Chrisb222

I send elevations, sections, etc as Vector View, Plot Lines. I like a black and white with gray tones look, with sharp lines. You cannot send other view types (technical, watercolor, standard) as Plot Lines, only as Live Views. Plot Lines are not "live," you do need to update the view in layout as the model changes. However, you don't need to resend a new view, and I wouldn't recommend it. Just use Update Layout View command, or if you want to make changes to the view double click the view in layout to open the original view, then close it and select "Yes" when it asks you if you want to update the view. This will bring your current model into the layout view. In the past I always sent elevations as Vector View, Plot Lines, and checked "Use Edge Line Defaults" and "Use Pattern Line Defaults" because this gave me the ability later, in layout, to go into Layout Box Specifications and make the pattern lines a gray tone. I like this look, and there you can also increase or decrease all edge and pattern lines. There is no control over individual objects' lines, however, and Chief actually discourages using this option -- according to Help it's only there for compatibility with legacy files. I'm experimenting now with keeping those defaults unchecked (the default method) which pulls the edge lines and colors from the layer settings (in most cases), and the pattern lines and colors from Material Definitions, which gives even more control of the line weights and gray tones (or color if desired), but it's more cumbersome than my previous method. More control but more work, so I'm debating. I've been happy with my previous method but I like the idea of having, say, Roof Planes have a much thicker line than the other edges in my layout display. In the past I have used Edit Layout Lines to do this manually but you lose that work if the view needs update due to a model change.

My default font for 1/4" floor plan prints is 5" Arial Narrow. It looks pretty decent sized to my old worn eyes. I would think 4" would be fine, if a bit small, but still easily readable. Here I compared 4" Chief Blueprint to 5" Arial Narrow. I think you'll be fine.

In the layout, click the layout box you want to be black and white, click Open Object. For plan views, uncheck "Show Color" For elevation views, uncheck "Color Fill"

Try using the Refresh Display command under the View menu. It's supposed to clear up randomly generated unwanted lines in the current view.

I'm going to guess you're talking about the brick mortar lines being too light in a black and white elevation in layout. In your elevation view, using the Adjust Material Definitions tool click on the brick wall and under the General panel, "Lines" option, change the mortar lines to a darker color or black, then when you close the elevation let it update your layout.

I liked that function too, but the current method allows you to pin the function which couldn't be done before. Different approach, with added function.

Excellent tip!

Okay but I'm curious if anyone else is getting footers like this...?

That worked... sorta. It got rid of the vertical footer but added the lines in the wall corners, and messed up the wall above: Just not sure why these odd vertical footers are being generated. The X9 behavior was correct...

Nevermind, realized I need to run Library > Update Library Catalogs. Duurr That corrected a lot of my problems but still have a lot of manual cleanup to do. Apparently I've introduced a lot of confusion in my materials by not doing that with each upgrade. I'll be sure and do that from now on. I'll leave this thread here Justin Case it helps someone else.

I noticed some of my Core Catalog materials were missing their textures. When I investigated, I found that some of my Materials are getting their textures from older Chief versions, even from before that, back when I originally used HD Pro. Is this normal? If not what am I doing wrong when I upgrade, and how can I force all the current materials to use X10 textures? Does it matter? I went to merge duplicate plan materials in my template plan, but doing so would keep the first duplicate in the list and many of mine refer to an older texture file in the first instance, and X10 texture file in the second instance. It seems if I merge duplicate plan materials I would want the material that uses the most recent texture...? Thanks

No, already checked that, as far as I can tell all the wall specs are the same when the file is opened in X9 and X10. So, it's affirmed that X10 changed the default structure of a footer to automatically generate this vertical footer? How odd. When I scoot the footer over to make it disappear, the view from 90° still shows a line at the corner of foundation wall: In X9, by default there is no vertical footer or line at the wall corner:

Just noticed this in X10. Is there a setting I'm missing to turn this off? I don't think it's a default setting because I opened an X9 plan in both X9 and X10 and the vertical piece is there in X10, not there in X9. Is this default step-footer behavior now? Vertical Footers.plan

Whenever your link is "youtu.be" it will not appear in the forum window. Change to the "youtube.com" address for the video.

Also depends on what version of the program you're using. Different versions have different control of rendering. Regardless, though, in my experience high quality rendering requires a LOT of trial and error until you figure out what works for you, especially when it comes to balancing a complex scene to your individual taste. I've spent hours tweaking renders that someone else might've thought was good. No magic button.

I was able to hide the underside panel using insulation air gap, the problem is that the risers are visible from the front view but disappear from the back view. That's exactly what I saw using insulation air gap as a material for the underside panel. So you're saying the underside panel is created to hide the fact that the risers disappear on a rear view. I understand that these objects are hollow, it's what makes a cross-section slider in 3D look unrealistic. But you don't see one face of a footer or a joist disappear when you rotate the camera...?

I noticed the Lake Point project linked a second plan file, too. I was surprised Chief designers did that, not sure what the advantage of it is. I'm curious about this too. Actually, I have always used external detail plan files, from early bad habits, and figured I was just doing it wrong. That was what surprised me about seeing Chief do it. I had actually been thinking I should keep everything in the main plan file. Do people use external plan files for support content in layouts? If so, what do you typically keep in the main plan file, and what is in external files, and why? I can see an advantage in my case, as it was easier to reuse a generic detail from another location than to create or add it to a new plan. But it causes a lot of extra links in the layout file that wouldn't be necessary if everything was in one plan file. Do people add common generic details to their template plan? Keep them in their User catalog? I'm curious how others use Chief as I'm spending a lot of time this winter upgrading how I use Chief....

If Closed Stringer is selected you get two outer stringers, which is typically how standard stairs I order are built. Unless they're 4' or wider, then the stair company adds a center cut stringer. I specify risers in standard basement stairs, but what's weird in CA is when I uncheck Open Risers, to show a riser, CA adds an Underside material that I don't want. Even weirder, if I specify "Air Gap" as the Underside material (to try and hide it), the risers show on a front 3D view, but disappear from a rear 3D view. (Standard view- Air Gap doesn't seem invisible in vector view.) Not sure how to get rid of the Underside material to show risers without it...you would think "Underside" would be a user choice.

That's because the dimension line is referencing markers.... for some reason. (?) The dimension line must reference the wall to use it to move the wall. Right now it's referencing markers... for some reason. Connect the dimension to the wall and you can then use the dimension to move the wall. That's because the dimensions are referencing different planes of the walls. When the dimensions all reference the same information they add up to the same.

+1 Chris, you might want to edit the thread title to something relevant, it may help others in the future with a similar question. Line weights: probably the line weight settings in your layer sets but we would just be guessing without looking at your plan and layout. If you post them someone can track it down. With regards to ray tracing, it's all trial and error. You'll have to play around with the settings until you get the results you're after. It's a steep learning curve with no real easy road to expertise. But if you're only dealing with faded color it's probably faster and simpler to post-adjust in Photoshop or similar program.

ESPECIALLY when working in concrete. (Sorry, had to throw that in...)

Thanks for the reply. It seems odd that railings give access to wall layer settings but don't use them. It would be nice to have the same control over the plan display of railings that we have with walls. Oh well. I'll look into your workaround. Thanks again.

Hi, I want to edit the railing lines seen in plan view. So far I haven't been able to figure out how. I can edit wall lines and achieve any look I want. Railings however do not respond to my commands. Attached is a pic of a test plan, and the test plan. In the test plan, I have edited both the exterior wall and the railing wall to have a transparent fill, and to display only an outer line, 80 width, green color. The plan view of the railing does not comply. Any thoughts? Thanks railing_lines.plan

You want seamless textures. Google it, you can get anything you want free, just have to register with one of the libraries. Seamless textures look much better than many of the tiled OOB chief textures. Mainly I use them for shingles, brick, stone, and grass. IMO those are the worst offenders for making a render look unrealistic. There are plenty of awesome seamless grass textures that will eliminate your need to create 3D grass. EDIT: Or the post-render Photoshop grass as Rene describes above. But seamless textures look good and you don't have to go to another program.