) not an open cabinet (most often has matching interior at upcharge) The issues in vector view at the sides of the shelves don't bother me. If I needed both I'd use one of the ones I posted back in X9 which are cleaner but more complicated to do.

Have it your way, if you mean more shelves or split the openings that is pretty easy. I put some stuff over in symbols. Now the vertical splits on the one don't match the interior, there is a way to do that- look about some time last year in there or for Chopsaws video or for Back insert parts I posted somewhere.

NOTE- Michael brought up something and it appears that these symbols can be changed to something a little simpler to handle SO wait until new ones are posted. I'll get to it at some point though not a big priority right now. Course you can take the information in this thread and make/fix your own. Some folks requested having different inside finish than outside finish on cabinets. I completely agree, have asked in the past. I had worked out a hack back in X9 but it was a real PIA. X10 provides a new method that is better. Still not as good as if we could just check it off in a DBX but betternasharpstick... So here is a plan- and a library. A couple of the cabinets in the plan were done for someone over in QA, the one all the way to the right I just dropped in. On that cabinet note that the drawerbox is not only a different material but it is actually built the way 95% of those sold are done nowadays. I think all the symbols in here work right but this comes with no guarantees if you have a problem open one that does work and see what the settings-ALL of the symbol settings are. The only downside with these is if that you need a different one for every height. There is one on the floor plan and also in the library that I use to make new ones. Have fun. Cabinet insides.plan Cabinet insides X10.calibz

Welcome, that was sent in some time ago as well

Yes and no. The attached is done with 4 cabinets, To me it's easier than solids or export and import since imported cabinet symbols are awful. For a schedule I'd either block them and include the block in the schedule (but there are issues with which way the dimensions read for blocks in the schedule). Or I'd only include one cabinet in the schedule, block the 4 together, and use OIP fields to list dimensions in the schedule. (I wonder if the new OIP fields help with dimensions for blocks- just thought of that, bet they do) BTW, did you open the first plan I posted for you?

Yeah, a pia. I have a hunch that RAS supplied only the dwg versions which don't have textures. Can export as dae and alter in SU but the ones I use get to be a lot of work. I already have some in my library from the 3D warehouse (a little better than these) But I don't use all that many RAS ; I prefer Hafele (same problems) or have the factory make what I want (I just make those in Chief) Also, unless something has changed in the latest beta, they resize to fit the cabinet space when IRL they are the size they are. I moved a couple to my user library so I could lock them from resizing.

I use SSD's for programs and have the Chief Data on it, use HDD (7200) for files. Chief and all programs load faster and a bit snappier on the SSD. Tested moving Data to HDD-no noticeable difference, tested moving plan files to SSD-no noticeable difference. So my take is SSD for programs and OS, HDD for storage since those files get written often and HDD hold up longer than SSD with repeated writes (from what I've read but have never had failure of either-knock on wood)

Well for me the baseboard is usually coming from the cabinet company, the room molding is usually not, I use cabinet schedule and not material list. For a lot of remodels where I'm doing a built in similar to the photo the client is not changing existing room baseboard (which may be a different height) Just depends on the situation, your solution is great for many.

Another option if when you prefer to keep it with the cabinetry and not mess with the room-though I would most likelydo the crown the way Eric suggests- just might be doing the baseboard otherwise. Another option.plan

I had not checked your plan completely so this was made with 4" instead of 4-1/2 toe height. I also did not bother to convert your legs to symbols, which I would normally do. In any case here is your cabinet-insides don't match outside- only the toe area at the back is a different color. I'd posted a method for doing some of this back in x9- both making insides that don't match the exterior, and there is a video somewhere. Making the insides different is now easier with X10. In the plan attached are some symbols I made for that purpose- they are inserted as shelves. Something has changed in the latest Beta I think. As when I tried to make the newest symbol I had trouble with stretch areas and such. Note that if those are not fiddled with the "guts" symbol tends to create Z fighting on the left side only. In any case they should work BUT you will almost always need to make a new one if the height is different since they are set NOT to resize in height. Bottom line- I've yet to find a cabinet I could not make and get into a schedule. I even use cabinets to just get parts (valances, legs, etc) into the schedule. You have to go at it with what does a cabinet understand and then how do I give it that. 36 Beverage Drop In Cabinet update.plan

Ilike that idea, especially with how thick fridge doors have gotten and issues with French door fridges. I don't think it's off topic at all. Can't tell you how often I'm handed construction plans where the fridge shows too shallow with an island in front. Once sized to real life the aisle clearances don't work-unhappy client. It matters even when kicking the can down the road.

Even if it has multiple segments it works. just pick a spot around the corner.

With the appliance selected in the DBX hit clear. I made some adjustments to the fridge symbol and the cabinets in Scott's plan. The fridge symbol now is closer to matching the plan view of real life. Set it as a counter depth fridge. Then placed a couple of cabinets at various depths. I usually order these with extended sides instead of extra depth-cheaper and allows the installer to scribe to the wall. Pictures explain why the extra depth. Note that with the current crop of French Door fridges you have to watch the hardware if you have a pantry adjacent to the fridge (usually when building this the way Graham said he does his) since the door can hit the hardware and dent (DAMHIKT). I made the cabinets all full overlay instead of traditional since in the last 15 years I've only put in half a dozen traditional overlay kitchens- all are full overlay or inset. Also opened the back of the cabinets which is SOP. One other thing to watch out for is when working with framless cabinets and trying to use 3/4" panels on the sides. Some fridges spec at say 35-3/4 or 35 7/8 wide, and are that at the front but the insulation has been blown in so that the sides of the box bow out by as much as a 1/4" on each side. That means that a so called 36" fridge will not fit in a 36" opening if the sides are flush to the opening. Gets worse when the floor is off a lot. I've mostly seen this on Korean brands but would not count out any of the others. I realize that it is often said "the kitchen guy deals with all that" (run for congress if you're that good at kicking the can down the road But hey, if it's your client you might want to worry a little about it all. cabinet and box fixed.plan