Anyone know room structure heights really well....I don't, 12yrs and I still don't.

[lbuttery]

CA might be well advised to conduct a class with Chief newbies who have attended the Basic training class

(so they know the fundamentals)

 

then watch and take notes while these newbies try to replicate various situations using these tools

 

no interference/training from the staff - nor allowing the students to help each other

record what each student is doing or attempting to do 

then have the designers review each session to see what they are struggling with

 

this should probably also be done with roofs and terrain and stairs (and maybe other topics)

 

I know the experts think it is "easy" and you "just have to ..."

but obviously there are issues and CA should work to address them

 

Lew

[HumbleChief]

28 minutes ago, lbuttery said:

CA might be well advised to conduct a class with Chief newbies who have attended the Basic training class

(so they know the fundamentals)

 

then watch and take notes while these newbies try to replicate various situations using these tools

 

no interference/training from the staff - nor allowing the students to help each other

record what each student is doing or attempting to do 

then have the designers review each session to see what they are struggling with

 

this should probably also be done with roofs and terrain and stairs (and maybe other topics)

 

I know the experts think it is "easy" and you "just have to ..."

but obviously there are issues and CA should work to address them

 

Lew

Yeah Lew, I think as a consumer you would hope that the software team would take an approach as you've described above but it is not who Chief is as a software company. The incredibly intelligent (NOT being sarcastic or facetious) software engineers have injected that intelligence in to the user interface and assume that same level of understanding from their user base without a bridge between engineer and user. A non-engineer brain like mine needs to learn those engineering ways in order to maximize the software and it can be quite difficult at times.

 

To make my point (which I have numerous times) I remember an older DBX where I was trying to a create direct overhead view of the plan. I was sitting there with an electrical engineer friend of mine and I went to the DBX and there was a value that needed to be entered to achieve that overhead view and we were just messing around and guessed 180, thinking that made some kind of sense. Nope. How about 90? Nope. How about 360? Nope. Kept messing around and discovered that -90 was the value needed to get an overhead view. Really? -90? Yes -90.

 

Now of course all the software engineers knew this but as a user, I think, we should be insulated from that technical knowledge in the user interface. That DBX has since changed but the same engineering mentality pervades the interface, which should, in my opinion, be designed by a user interface expert not engineers.

 

Again that is not who Chief is as a company and I don't see that changing, from 20 years of using the software, and have learned to use the software as the engineers have designed it as difficult and arcane as that might be at times.

 

Still love the software but it's love/hate at times....

[Richard_Morrison]

19 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

I think Chief's structure DBX just fits in to some people's brains and the logic is apparent. Others like myself find the logic baffling to say the least. 

Logic? There's logic? 

One big problem -- as I see it -- is that everything in the model is tied to the zero-point (subfloor of the first floor), and nothing that really ties that zero point to any real-world coordinates. It's like playing an accordion vertically. You can play it near the ceiling or near the floor, but you can't ever really know for sure where you're actually playing it. The world outside needs to move up and down relative to the building. Every other BIM software I've dealt with pegs the zero point to a fixed elevation that is defined OUTSIDE of the building. So, your first floor elevation might actually be 18" above a "zero point" that you get off of an accurate survey. But let's say you want to move the floor level down so it's closer to grade by dropping the first floor down 6", leaving the second floor where it is. In Chief, you not only need to increase the first floor ceiling height (which certainly doesn't feel like you're dropping the floor) and then raise the outside world (terrain) by 6" OR you can lower the floor elevation for all the rooms on that floor to -6" which screws up the story pole elevations. 

 

I don't know why you can't define a fixed real-world coordinate for each floor level, and let the rooms adjust from those, but you can't. At least, not easily. Maybe someone can explain Chief's "logic" in a way that I can understand, but no architect I know wants to start with room elevations at the top of the building and work downwards until they get to the bottom, and then play "whack-a-mole" until the elevations get fixed.

[Alaskan_Son]

7 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

we were just messing around and guessed 180, thinking that made some kind of sense. Nope. How about 90? Nope. How about 360? Nope. Kept messing around and discovered that -90 was the value needed to get an overhead view. Really? -90? Yes -90.

 

First off, why would you think ANY of those numbers would make sense? 

 

Second of all, what you describe is exactly why some have such a hard time learning Chief...we don't take the proper time or invest the proper effort in learning how and why.  The very fact you we're just guessing and messing around with numbers points to a general practice that I see all the time.  We keep fighting the software till we get the desired results and then the do the same thing the next time until we get the desired results...It's a very inefficient way of "learning".   

 

The alternative of course is to stop and figure the thing out so you can cross it off your list of things you have to fight with.  Take this angle thing for example.  It's one of the single most fundamental concepts that we should know if we're going to be using them...

 

 

I tell it like this all the time (and it's true of any and all software by the way):  These various settings are either your enemy or your ally.  The sooner you can make them an ally (taking the time to study and learn exactly how they are intended to work), the better. 

 

Now I won't pretend that I don't struggle with things myself, because I do sometimes, but I have learned that stopping what I'm doing and figuring the individual settings out, makes all the difference in the world. 

[HumbleChief]

2 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

There's so much crazy in the structure DBX I think it just goes unnoticed over time. If you go to the foundation level of a mono slab there's a check box for "roof over this room" - I rest my case.

Richard, couldn't agree more. I think you might have missed my quote above. There's so much that is counter intuitive, at best, but some people seem to have no to very little problems with it. Drives me crazy on almost a daily basis but am done fighting that losing battle....

[Alaskan_Son]

1 hour ago, lbuttery said:

CA might be well advised to conduct a class with Chief newbies who have attended the Basic training class

(so they know the fundamentals)

 

then watch and take notes while these newbies try to replicate various situations using these tools

 

42 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Yeah Lew, I think as a consumer you would hope that the software team would take an approach as you've described above but it is not who Chief is as a software company.

 

Where are you guys getting your information?  What makes you think Chief isn't paying attention to what people are struggling with?  I can guarantee you that they are.  When your technical support team and training staff are being inundated with questions about a specific issue, you can bet someone is paying attention.  I know this from experience on multiple levels in this area too so I'm not just speaking out of my @$$. 

 

Anyway, here's a little food for thought.  If you're basing your thoughts on the matter on your experience here in the forum, then you're really missing a lot of information.  There are a HUGE number of users that basically never even come here.  In fact, many don't even know this place exists.  You're really not seeing a very good cross section of users here in my opinion. 

[HumbleChief]

1 minute ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

First off, why would you think ANY of those numbers would make sense? 

 

Second of all, what you describe is exactly why some have such a hard time learning Chief...we don't take the proper time or invest the proper effort in learning how and why.  The very fact you we're just guessing and messing around with numbers points to a general practice that I see all the time.  We keep fighting the software till we get the desired results and then the do the same thing the next time until we get the desired results...It's a very inefficient way of "learning".   

 

The alternative of course is to stop and figure the thing out so you can cross it off your list of things you have to fight with.  Take this angle thing for example.  It's one of the single most fundamental concepts that we should know if we're going to be using them...

 

 

I tell it like this all the time (and it's true of any and all software by the way):  These various settings are either your enemy or your ally.  The sooner you can make them an ally (taking the time to study and learn exactly how they are intended to work), the better. 

 

Now I won't pretend that I don't struggle with things myself, because I do sometimes, but I have learned that stopping what I'm doing and figuring the individual settings out, makes all the difference in the world. 

You are making my point and missing it at the same time. I have no engineering background so the coordinate system is a bit vague though learnable as I have done but I don't want to see it in an interface and I don't think the user should be exposed to such arcane pieces of information. This is an arguable point and you make a good one but I think your mind might appreciates the complexities whereas mine does not unless absolutely needed. Different strokes, and understand we look at these things from a different perspective but even from the diagram you posted I would choose 90 for the overhead view not -90, makes sense because I am a dummy.

 

The larger point, for me is that I think the user interface should be less technical with a simple diagram that shows views from a graphical instead of technical information driven dialog box. Where any user can choose a view via a picture or circle shaped diagram, hiding the tech stuff. That's simply my preference not something I would assume all users would want nor appreciate in its simplicity.

[Michael_Gia]

As in other programs such as Archicad. You define your “levels” in the beginning. Every floor is a level. Each level is the “0” or default level for any room on that floor. Then each room’s level can be defined with respect to the floor level it is contained in. 

 

[HumbleChief]

3 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

 

Where are you guys getting your information?  What makes you think Chief isn't paying attention to what people are struggling with?  I can guarantee you that they are.  When your technical support team and training staff are being inundated with questions about a specific issue, you can bet someone is paying attention.  I know this from experience on multiple levels in this area too so I'm not just speaking out of my @$$. 

 

Anyway, here's a little food for thought.  If you're basing your thoughts on the matter on your experience here in the forum, then you're really missing a lot of information.  There are a HUGE number of users that basically never even come here.  In fact, many don't even know this place exists.  You're really not seeing a very good cross section of users here in my opinion. 

Your accusations are bit harsh IMO and I base my opinion (not information) on 20 years using the program and watching the changes that do not happen over those 20 years. Also based on meeting with the software engineers in Idaho as a select group of users and not seeing changes that were suggested and again 20 years of an approach that remains basically the same. Again different opinions, and I am not intending to attack the good people at Chief, which I have personally met and are simply great in every regard.

 

I don't think this forum represents that many users and you should know that as I have posted that assumption and made that point many, many, times and I do not think that the engineers at Chief don't listen it's just that their view of how the software should work differs from mine (and many others) but I can live with that, and do, as I've stated again many, many times.

[Kbird1]

On 2/22/2019 at 9:19 AM, Alaskan_Son said:

Take this angle thing for example.  It's one of the single most fundamental concepts that we should know if we're going to be using them...

 

 

Thanks for the Diagram   will be handy when dealing with Lighting especially, which is the only place in the Manual I have ever seen Chief explain any of this actually, it's like you should "just know" the 0-180 line is the Horizon Line, but looking at the Diagram I realised it's just like looking at my old Drawing Protractor ( flipped down for the negatives) , so I made a quick Reference Image, figured someone else maybe able to use it too, if they have a "Practical " Brain like me....it's likely you can make it better than mine but I'm more about Function than Form

 

If you search the Ref. Manual there is a bit on the Horizon dealing with Light Data or there is some info in this KB Tutorial on lighting too.

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00777/working-with-light-sources.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[glennw]

8 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

If you go to the foundation level of a mono slab there's a check box for "roof over this room" - I rest my case.

 

Larry,

Turn on auto roofs.

Now make the foundation room larger than the floor above.

If Roof Over This Room is checked, a roof will build over the "sticky out" bit of the foundation - nothing lost by leaving it checked even if it doesn't do anything and there is no "sticky out" bit.

If Roof Over This Room is unchecked, a roof will not build over the "sticky out" bit.

This is a very simple example just to demonstrate that sometimes that setting could be used.

 

[glennw]

6 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

Every other BIM software I've dealt with pegs the zero point to a fixed elevation that is defined OUTSIDE of the building. So, your first floor elevation might actually be 18" above a "zero point" that you get off of an accurate survey.

 

Quote

One big problem -- as I see it -- is that everything in the model is tied to the zero-point (subfloor of the first floor), and nothing that really ties that zero point to any real-world coordinates. 

 

Richard,

 

It IS possible to use real word heights in Chief so that all heights (floors, roofs, terrain, etc), relate directly to each other and the real world.

I have done this in several plans.

Although you can't change Chiefs default first floor level from zero, you can specify real world heights on a room by room basis.

You can change the defaults for floors other than level 1.

I like working this way on some projects because all heights are relative to each other and are returned in real world heights.

 

[lbuttery]

What makes you think Chief isn't paying attention to what people are struggling with?

 

Michael:

 

I know CA is listening and they do follow this forum among other things

 

but after watching this forum daily since 2004 and reading every post

 

I can get a sense for what people struggle with

I was originally trained as a teacher and when you see some/many struggling

it is time to re-evaluate how you are teaching the material

 

Instead of just saying "you too can master this" with study and practice try to find why there are "hurdles"

 

sure you can drive down a road with potholes and with expertise you can probably learn to do it pretty fast

 

but might it be better to pave over the potholes ?

 

Lew

[HumbleChief]

15 hours ago, glennw said:

 

Larry,

Turn on auto roofs.

Now make the foundation room larger than the floor above.

If Roof Over This Room is checked, a roof will build over the "sticky out" bit of the foundation - nothing lost by leaving it checked even if it doesn't do anything and there is no "sticky out" bit.

If Roof Over This Room is unchecked, a roof will not build over the "sticky out" bit.

This is a very simple example just to demonstrate that sometimes that setting could be used.

 

Hey Glenn, the fact that one can even go to the 'basement' level in a mono slab is crazy enough - the fact that one can create roofs over a sticky out portion of a mono slab foundation is not a feature I'd ever use nor request but I gave up fighting this battle with Chief long ago...

 

Now on to more important things..are you getting any of that cyclone swell? The coast looks lit up and crazy for the past few days - jealous...

[builtright3]

On 2/21/2019 at 6:27 AM, HumbleChief said:

Great advice as always but this might be a pretty simple problem - unless I'm missing something...

 

 

This video helped me because as I use this technique before I don't think I was paying much attention to the "Floor Below" box and I think it was causing me to go back and forth a lot. I would eventually get it figured out but didn't know why and so I know you were helping someone else but this video helped me.

Also, I don't know that I understood in full starting at the top. I'm assuming that the floor above effects the floor below but not visa-versa. Is that a correct statement?

Thank You

[HumbleChief]

Hey Joe,

 

Was going to try and explain how Chief works and came up against this little bit of crazy....

 

Attached the plan cause I might need some help...

 

 

floor_level_1_test.plan

[builtright3]

18 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Hey Joe,

 

Was going to try and explain how Chief works and came up against this little bit of crazy....

 

Attached the plan cause I might need some help...

 

 

Larry,

You need to uncheck the "Floor Supplied by the Foundation Room Below" on your first floor structure tab and it will fix it.

 

18 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

floor_level_1_test.plan

 

[HumbleChief]

35 minutes ago, builtright3 said:

 

Larry,

You need to uncheck the "Floor Supplied by the Foundation Room Below" on your first floor structure tab and it will fix it.

 

 

Thanks Joe but I don't see any change when I do that??? Do the floor heights change to defaults when you uncheck that box? I do want a mono slab foundation and there's no way I know of having the mono slab box checked and the "Floor supplied by foundation room below." Still missing something..

[builtright3]

Here is the one most important thing that I remember learning from the CA lesson video when I first started in 2004. I often forget and have to remind myself and it gets me out of a lot of trouble when I go back to this concept.

 

AS A BUILDER:

We build the foundation first and work our way up. Its the only way to do it.

 

AS A CHIEF ARCHITECT (or just a designer/architect in general) USER:

We design the look of our building first. We begin drawing walls and the roof and then build our foundation and then our framing. Not exactly in this order but always our walls come first then we have to set our elevations. So in-other-words, we have to think backwards from how the builder will build it.

I believe this is the very first thing a person needs to understand when you start using this program and if you keep this always in the back of your mind as your building it will solve a lot of your problems.

If a person move's forward after the walls are drawn and go's immediately to the roof and does not review all the elevations in the orthographic or perspective views then that is usually where all the mistakes are made. You need to make sure everything is connected properly and all the elevations are correct. Otherwise everything else you add to it will not work properly.

 

ANOTHER POINT ID WOULD LIKE TO MAKE:

You also have to understand that we all don't retain information as well as others so we have to be patient with each other. We all learn differently. That is why I like this forum so well. I think for the most part this is understood and we have some good teachers here! Thank You!

 

TIP:

I myself like to use an old-fashioned address book to keep by my side and I use the alphabetical order to put my topic in and then the instruction of what I learned, Its easy for me to find that way. There are several ways to do it but this works for me.

 

Hope this helps someone and I appreciate everyone that is part of this forum!

[builtright3]

17 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Thanks Joe but I don't see any change when I do that??? Do the floor heights change to defaults when you uncheck that box? I do want a mono slab foundation and there's no way I know of having the mono slab box checked and the "Floor supplied by foundation room below." Still missing something..

 

I need to understand this myself. But it doesn't appear that your doing anything wrong because I started a new plan from scratch and got the same results. Not sure ifs it's a glitch or I'm just missing something.

Edited February 23, 2019 by builtright3
Clarification

[HumbleChief]

6 minutes ago, builtright3 said:

 

I need to understand this myself. But it doesn't appear that your doing anything wrong because I started a new plan from scratch and got the same results. Not sure ifs it's a glitch or I'm just missing something.

Just to be clear, you started a new plan and got the same whacky default results?

[Alaskan_Son]

I pretty positive you just found a bug in X11 Larry.  It looks like the model is building correctly, but Chief is adding the foundation ceiling height to the first floor ceiling height (essentially doubling the number when floor is supplied by foundation room below since they both have the same value) when a second floor is present.  Please make sure to report it.

[builtright3]

9 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Just to be clear, you started a new plan and got the same whacky default results?

Yes and reading help right now to see if there might be something I'm missing.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by builtright3
Clarification

[builtright3]

23 hours ago, Kbird1 said:

 

Thanks for the Diagram   will be handy when dealing with Lighting especially, which is the only place in the Manual I have ever seen Chief explain any of this actually, it's like you should "just know" the 0-180 line is the Horizon Line, but looking at the Diagram I realised it's just like looking at my old Drawing Protractor ( flipped down for the negatives) , so I made a quick Reference Image, figured someone else maybe able to use it too, if they have a "Practical " Brain like me....it's likely you can make it better than mine but I'm more about Function than Form

 

If you search the Ref. Manual there is a bit on the Horizon deal with Light Data or there is some info in this KB Tutorial on light too.

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00777/working-with-light-sources.html

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

I love this protractor diagram!

I printed it and posted it on the wall in front of me to help me get a visual as I'm working on my plan.

Thank you Michael also for starting this example with your diagram!

 

I ALSO ADDED THE X AND Y TO IT FOR THE AXIS TO HELP BETTER WITH THE VISUAL

Edited February 23, 2019 by builtright3
Clarification

[Kbird1]

9 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

I pretty positive you just found a bug in X11 Larry.  It looks like the model is building correctly, but Chief is adding the foundation ceiling height to the first floor ceiling height (essentially doubling the number when floor is supplied by foundation room below since they both have the same value) when a second floor is present.  Please make sure to report it.

 

I am thinking you are right..... I'd have thought with a Monoslab the Foundation level ceiling heights would be 0" , since it's supplying the Floor for the Room above and nothing else.... The Defaults even show the Foundation has a Ceiling of 97" which is just weird.