rlackore

Here is my HardiePanel stuff: HardiePanel.calibz Smooth - Stucco - Cedarmill The diffuse maps are grayscale, so you can easily apply colors. The 4x8 panel is created with a bump map, and the texture with a normal map. Not perfect, but not horrible.

I don't believe that CA has a suitable automated tool. I suggest either a Polyline Solid, or a Custom Countertop. There are many ways to create what you want. You can look them up in the X9 Reference Manual available here.

Firstly, the view is flat - shot straight on to the front elevation - so it can be difficult to stage. The color palette is also challenging. Here's my brief attempt: Most of my changes were focused on getting light and shadow to work for you: 1. I added accent bands to the stucco (what I assume is stucco). 2. I fattened the stucco thickness by 1/2" and carried the wall materials around to the side walls. 3. Lots of material adjustments. 4. 3D shrubbery and trees. 5. I made the wall caps wider. 6. Selected garage door panels that have a realistic profile. 7. Select a background and adjust the camera and site materials appropriately. 8. Raytrace with ambient occlusion, environment light, photons, and focal blur. Good luck.

I'm still on X9, but maybe X10 still has the Merge button in the Plan Materials dbx?

I think the relevant point is that my 12 line pattern file isn't missing anything - it functions perfectly in AutoDesk products, and AutoDesk developed the format. I have several pattern files that work fine in AutoDesk applications but fail in Chief. Whether CA farmed out the "pattern interpreter" work, or licensed a snippet of code, I don't know - but the problem is clearly on their end. ; ; French Limestone by rlansing ; *FRALIME, French Limestone 0, 0,0, 0,48, -16,24,8 0, 0,8, 0,48, 16,-24,8 0, 0,16, 0,48, -8,32,-8 0, 0,24, 0,48, 8,-16,24 0, 0,32, 0,48, -8,24,-16 0, 0,40, 0,48, 16,-32 90, 0,0, 0,48, 8,-16,24 90, 8,0, 0,48, -8,32,-8 90, 16,0, 0,48, 16,-16,16 90, 24,0, 0,48, -16,16,-16 90, 32,0, 0,48, -24,24 90, 40,0, 0,48, 24,-24

Awesome, though it should only take 12 lines. When I submitted a tech ticket with this issue I was told that nobody at Chief understands how pattern files are written, so I guess we can't expect them to troubleshoot or fix the issue.

Does Drawing Sheet Setup allow you to revert to the previous settings?

My preferred method (as a long time AutoDesk operator): 1. In Plan, turn on the Layerset for the view you'd like to export. Make sure it's displaying everything you want to export. 2. Select File>Export>Export Current View (DWG,DXF)... 3. In the Export Drawing dialog box, you have important choices: a. Compatible Version. Make sure you select a version that the architect can import (ask him what version/flavor of AutoDesk software they are using). b. Layer Options. - Select the Layer Set you've tweaked to display what you want to export (this was step 1). - DO NOT select Split Wall Assemblies Into Layers. This option creates an unholy mess for the CAD operator. - Select Export Only Displayed Layers. c. Other Options. - Scaling Unit should be inches for sharing with an architect. - Select Create Associative Dimensions. - DO NOT select Export Pattern Lines. This is another unholy mess. - DO NOT select Export Filled Areas. Yet another mess. - Select Export AutoCAD Index Colors. This is probably the single most important option. Absolutely do not forget to select this option. 4. Click on Export, etc. Done.

According to the OP's first post, Wall Coverings is what she is trying. If you use a Wall Covering for each individual element (including the mosaic strips), you have to create a separate material for each element to control the pattern/texture origin (making sure to account for the thickness of the finish floor) - and that's a lot of work. But, if it's important enough, it can be done, and works well with openings:

Yes, sure. And there are more important issues Chief needs to fix, but in the quest for an accurate model, a window sill should be modeled with reasonable accuracy. The wall opening that is cut should be based off the cross-section of the sill profile - not the sill profile's bounding box. (There are several instances where Chief gets lazy and uses bounding boxes to determine things instead of the actual geometry of the object).

I'm not running interiors, but it should be there? Otherwise, shoot an elevation, draw the shape with a polyline rectangle or CAD box, then select the shape and use Convert Polyline>Convert To>Material Region.

IF you don't have any openings to deal with (windows, niches, doors), using a molding polyline can work: The advantages: 1) each tile section is a separate molding, and the tile pattern will behave; 2) it's easy to control the height and placement of each molding; 3) molding polylines can sometimes be easier to work with than material regions; 4) it's easy to wrap around corners and to copy/paste between rooms. The disadvantages: 2) it's more difficult to make work with openings.

Eric, thanks for posting an X9 plan. Your less aggressive sill slope (7 degrees) and fatter wall (4" masonry cavity) results in a less noticeable bottom gap in the wall opening. For the OP's wall - an IRL brick sill slope of 15 degrees and a 1" to 2" EIFS thickness - I believe a molding polyline is a better solution if accuracy in Cross-Section and Ortho/3D views are important.

Oh, placed in plan. Obviously, that's what confused me about your post. Since I can't open X10, I can't see the profile.

Can you clarify? 1. You can change the materials in the dialog boxes, but the changes you make don't appear in an 3D view, or 2. The program won't open the Select Material dialog box. In other words, is the program not providing you the opportunity to make material selections, or are the material selections you are making not appearing/applying?

Yes,. apron is unchecked.

Eric, I can't open X10. But, I'm confused - in this post: you imply that you're not using a molding polyline, but in your second post you state "I placed the profile just in front of the window". Which is it: a molding polyline with a profile, or a profile specified in the window dbx?

Eric, that doesn't look like any sill I have in my default Library: The problem I can't solve with Chief's sill is that if I use a profile for a brick sill as built IRL (15 degree angle), I get a gap in the wall beneath the sill (presumably because Chief uses the profile's bounding box to calculate the opening, not the actual cross-section depth of the profile where it intersects the wall): Have you found a way to overcome this?

Chief won't do this for you - their window sill functionality is woefully inadequate for cases like this. If it's important enough, you can use a Molding Polyline. The added difficulty with an angled sill is that as you raise it into position you have to account for the bottom edge of the wall opening poking through: ...and when you raise it enough to obscure the wall edge, it will intrude on the bottom of the window jamb, so if you really want it to look nice, you need to thicken the bottom jamb so everything appears even all the way around the window: Good luck.

I think the best solution is for Chief to modify the Wall Definition dbx to allow us to define multiple sheathing layers, then we can have both the osb and the rigid treated identically. Also, the soffit should stop at the sheathing layer, not the main layer.

In X9 I get the sheathing stopping at the soffit: ...but, maybe there's a checkbox or other setting I'm missing.

This isn't a fancy fuselage shape like Michael gives you, but it is a cylinder, and it does give you a floor to set things on: submarine.plan The fuselage is made of curved roofs. The room is defined with invisible walls. There are several compromises with this approach (I can't get the floor to show up so I drew in a polyline solid), but there are advantages also (a floor to set things on, for example).

I used to define it in my wall layers as a gap, like this: Now I don't bother with separate exterior wall layers; instead I define a single-thickness exterior wall layer (includes sheathing, cladding, etc.) and use a "wall key" with details to illustrate the various exterior assemblies. This keeps my floor plans a bit more readable, and I've found it easier to change the detail when the project conditions change rather than mess with changing the wall definitions.

I realize my answer didn't actually help you solve your problem. Here are a couple symbols that may help. Lithonia SSS square straight steel pole with 4" shaft: Lithonia SSS.calibz. The symbol is a 10' pole, but the stretch plane is set up to allow any height. Lithonia KAD-LED area luminaire: Lithonia KAD-LED.calibz. The symbol is the head only - you have to insert it and position it to the pole (offset from the pole base to the pole shaft is 2-1/2"). Lights are included to approximate a Type III distribution, 4000K color temperature. You'll have to adjust the light lumens depending on the mounting height to approximate your desired footcandles at the ground. FYI, 250 watts worth of LEDs is about 20,000 lumens (my picture approximates 35 watts and 4200 lumens). Good luck.

Chief is ill-suited to accurately representing lighting. If the township needs a visual photometric plan, most manufacturers provide IES files and other resources, but obviously you need to lock in the manufacturer, lamp type, output, spacing, mounting height, distribution, etc. Chief won't do any of this for you - you either need specialty software (some manufacturers provide this), or you need to hand-jamb it the old-fashioned way with isoplots. Does the township have a dark sky ordinance? What is the allowable footcandle intrusion on adjacent properties? What is the minimum required illumination on the ground? These are all questions that need answering before you can begin developing the photometric plan.