rlackore

Check this topic I started a while back: 

...at the bottom of the post Chief acknowledged the issue exists.

I can't imagine a large survey, probably done in AutoCAD Civil3D, not having Z-values assigned to the topo lines. Then you can use the Import Drawing Assistant to convert the lines on the relevant layers to Elevation Data:

It's been my experience that when importing very large terrains that the small breaks in the elevation lines from the text has very little affect on Chief's terrain generation, though that's not to say that there isn't some cleanup necessary.

If you upload the dwg I can check it for Z-values.

1 hour ago, dshall said:

A downside to this is the framing shows on the floor level the roof plane is on. 

Yes. But, that makes sense to me, because the roof framing plan usually reflects the roof plan.

You can also move all the roof planes to the same level by selecting each plane and using the Display on Floor Above and Display on Floor Below tools.

A topo survey will give you elevations.

Richard's points are all good. So much depends on what you're planning to do with the property. Here's a list of possible stuff you may need, in no particular order:

1. Property boundaries, including any found benchmarks, rods, stakes, monuments, etc.

2. Boundaries of all existing pavement, walkways, buildings, sheds, etc. Basically, everything built on the site should be located.

3. Utilities, manholes, culverts, pedestals, poles, wells, septic vents and drain fields, etc., including invert elevations.

4. Trees that are significant, or that you know you want to keep. Don't bother with scrub trees or crap you know will be grubbed when the site is cleared/excavated.

5. Setbacks, adjacent right-of-ways, flood plain boundary, easements, ordinary high water mark (if you're on the water) etc.. Any legal encumbrances should be included.

6. Parcel data, including adjacent lots.

7. Spot elevations of grade at building corners and first floor elevation (if it's a building you plan on keeping/remodeling). If it will be torn down or left alone, don't bother with this.

As Richard mentioned, it depends on the local jurisdiction, the lot characteristics (substandard, waterfront, zoning district, etc.), and what you're project involves. Sometimes a title search is required, or a check with your local Register of Deeds. I recommend talking to a local professional who is familiar with the process in your area.

2 minutes ago, Vintageltd said:

 

Just for clarification, this is not just happening for me with PDF output... it's also happening when I try to print a layout directly to the plotter from within Chief Architect.

So, if it's showing up in both PDF and hard-copy, do we assume it's strictly how Chief is generating print output? I don't know. Wish I was smarter about this stuff.

Just now, Vintageltd said:

And, just to further complicate the issue, I tried the problem layout on the Designjet at 11x17 instead of the 18x24 & 24x36 I was using before.  No skew.

 

So, it seems it's tied to the size of the print job, perhaps.  Larger and/or higher resolution print jobs are being broken down into multiple regions, which is when the skew problem is showing up?

It's not the hard-copy printer that's breaking it down into pieces - it's the PDF print engine. I did some Googling, and it seems this is a common issue for all PDF print engines. The skewing may be less obvious when the PDF is output at to hard copy at different scales (page sizes) or resolutions.

I believe different PDF print engines will give different results. I believe Chief layout boxes are basically treated as images, and when printed to PDF the print engine decides how to break up the image into discrete chunks. For example, I created a Plot Lines view, and a Live view in the following example.

Plot Lines resulted in a single panel for the entire layout box:

Live view resulted in four separate panels:

When I plotted the same Layout using NitroPDF, the Live view had 16 panels of varying dimensions.

1 hour ago, glennw said:

Rob,

 

You need to have a look at Alt+Q (General Wall Defaults) where you can change the  Resize About wall layer.

Yes, that can also work well, and may be a better solution for most circumstances. Changing the temporary dimension defaults can have a few advantages, but Glen's solution may give you all you need.

For the temporary dimensions, set the With Wall Selected to Locate Wall Surface:

For manual dimensions, within you're Dimension Defaults, set Locate Objects>Walls to Surfaces:

36 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

I assume the OP meant "Show Length" and "Show Angle" (if I remember the correct terminology).  My guess is that the text style is currently just too small to see.  Select the line, check what layer it's on, and change the text style for that layer to something with a much larger text height.  

I believe Michael gave you the answer. Determine the scale you want to use for the lot plan, then define a text style to print at the size you want for that scale.

This might get you part way there:

Create walls and make them attic, no locate, no room def:

...then add an opening:

...shoot an elevation and adjust the opening as needed:

...check it in ortho:

I think you could use this technique to get you pretty close to what you want.

What's a cascade? A higher res photo would help.

Where did you select "show arrows" and "show dimensions"? In a dialog box? In the layer display options? I'm confused, because I've never run across that specific language in Chief. Show us a screen shot of where these settings are, and it will help us give you an answer.

11 hours ago, Ace_Drafting said:

I have found this to be the case when stair sections are connected by a landing. However when connected by winders the entire staircase still gets selected.

I have often been in this same situation and have resorted to re-doing the staircase, however it would be interesting to see if someone has come up with a way to disconnect a stair section from winders.

Agree. I can't find any method to disconnect a section of stairs joined in this manner.

Default Settings>Window Defaults>Framing>Header... check the Calculate from Width box, rebuild the framing, then you're good to go.

I don't believe so. However, I've used this technique successfully. When importing the dwg into Chief, make sure you use Convert Selected Layer(s) to: Elevation Data. Some manual cleanup is usually necessary.

Just now, MarkMc said:

I'll go along with 1/2", not 7-3/4

Ah, there's our misunderstanding. Absolutely the sink should be placed in the upper cabinet. When I posted that I had to set the symbol's z-origin to -7-3/4", what I meant was I changed it by 1/2" from -8-1/4" to -7-3/4", not from 0" to -7-3/4".

Just now, MarkMc said:

Um, uh, yes, no, sort of-7-3/4 means it is in the lower cabinet.

I disagree. Here is the sink inserted into the upper cabinet with the lower one deleted:

You can see that the sink is inserted 1/2" lower than the bottom of the 1" countertop. The fix is to either use a OOTB 1-1/2" countertop, or adjust the symbol Z-origin by 1/2".

33 minutes ago, MarkMc said:

The reason that you had to offset the sink is it is placing in the lower cabinet.

No, I think it's because the OP's plan default is set to use 1" countertops, and the OOTB default is for 1-1/2" countertops, which is the thickness that the Kohler symbols are set up for. The symbol only needs to be adjusted by 1/2" to sit beneath the 1" countertop correctly.

You could also delete the custom countertop and use custom left/right overhangs on the upper base cabinet:

After re-inserting the sink into the upper base cabinet, I did have to adjust the sink symbol's Z offset to 7-3/4" for whatever reason.

EDIT: I just realized you're on X8. I can't remember if X8 allowed custom overhangs. My apologies.

27 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

One problem you may encounter is that unless you set the Default window separation to 1/8"  you can't shove the windows close enough together to make it look like that

I don't seem to have that problem.

There are several ways, and each to their own, but one way is:

1. Insert the lower unit.

2. Insert the upper unit just to one side of the lower unit.

3. Select the upper unit and center it on the lower unit (drag, or align, or whatever command you like to use).

Obviously you have to properly define the dimensions, heights of floor, etc. for each unit. You can do this through the dialog boxes, or in elevation by selecting and dragging. You can go a step further by selecting the upper unit and defining it's level (1, for instance, if the lower unit is 0). When you're all done you can mull the units if you wish. Chapter 11 of the Reference Manual is very useful.

17 minutes ago, ChiefuserMathews said:

One of the user directed me to the 3D ware house which is for google sketchup. Any suggestions?

Google Sketchup models can be imported into Chief. I suggest you review the Reference Manual (if you're using X9, the 3D Data Import Requirements are on page 1188).

Very easy to do:

I suggest reading the Reference Manual section that discusses wall definitions.