Chrisb222

Looks great. Defaults for floor 0... yay.

Your picture is most likely a view from a Layout page. When you use the Elevation View camera it won't look like that right away. The answer to the question you're asking is rather complicated, but if you read the thread Mick linked you to, you'll be on your way.

This describes my workflow. I don't use the same types of views for every project, so reusing saved plan views hasn't struck me as beneficial. I create and save the views I need for the project. Since I knew how I wanted Layer Sets, Annotation Sets, and Plan Views to work, I wiped out all of the factory-supplied ones and made my own. Reusing Annotation Sets and Layer Sets, however, does serve me well; they make it easy to set up the active defaults for new Saved Plan Views. I will also sometimes create a view with the same name as an annotation set, if it makes sense to, and also create new anno sets and layer sets on a per-project basis. i.e., do what works for you. Changing settings in the Plan View won't change the settings in either the annotation set or the layer set, but it will change the plan view. Play around with flipping the Annotation Set, Layer Set, and Active Defaults settings in a Plan View Specifications on a test file, you'll get a feel for it. I like linking an annotation set to the plan view which also has a layer set being driven by the annotation set. You just have to be careful about saving changes to the plan view.

If the local authority doesn't require plans, or there is no local authority, builders will simply build from the designs their clients find online, with changes. One county over from me, there is no building dept at all. You can build anything you wish. If good design is needed, the homeowner will just rely on the online pictures and the skill of the builder to make it look right, and to be livable and safe. It's a rural area and you live or die by your reputation out here. Good builders will thrive without 30-page plan sets. As a design/build custom home builder, none of that matters to me. I connect with clients who want what I provide, and I go far beyond what my local authority requires, in order to impress and serve my client, and because I enjoy it. But I make my living building the house. I sometimes dream of designing full time but why not also build the house? I'm a one-stop-shop for custom home clients from design to vacant ground to hands-on construction, and they really appreciate that. I rarely charge a separate fee for design work. There are a few full-time designers around here but their plan sets are not much more than stick drawings on graph paper, which is all the county requires. Considering the local requirements I wouldn't want to have to rely on design only for my livelihood.

Thanks Rene, nice video. You're really bending Chief to your will.

Like some of you I have only recently started working with Saved Plan Views but it seems like having predefined annotation sets is making it very easy to "import" saved defaults into a new SPV rather than selecting each default individually. Also helps me avoid errors. I suppose once your main template is fully set up, though, the annotation sets will just be a remnant of the process... I wish I used Chief more so I could get rolling smooth before a new version comes out, but it's only one component of what I do (design-build). Seems like I spend the entire year each year learning the latest version, and still only scratching the surface... always in school.

Solver's roof would drain well but I haven't seen that exact design. Usually there's a ridge at a right angle to the front gables, in which case a cricket would possibly be needed. All depends on where the hip coming down from the perpendicular ridge meets the gable planes.

Since we're throwing roof details and terminologies around, while the flat triangular plane is called a cricket, in my neck of the woods we call the peaked section like that a saddle, not a cricket.

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-03068/viewing-managing-and-sharing-3d-viewer-models.html

Good point.

To Michael's point, the bonus beams are not framing objects, and normal framing objects are not library items. Perhaps the right approach would be to request that additional types of beams be added to the programmed framing object beam choices. Personally, I would have several more urgent upgrade requests. But really my post was just to illustrate to anyone who might be confused by this thread that the program does in fact produce nice I-beams, since the OP specifically mentioned "I-beams." Yes, the bonus catalog has symbols that the OOB framing tools can't produce, but it does make nice I-beams. Just trying to add clarity, since I'm one who relies heavily on this forum to learn.

The program already produces nice steel I beams that do show up in the framing schedule, and they perform as expected.

Just a suggestion, but why not upload a 3D Viewer Model, let the client explore on their own...?

Create an object using the color you want as its material. Click the Adjust Material Definition tool on the material you want to change. In the Define Material Spec DBX, click the Material box, then use the eyedropper to pick up the color in the object: When you close the DBX the color will be applied to all objects with that altered material (all walls in this case): Before you close, first click the Texture tab and click "Blend with Texture."

I don't have the Mastic library but you can apply the color material to another object and then use the eyedropper to pick it up from the Define Material DBX

If you want the color change to also show in Standard render, in the Define Material DBX click on the Texture tab and click "Blend with Texture."

You're changing the pattern from a pattern to a solid color. Use the Adjust Material Definition tool, click on the wall, and change the color there.

If you're asking me, I was talking about the pattern line color I use, set in the Layout Box Spec DBX using the Edge and Pattern Line Defaults method I described. On a Mac it gives Grayscale as a percentage of brightness. Those Edge and Pattern line defaults are global settings, by the way. Everything in that layout view will respect those settings. David's response directly above yours is using a different method, and he has more control over individual objects.

I love it when that happens.

Personally I use 30 and 10, with 75% brightness on patterns.

That works. I selected the Exterior Room, made Room Polyline, converted to Sidewalk (Center Line), 1/8" wide, 1/8" high, placed on custom layer. It perfectly follows gently contoured terrain, right at the house. Thanks!

Does anyone know a way to automatically show a line where the actual plan terrain is cut by the house in elevation view? Just the line as it would be at the foundation wall. If I check terrain layer to show it gives everything the camera sees, not just the cut line. I draw these manually now and try to approximate the intersection of the house and the terrain but on sloped lots it gets tricky. Would be nice to have Chief show the intersection line only. I messed around with generating a terrain hole from the exterior room polyline, but the results were quirky. Thanks

I want to elaborate on this technique a little in case someone wants to use it. The descriptions in this thread are a little vague. When you send a vector view to layout and choose Plot Lines, you get the option to check "Use Edge Line Defaults" and "Use Pattern Line Defaults." These are only available for vector views > plot lines. Chief has these unchecked by default, and actually discourages using them. Help says they're only there for legacy files. I don't know why they're discouraged because I find them very useful. When sending the view to layout, these check boxes only allow you to specify the line weight. But once in layout you can select the view, click Open Object, and there control the thickness and also the color of the lines. By default, when these are unchecked Chief will use the line, color, and fill information in the plan file's Layer settings and the model's Material Definitions to create the layout view. You can get a lot more control using these methods, but it might change your model in ways you don't want, and it can take time to set up. Finally, if you don't check these boxes when sending the view, you won't have this control in the layout page. To get the control you have to check the boxes when sending the view. The boxes can be checked after sending, in the layout, but they won't do anything. You will however still be able to switch to Live View whether you check them or not. The defaults above make quick work of having simple control of edge and pattern lines in Layout vector views.

Several ways to do it. Lots of information in this recent thread:

Correct. It seems that, for now the choices are one model that retains its colors in Vector views but can have limited edge and pattern line colors and weights in Layout, or a grayscale model in vector views with full control over the Layout view, or two models. Pick yer poison!