kylejmarsh

Could be furniture, cars, other objects that are driving up your model size. Chief does get laggy when you get into big houses. I've complained about this before but you really can't be too critical here or you get a bunch of downvotes.

How do you like the 3d mouse with Chief? Which one did you go with?

I typically stack a Plan View and a Top Orthographic view to create these - the plan view can add things like room names and dimensions, while the ortho view can show textures, etc... Also you'll need a translucent rectangle between the two because the ortho top view comes in too color-saturated.

I suggest making a CAD DETAIL page called 'site plan' or whatever to import the cad file, then you can pick through it and use the parts you want. I always flatten it to a single Chief layer so it doesn't add a bunch of stupid layers to my nice layer list, but that's me...

Like beams? check the ALDO to make sure theyre displayed. then check their heights maybe theyre too high/low

Correct. This would be a simple courtesy to their SSA customers, and allow them to gut-check their boardroom decisions with those who actually use the software every day. Seems like good business to me

This is a great trick I never knew about, thanks for posting. Do you think we'll ever get a chance to define the muntin profiles? Most good window companies allow you to choose a profile for these items - it's minor but seems like something that could be an easy add

Makes sense - so 'Elevation Region' gets used, but not the 'flat region'. So basically we can use: Elevation Region - for flat areas. make sure 'interior is flat' is checked Elevation Line - used for defined areas of elevation, like along retaining walls and foundaiton walls where the elevation should appear even. Also used on roads/driveways in the way you've shown to make a flat but pitched item like a driveway Elevation Point - used for everything else. Often a survey will come back with elevation points that you can use to match. Other settings: - Flatten Pad turned off - Low Smoothing for Terrain Seems about right.

Great suggestions Mark3D - that was a very helpful graphic! I've been wondering how to get driveways to do it correctly. How do you get flat regions? Just two parallel elevation lines?

I disagree about the Elevation Points. You can put one at each corner of your house along the foundation. Then, you make your 'fill' for the terrain perimeter a grid of 20x20, and put one elevation point at each grid intersection. This is how the surveyors do it it seems - plus their data usually comes through in points. I almost exclusively use points and elevation regions - terrain breaks and terrain walls completely eff the model not worth messing with. Use polyline solids for these walls. Also forget about 'flatten pad' that is your enemy. Here's my crash course to a somewhat workable terrain model. I wish Chief oh mighty Chief would bless us with a full suite of functioning terrain tools but until then, these work to hack it. 1. Your basic toolbelt: 2. Notice the polyline solid terrain wall - it's not the CHief retaining wall tool because that will drive you nuts 3. remember to label your elevation points Something to note - on this plan I just did the generic 36" subfloor to terrain in the terrain perimeter dialog - but on most projects I'll find the actual elevation data - around here it's about 900' - and I'll set my floor height 'above terrain' which is (actualy above sea level height) then useful to the civil engineer for figuring out my true floor heights. Then I punch in the actual terrain contours from the site plan and put them at their actual number. This gives an accurate terrain model. If my civil engineer can give me data points, I convert them (or re-do them) to elevation points in the model, and viola! everything lines up and I have some fair bit of control.

This could be an interesting read, maybe has something about the high art of gazebo design, which I'm sure some are quite richly adorned: https://www.amazon.com/Gazebos-Architects-Peter-Joel-Harrison/dp/0963620525/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=architecture+of+gazebo&qid=1597114757&sr=8-4 Here's a nice description "by Peter Joel Harrison. Gazebos : the architects" and builders" companion : the most elegant and useful designs of gazebos and other slight structures in the most fashionable taste : consisting of belvederes, follys, garden temples, gate houses, pavilions, tool houses, tea houses, summer houses)"

I like to use Line Style renderings for my concept sets - and have noticed that when i use them the backgrounds print out black. This when I have them set to 'live view - update on demand' I export using the chief pdf exporter - then open in Preview and the backgrounds look white - then I print and they're black. I have checked the background of the line style viewports, and have even specifically set it to a 'white' background. In the chief menu, I have selected and changed all my window and colors to white as much as possible even, and no change. When the pdf is exported from Preview, after the export from chief, and made into JPEG files for each sheet it will print correctly. Trying to figure out what's going on - pretty sure it's not my printer - and i've tried printing from other PDF readers and no dice. Also, if I print from the 'mac print dialogue' and use the native pdf exporter, the files come out without the black background, but there are other issues (different thread I suppose). My hunch is that it's somewhere in the chief achitect PDF converter, maybe specific to mac computers. Anybody else having this problem? It has been posted about before but never saw resolution. Miller - Concept Layout Cover Test.pdf Miller - Concept Layout - July21.pdf

Sorry if I came off like a ****, think it was a rough day - anyway I'm not saying I know what good architecture is (I certainly try), just that it does exist, so does shitty architecture. And that there are rules to creating harmonious proportions, more than just stepping back and squinting your eyes a bit at it. The fact that there is so much horrendous architecture around us speaks to the lack of any understanding (or even care) about creating beautiful (or even nice-looking) buildings. I'm somewhat discouraged by the position that 'well all architecture is as good as any other architecture'. I think if you are honest with yourself, and avoid the knee-jerk reaction that everything is relative, or that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' which is the philosophy of nihilists, and admit that there is such a thing as good design and that it takes effort, knowledge, and attention - you would do yourself and your clients a great service. The most recent resource I've gotten into - and which makes me feel like I mess absolutely everything up somehow (but in a good way) is called the oldhouseguy.com . Here's a great example of a thing everybody 'forgets', which doesn't add any cost to a house but adds a lot of character - the Frieze board. I started spelling it Freeze on my drawings because I figured the builders didn't know how to pronounce it (I was right) and so were leaving it off. Since I changed the spelling I haven't had a single one try to skip it. Not that it proves anything and is a tangent, but is worth noting. The more I learn about historic home design the more I realize just how much knowledge and expertise was baked into these old 'simple' houses our great grandfathers built all over the country. So I've decided to learn more about that craft, instead of just taking it into my own hands - and since doing this the quality of client, and the size of my fees has grown dramatically. You can do what you want, but in this way knowledge has really shown itself to be power - in the form of professional competence.

As people who are supposed to be professionals, it's sad that many keep steering their clients toward houses that belong on mcmansionhell.com - to be sure, I don't agree with the blog authors politics (probably SJW etc) but ironically, she's advocating a return to principles of true Architectural design instead of the shoot from the hip make it up as you go along copy from some online plan version that many people seem to be doing these days - people who are probably consider themselves Conservative but throw all consideration for tradition out the window when it comes to architecture - just because some client has a vague idea they want a 'triple gable' or whatever. There is a beautiful architectural tradition stretching back thousands of years, but we seem to think there is nothing it can teach us - throwing it away and taking the law into our own hands - no wonder there are so many horrendously ugly houses built everywhere these days. Architectural menaces abound - but you don't have to be one yourself! I said it before - read through Get Your House Right at least once so you have some basic idea of traditional home design. It's not a hard read. Your country will thank you for it - and clients will beat a path to your door. Speaking of which - back to work!!

Certainly not the be-all end all, but unless you understand the concepts presented and discussed within, you are likely just an architectural menace making unforced errors everywhere. If you want to 'break' the rules successfully, you first need to know what those rules are. Another useful resource I've just come across is the oldhouseguy.com website - it's a fun one with a deep rabbit hole to go down. Finally, I resent you comparing this design to something that would come out of Wright's office, it just shows how little you know of him and how low regard you hold everything he did. Even he made many errors in his architectural experiments - however he got a 10% commission, was often on site supervising, and made builders tear-out things he didn't like the look of - at client expense. He had total control of the project. And unless that's how you work, probably better to stick to the Architectural patterns and designs which have been tested, studied, and perfected by our predecessors.

Unless you're matching an existing house, you should avoid these fascias - looks to me like something an amateur would do. Get a copy of 'Get your house right' and read it - then you will have what you need to offer an informed alternative when a client brings up something like this. Also solver is correct, it's part of the shadow board option on roof plane

This is typically the correct answer from what I've found. You can use general framing members and multiple-copy them too but the polylines give more control

Just tell them no. As if the 'nested gable' disease wasn't bad enough, it's metastasized! It's possible your clients have terrible taste - better to provide them some alternative worth building. If you have never read 'get your house right' it's time.

Great tip. I just was going crazy wondering what was going on - I deleted all the temporary points that were created when I was messing with the roof, and now the snaps work. Must have some kind of internal limit on how many snap points the program can handle. Thanks!

Thank you!! Heck yes I have been fighting with this issue for a long time on many projects - appreciate the help!

What's the best way to get my wall framing in check for a pitched ceiling/truss heel? The problem is it keeps pushing my top plate up above where the truss bearing should be. I have verified: Room ceiling height correspondes with the top plate elevation I want. Ceiling plane starts at the correct elevation to plane out with the top plate if built into the truss. Here it is for the flat ceiling vs. pitched ceiling - why does the framing jump up like this? Have also tried 'balloon through ceiling above' and 'stop at ceiling above'. No change with 'stop at ceiling abv' but here is 'balloon through' - it actually drops everything down but too low to be accurate.

Probably. Yes I've emailed back and fourth with them about it back when X11 was coming out I did the beta test and it was present there - never got resolved but I've learned to deal with it. When I combined a bunch of toolbars into some bigger ones, reducing the number of toolbars, it seemed to help with how frequent it happens. Having/knowing about backup toolbars is key otherwise you literally have to reconstruct your toolbar every time.

Not interested but I would advise against using stone on just the front - it tends to look fake and IMHO is the mark of an amateurish designer. Better to use all that same amount of stone and do a stone skirt with siding above. The problem is, people see buildings from more than one viewpoint - and as soon as you move around the corner you see that it's just fake thin veneer and it loses the effect. Stop stone or change stone heights at inside corners only.

Working from a copy: But warning: if you try to work from a copy without FIRST grabbing one of the toolbars (doesn't matter which one) and dragging it to become floating, it will just mess up immediately again. Sucks but can't really do anything else from what Iv'e found

Yes I've had this issue for a few different versions of chief - it's not really fixed, but I have a work-around. When using my toolbar, I have my 'reset' toolbar, and always make a copy to have as my active toolbar. Then when it messes up, you have to go grab one of the tool 'docks' and drag it off the toolbar so it's floating - this seems to break the mess-up - then you can go and make a new copy of your reset toolbar for the active toolbar. Hope that makes sense. some other things you can do - arrange your toolbars with less individual/small tools arranged, and make big long toolbars with lots of stuff in them - I think the issue is related to the organizing of the toolbars, so having less has seemed to make the problem happen less. Another thing was there were some missing tools in my toolbars - I deleted these and recreated. It certainly happens less now (once a month perhaps) but still does it occasionally - I manage. One last tip - make sure all your toolbars are turned on for all the different types of views - this actually helps in the time-lag between swithching from 3D - 2D - layout - cad etc - just make all of them the same toolbar. Cheif's original toolbar layout is really bad. I put all my 'objects' on the left panel, my navigation (up/down floors, left/right pages in layout, layer/annoset drop downs) along the top of the page, then have all my camera/snaps/etc off to the right panel. I once sent chief an email about helping them redesign their layout, but obviuosly never heard back.