glennw

Zowie, Depending on how you want to handle the layout boxes and the title information, sizing, etc. You can change to the larger sheet by going File...Print...Drawing Sheet Setup. This will change the sheet size and place your original layout boxes and title information in the centre of the larger sheet, at the same scale. You may need to edit or move the title information and move the layout boxes. I assume you want all the layout boxes and title information at the same scale as the original and don't want to increase the scales of all the layout boxes along with the sheet size increase.

Dennis, Should you be using Build...Distributed Objects...Spline Distribution Path?

Mick, That is not an "orthographic elevation camera" as requested by the OP.

One way to get a round column to the library is to use a Cylinder. Select it, Shift Select it again. Make Architectural Block on the Edit toolbar. Add to Library on the Edit toolbar.

There is an Endcap Printed Length setting in Preferences...CAD...Line Properties that may help.

Larry, In this video, you don't show the dbx for the room. I bet the floor structure for the ROOM is set to Default, so that when you change the FLOOR default, the room is following.

Michael, I am not sure if this is the only way but it does work. You need to use the Plan defaults to set an Additional Allowed Angle to match the angle of the wall, so that the camera snaps to that angle when you draw it. I'm sure that you can figure it out from that.

Christopher, Go down to the foundation level. Draw a Slab Footing (Build...Wall...Slab Footing). You can use the "Align With Wall Above" tool to get them lined up.

Joe, I hope you are going to do it in m² and not as sq m.

Joe, We usually use m² for site and floor areas. Same for counter tops, windows, doors, etc - this format can cover a huge range of areas. We may see sq m sometimes, but I try to avoid that. If a property is very large, we will use hectares. (1 hectare = 10,000 m²). It is not usual to call up cross section areas for framing members, but if the area were very small, we would use mm² - I don't think I have ever used this. We never use square or lineal centimeters.

Johnny, Here is an easy way. http://screencast.com/t/qWmShYmDpZ

Johnny, Chief has no problem building a multi level plan (with floors missing) with an auto roof over only the top floor. No need to manually build a roof. And the auto roof doesn't build over the intermediate floors. Off hand, I can think of several ways to do this, depending on wether you want floor/ceilings or not. Once again - you just need to learn how Chief works and stop trying to force it to work like other programs.

Jay, We are pretty much in agreement. My point was that if you have single level floors (no split or multi-levels per floor) then there usually isn't a problem editing from the bottom up and this can usually be done by changing the floor defaults and using auto roofs and auto foundations. BUT...if you have a model that contains multi-level platforms that need manual editing on a room by room basis, you will find it a lot less painful editing top to bottom once the model is built. In these circumstances you can get yourself into a bind with Chief endeavouring to make changes to the platforms to compensate for the users input that causes conflicts in the model. Scott is hosting a Gotomeeting this afternoon on this very topic - if you are at all interested, I suggest that you try and get on board. You should be able to find the details on another thread.

Scott, Of course I don't know, but I suspect that the guys at Chief didn't purposely design top down platform editing into the program. I could be totally off base here by underestimating the programmers intent way back in the early days. Chief has developed over the years from what was a basic cad program that has it's own methodology for model creation. I think that for most situations (say single or 2 storey houses with single level floors) Chiefs "bottom up" paradigm works a treat, especially if you start by setting the defaults correctly. The "top down" method only becomes required once the platforms in that initial model need to be edited. Because of the way Chief works with rooms and platforms, it is easier to make any platform edits from the top down. I daresay that most of these edits COULD be done from the bottom up - but it would be much more difficult. Now, was "top down" a deliberate programming method or was it just a result of the way Chief works? - I haven't got a clue! As you say, this part of the programming paradigm is so entrenched in Chief that I really can't see any major change anytime on the horizon. There may be room for some user friendly tweeks though! Jay, A lot of users would disagree and would suggest that any platform modifications should be made from the top down. Of course the method used will always depend on the particular situation - particularly if platforms are split or multi level. I think that more often than not, platform changes can be made with default settings (assuming no split or multi level platforms - please don't reply by saying that most of your projects have split or multi-level platforms! ).

Whatever your name is, I am in Sydney and can give you some starter tips via Skype if you are interested. This is very easy with Skype's screen sharing.

Perry, Just thinking about this a bit more. This is probably a case where you need to reach a bit further into the Chief toolbox and maybe use the much underused Roof Baseline Polylines to build the roof and bypass the default roof building method.

Perry, OK, I know understand that your problem relates to the use of a manual Ceiling Plane and not the structure as such. I guess your problem with the invisible wall and Generate Between Platforms can be easily overcome by the order of building the model. Build the auto roof first, turn off auto build roof and then use the invisible wall to change the ceiling height. Or, just edit the roof planes up to match the higher roof planes.

Well, if we could see a plan that demonstrates Perry's particular scenario, then we could better judge what would be the better method to handle it, and wether the method I posted was suitable or not. Joe, You have no hope of stopping the drifting of the threads - they have a life of their own. So... I think that a discussion regarding the control of the vertical surfaces between stepped platforms is a crucial ingredient when discussing the control of the platforms themselves - admittedly not a major issue, but still a legitimate discussion point that shouldn't be ignored.

Ah, OK. That is controlled by the Generate Between Platforms setting on the Structure tab of the wall's dbx. This setting only works with invisible walls and railings - Room divider is an invisible wall. I was wondering why this wasn't automatic for some users as it is for me. Is this setting toggled on in your wall defaults for Room Divider and Railing walls? I feel a video coming on. http://screencast.com/t/i2Lf2BSO I couldn't stop at one: http://screencast.com/t/wwRIpPbTZ

I am still not clear? Can you post a simple plan?

Perry, I assume you mean virtual and not vertical! You can edit the "virtual slab" details by changing the Foundation Defaults. Admittedly, limited control.

Perry, I lost you a bit there, but doesn't checking Generate Between Platforms in the wall dbx handle that situation? As I said, I didn't fully understand what you were say, so I may be way off. Can you explain further - in English this time?

Alan, Where does that come from? I think you may have misunderstood. I don't believe I ever said I can't use the dbx to solve the condition. On the contrary, I believe that the dbx was being used without a full understanding of how Chief handles these settings. The dbx can be used easily to represent the required situation. Easily means that Chief works the way it works and the users have to work the way Chief works.

Perry, I'm glad you mentioned this. Here is my take on this. Because Chief is room based, when you have auto build foundation turned off and you build an enclosed room, Chief needs to build a floor. By default, Chief builds a mono slab on level 1 and I don't think that you can change this behaviour (to walls with footings) without having a foundation floor. So...when Chief auto builds this "virtual slab", it is really just building a mono slab under the room without a foundation floor (level 0) below. It is not really a "virtual slab" - it is a real mono slab under a room - it's not a Floor Supplied by the Foundation Room Below slab. You can't have a Walls with Footings foundation without a foundation floor level (level 0) - you can only have a slab, so...if you don't have a foundation floor, Chief can only build a mono slab - or a slab without footings. The upshot is, it isn't a "virtual slab" - it is a real mono slab on level 1. I very often build a house with a mono slab where the mono slab is built on level 1 (the main floor level) without a foundation level (level 0) or without a foundation floor. Chief is just building a Floor Under This Room as a Monolithic Slab Foundation, without Floor Supplied by the Foundation Room Below. Clear as.....

It even gets a bit weirder. Have a look at the attached pic. The red line in the plan view on the right has been rotated -20deg using Rotate Plan View. It was then sent to the layout and the layout box was rotated 20 deg so that the line is vertical. Notice that the text in the line still changes at any angle greater than 90deg (12 o'clock). ie, the text is still changing in relation to the monitor and not the drawing page, layout sheet or layout box. No big deal in the scheme of things, but still interesting.