How to Not changing the Default layer set

[patrick]

Thanks Tim,

Let me go back to the drawing board and study again

[Allen42acj]

I have not tried this yet,looks interesting.I would not rely on that for my master plan set.
I can see the wrong things getting printed out and built wrong..Especialy if it's a plan you go back to after a time...I would get confused..
But if you can get people to pay for the extra work=great...
Thank you Tim for the pictures and your time....

[Tim O'Donnell]

I'm with you on that Allen, and agree with what you say...I would not do it this way either for the working drawings and plan set.


but for a simple presentation it does offer some quick advantages for view changes



I was just showing that it could be done if one were so inclined ...and because it has been stated many times that it couldn't be..

[lbuttery]

what you want to do implies to me you need two walls to see changes you make...or use two plans



Tim:

I got home too late last night to "play' some more but I do have a question based on the above statment. Were you able to do this with two "physical" walls that occupy the same space or is one of them a "virtual" wall that can't be updated after it is created.?

I need to have two "physical" walls occupy the same space, in the same plan.

I am working on a remodel of my house and am placing an addition on the front, such that the current exterior wall with siding etc. will become an interior wall and have slate for the first 4' and then painted walls,
and changing the current exterior door to a bi-fold door.

I would like to be able to have both wall A and wall B in the same plan and control which one displays via layers and layersets, and when I have the "remodel" layerset active I should be able to make further changes to wall B without having any effect on wall A

If your example illustrates this then I will "hack" away at it until I figure out how you did it.

Thanks

Lew

[patrick]

I still couldn't figure out how Tim did it per his Gif animation.

[Tim O'Donnell]

they are two physical walls in the same space...you get them into alignment by using the wall offset handles ...first bump them together then watch the status bar as you move them on top of one another with the wall offset handle(zoom out a bit) then when it displays the thickness of your wall you are there...

this may be more work than it is worth if you have a lot of walls...

as I am not interested in doing it this way, I have not played with it much more than to show you it could be done..

[Allen42acj]

I have "Morpheus"software that would probably work good at this if I knew how ti use it....

[lbuttery]

To create this feature would likely mean rewriting the way walls and rooms work from the ground up. This is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Dan:

thanks for the reply. I do hope this issue would be addressed for ver 12, as having to use multiple plans to show existing and remodeling and alternatives is a PITA at best and fraught with error at the worst case.

I look forward to the day when everything can be kept in one plan and the layers/layersets determine what is built in Chief's scratch-pad area and then displayed, etc.

Rooms are defined by walls thus removing and replacing walls by using layersets is tricky at best. To create this feature would likely mean rewriting the way walls and rooms work from the ground up.

It would seem that when a plan is opened up, a new workspace should be created and then each floor should be created by examining which layerset and layers are active and that would determine the rooms etc.

If a layer is off then all the objects on that layer shouldn't even be in the "workspace" that defines the model to be displayed.

Whenever, the layerset is changed then a new workspace should be created and only those objects active in that layerset should be in that workspace.

To save time, chief should allow for X workspaces to be active at a time. When X +1 workspaces are opened then by default the oldest could be closed or the user could be prompted from a list to close one or more workspaces.

A methodology like this would allow for total control of the model via the layersets and layers.

BTW: Since Chief is on ver 10 and soon to be on ver 11, It probably would benefit from being written over again from the ground up.

Please keep up the good work, Chief is awesome and we are all anticipating ver 11 and future versions to be even better.

Thanks for paying attention to our wants and rants.

Lew

[patrick]

Thank You all for answering my question.

I do learn a lot in this thread.

CA has been a lot of fun for me.

Thank Dan for following up on our need and concern.

[Dan Park]

I think this idea of having the objects go away when you turn them off in layers is an intriging idea.

There are, however, reasons why you might want an object to not display yet still be in the plan.

For example: let's say I want to not display a roof plane, do we then recalculate the wall heights at that point and not show the wall going to the roofline?

If I turn off everything but framing then rebuild the framing do we recalculate the framing so that it does not show the window and door openings? Using the logic in this thread this is what you are asking for.

I think the feature you want is quite different than the feature you are asing for.

Much of what you are asking for (if not most) can be accomplished now by having two plans.

A couple of points to keep in mind.

1) While we would love to implement each and every request we have limits on what can be accomplished each release cycle. That said - don't stop making requests, it helps us understand what you are asking for.

2) There are sometimes requests that we have no intention of implementing. Usually this is because we have a different plan in mind that should give a better solution. Sometimes it is because the feature being requested is to solve a problem that is created by the program. In cases like this we like to solve the underlying problem.

3) Rewriting Chief from the ground up is not a feasable task. Each portion of the program is being reworked in a methodical manner. Many parts of the code have been refactored dozens of times to allow new capabilities. A rewrite would take years and you would end up with a program that had no new features and probably would work somewhat differently than the current program.


Here is what I see is the goal of asking for this feature.

We want to be able to have the ability to easily create and show before and after models of an existing design that we intend to remodel.

[alobartn]

Yes, you nailed it.

[lbuttery]

We want to be able to have the ability to easily create and show before and after models of an existing design that we intend to remodel.

I would add "... and various alternatives for the remodel".

For example, I should be able to say to the client "here is a view of the new porch on the left", "here is a view of the new porch on the right", "here is a view of the new porch with a gable roof", "here is a view of the new porch with a shed roof" ..... etc, etc. etc.

With all of these alternatives in one plan.


For example: let's say I want to not display a roof plane, do we then recalculate the wall heights at that point and not show the wall going to the roofline?

If I turn off everything but framing then rebuild the framing do we recalculate the framing so that it does not show the window and door openings? Using the logic in this thread this is what you are asking for.

Perhaps there could be a "build" column in the layer display dbx so that one could control what is actually built versus what is turned "off" for display in
2D/3D.

I really would like the ability to make an room or an entire floor "invisible". That is a "must" have request.

It would be "nice to be able to have" alternate walls/rooms, etc be able to occupy the same space and be able to control which display.

Dan, thanks for listening and considering and here's to the next version ... "onward and upward"

Lew

[cgirerd]

With remodeling being about 90% of my business, anything to improve the interaction between the existing and "alternatives" would be a huge help. And as Lew pointed out, it is rarely just the existing and the remodel until it's built. It's the existing and option one and option two and option one variation A and option one variation B2 and....

I'm not sure about the feasibility to have many large scale options in a single plan as the file size would be huge (I'm talking options as variable as one story versus two story, adding 150 SF versus adding 800 SF, not just porch left or right issues), but options that might allow easier sharing of an existing plan layers into other plans for reference, sharing of camera views between plans... Maybe some new type of "remodel group" relationship for remodels with variations that have ways to link with the existing plan and/or each other for comparisons and easy sharing of data.

Christina

[mbbailey]

What is a wall? Is it just siding, size or dimensions, studs, etc.? All the elements of a wall can be displayed in various Layer Sets at different times. What about a second wall that occupies the same space? Which elements of the first wall are common to the second? Do all the elements of a wall disappear when you turn off the Wall Layer of that wall? Should the wall be assigned to a room or the room assigned to the wall? This is a very complicated issue due to the amount of work that CA puts into an object such as a wall.

If every component (doors, windows, framing, etc.) of a wall is assigned to that wall then you should be able to assign it to an un-displayed layer and have all the assigned components hidden at the same time, but we all know that it does not work that way in CA. You must reassign all the wall’s components to layers that will not display at the same time that the wall is not displaying. That is one of the things that make this issue so complicated.

If the display of all the components of a wall were controlled by the wall layer via a configurable switch then this proposal would be feasible to consider and we would be able to do remodels with much more versatility.

As long as we are day dreaming why not do some of these things also? Maybe some programmer could come up with a way for us to set in the independent height of a wall similar to our ability to set the height of a railing. Who knows? We may even be allowed to set the spacing of framing members on a per-wall basis or be allowed to use metal framing. The options are endless when you can allow that type of freedom.

[louis]

We may even be allowed to set the spacing of framing members on a per-wall basis

We can do that now. Look at use wall framing material.