Elevation Marker Location

[erinRetouch]

Is it possible to adjust the location of the elevation marker in plan view without changing the cut plane/location? I know this is possible in Revit and it would be great if doable in Chief Architect as well. 

 

My first floor exterior wall is further out than my second floor wall. So if I have the exterior elevations markers shown on both first and second floor plans (which I want) the marker is very far away from the exterior wall on the second floor, but is as close as it can be on the first floor. 

 

Any ideas? I'd like to avoid making a fake marker if possible.

[Alaskan_Son]

You’re going to need 2 objects no matter how you slice or dice it right?  

[erinRetouch]

I was hoping that I could have the real callout from the elevation itself on the plans so it is easier to edit those views and maintain accuracy (referenced sheet # updates automatically if it moves, etc... really wish you could do this for view # on the sheet too) as we work. But seems like using a dummy callout object is my only option. 

 

Yet another example of why I prefer revit for construction documentation. Every action seems to have more steps in this program than that. 

[Michael_Gia]

Construction docs are not Chief’s strong suit. 

[Alaskan_Son]

You can also either use 2 separate cameras OR you can NOT display the callout on both floors and then just crop a little layout box from the one floor and place it independently over the layout box(es) for the other floor(s).  

[joey_martin]

45 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

Construction docs are not Chief’s strong suit. 

Couldn't disagree more...

[Michael_Gia]

3 minutes ago, joey_martin said:

Couldn't disagree more...

Compared to what? I’m curious. 

[joey_martin]

1 hour ago, Michael_Gia said:

Compared to what?

The AutoCAD mess I left 15 years ago.

[Michael_Gia]

AutoCAD is hardly comparing apples with apples. 
 

Chief has its strengths but for construction documents we’re way behind Archicad and Revit. 

[Michael_Gia]

Weak points of Chief:

 

We need to be able to snap to any line/point or part of a parametric object, and in any view or whether in plan or layout. 
 

You shouldn’t have to open a separate program to work on a layout. Archicad has everything in one place, plans, layouts, sections, PDF plan sets, etc...  

And yes, you can link stuff from other plans. 
 

How about being able to dimension between any two point on an elevation or cross section?

 

How about a measure tape tool that actually works at any zoom level? Not inherent to construction documents but it is part of the process. 
 

I’m only pointing this stuff out because it seems that Chief isn’t really working on our ability to produce construction documents in a coherent way. Their effort is visuals aka rendering etc. 
 

I don’t need anymore advancement in the pretty pictures department. Chief is already great for that, I believe. 
 

 

[joey_martin]

What I see is someone still trying to operate Chief like one of those other programs. I've never produced better CD's...faster, they look better...what else do I need?

[Michael_Gia]

I’m a big fan of your construction docs, actually. They are the nicest I’ve seen in this forum without a doubt. I feel your comment is a little like what people used to say about horse and buggy when the car was first introduced, though.  

I just want Chief to really improve in the con docs creation department. 

[Kiwideziner]

What is it that you cannot do SPECIFICALLY that other programs can do.

I agree that some things could be made easier, but other things in other programs are more difficult.

CA needs specifics or they get it wrong.

[dshall]

I wish we could have CONSTRUCTION LINES that could be deleted in one fell swoop.  

 

I have requested this many times....  

[erinRetouch]

I have SEVERAL capabilities I'm missing, this is just the basics I can think of without keeping a journal of each time I am frustrated with my CD progress and functionality in the program:

 

1. CAD/drafting items (text, dimensions, cad lines, etc) unique to the view WITHOUT requiring a layer set for each view type. It is so much more effort and energy to keep a set and model clean and organized than I have experienced with making construction documents in other programs (with the exception of CAD, it was just as bad with AutoCAD).
2. Live view links and the controllability that came with those. Specifically, detail, elevation, and section callouts that would either link to a larger scale version of the view OR a drafting view if you specified that. Then you could click that callout and open the drafting view to draft it. If that view moved on the sheet, or to a different sheet, that callout updated with it. No checking or editing every location that view is referenced, it just did it for you. (And as Michael mentioned before, this was all one program)
   1. In that sense - I'm also constantly worried that drafters are deleting information that shouldn't be in one view rather than figuring out what layer it is on and what layer it is supposed to be on. There is so much more risk of accidentally removing information and not catching it, which means higher liability and risk. 
   2. on that note as well - why don't views have a detail number unique to it when placed on the sheet? And the possibility to auto generate a view label that is consistent from page to page, with detail number, view name, and view scale already generated? 
3. Phasing of objects. You should just have one model with existing and new items in the same model. Existing items that were to be removed where phased as such and you could set a view to show existing, existing demolished, new, and any combination of those. That way demo to new was extremely easy to show and you knew the dimensions and extents of the demo was accurate. This also meant if an existing dimension was off it was extremely easy to adjust for that change in ONE place. not two (or three, or four, depending on how you document in Chief).
4. parameters in families/library items to store information that can be scheduled or manipulated. The Specification dialogue box is SIMILAR to this but lacks customization and control that you can get elsewhere. 
5. I think creating customized library items (or families in Revit) is also much much harder in this program than Revit. 

. 

I primarily used Revit before my current company where we use Chief. (to be fair, I did jump from Commercial to Residential. So my idea of documentation tends to be more detailed than my residential contractors want from me). 

 

My biggest disappointment with Chief so far is that there are a lot of features and capabilities, but you have to know exactly where that one button or setting is. And most of the time it is not where I would expect it. In other words, the user interface is not beginner friendly, and knowledge from other drafting programs (revit, cad, inventor, vectorworks, rhino, 3dsmax....the ones I have experience with) does not transfer well. Of all of those. Chief feels like some frankenstein creation that combines CAD, Sketchup, and Revit and I'm not convinced it picked the best parts of each. 

 

I do think for new construction it does make it quick, easy, and relatively painless to put together a basic design. But as soon as you get into customization, remodeling, and construction documentation it gets drastically more difficult.