glennw

Alan, No, you can't delete an individual section of a dimension string and create 2 dimension strings. You can edit it by removing extensions- but it's still one dimension string. You would need to delete it and draw 2 new dimension lines or edit the existing one and draw 1 new one.

Joe, Do you mean like this? These settings can be accessed at Defaults...CAD...General Cad. Display Line Length Format as Units = ' to how ever many decimal places you want (or different formatting if you don't want decimal feet). Display Line Angle As Quadrant Bearing.

Go to Preferences...Material List...Report Style...Include These Columns...uncheck Floor. if you don't have a Floor column, Chief lists for the building and doesn't list by floor.

You can define a single layer wall, without fill and it will display in plan without fill, even if it is defined as a Solid rail. You can display the walls any way you want. ie, if your wall definition has a fill, a solid railing using that wall definition will have a fill. If your wall definition doesn't have a fill, a solid railing using that wall definition will not have a fill It all depends on what wall definition your railing uses. If you need a multilayered wall, you can use white lines for any wall layers that you don't want to print

Graham, I can see that you have invested a lot of time and thought into your solution. I wish you luck and look forward to Scott's comments.

Rich, I have been meaning to ask. Why are your text blocks so narrow. Do you use a carriage return (Enter) where you want the end of the line, or to coincide with the window width you are typing into? I think just about everyone else just lets the auto text wrap do it's thing. No big deal, I am just curious.

Graham, I think you misread my post. I wasn't suggesting a technique to achieve what Scott may want. I was only posting a picture to indicate what I think he wants the final result to be. I will be interested to see what you propose and even more interested to see Scott's comments.

Graham, I believe that Scott is looking for something like this, or at least a variation of this - maybe different framing configuration? Note that there are 2 different wall thicknesses.

I agree with this Jay's advice 100%.

Yeah Scott, I took my present and left. I remembered that it was the same method that you used right back in the beginning. I still think the best way is to use a double wall and the Enlarged option. It's just so much cleaner and easier to edit. I would put up with the double framing - mainly because I don't use framing anyway, so it would be perfect for me.! But, each to his own.

Doug, But what happens if I want to pint a section of a page other than page 0? It would make it a lot easier if you could move the drawing sheet around on any layout page.

Dan, Or...we just need to be able to drag the drawing sheet around in layout - same as we can do in plan view. That way the printing page size is set. The Export emf relies on drawing a marquee which could be any size - not necessarily relating to the printing page size.

Boxon 1, The beam isn't a problem, you can place that at any height as needed. The walls are a problem because the bottom of the walls are at the incorrect height. This is rectified by dragging the wall bottom edges up in an elevation/section view. BUT...you have a very thick wall and the inside framing layer sits on the raised up beam. So...instead of making the wall 1 thick wall, make it out of 2 wall definitions, the inside framing layer that sits on the beam and then a second wall definition that sits on the roof. Butt them up against each other and adjust their bottom heights independently as required. The additional framing member generated in the roof frame is a sub-fascia, so if you don't need them elsewhere, turn them off, or hide them with the beam.

Coralie, What you show is different from the plan you posted. ie, the original level zero external walls were concrete. What level is the terrain drawn on? Maybe post another plan if it has changed. This is a perspective floor overview of level zero.

Joey, Fencing Specification dbx...Rail Style panel...Build From...choose from Step Terrain or Follow Terrain.

Coralie, When I opened your plan, there was no terrain in the basement. Is Terrain...Terrain Specification...General...Clipping...Hide Terrain......checked - this is the usual way to control this.

Perhaps you should go to the Home Designer forum, this is the Chief Architect forum. In Chief, we have an option to Follow Terrain. It is here: Fencing Specification dbx..Rail Style Panel...Build From...Follow Terrain.

Glad you fixed that one. As Joe said, with a custom Ruby script, you can report the area to any number of decimals you want.

I have been trying to think of a setting that would effect the decimal places in a schedule, but I can't think of one. Anyone else? Maybe it's a quirk with the trial version. I recommend that you call support and ask them.

I am not sure why it is not showing the decimal places. It is working OK for me. Maybe post the plan so that we can have a look at your settings.

Same answer as in the other thread.

Specify the Rail Style as Panels. Then on the Newels/Balusters panel, specify the cable rail under Panels

Have a look at Preferences...General...Unit Conversions. These are all the conversions you can do OOB. You can even create additional units if you need to - although all the included ones should cover just about any situation unless you require furlongs, chains, etc.

Sherry, You shouldn't need to specify any additional angles. Just check the 71/2 Degrees option and make sure angle snaps are on. When you drag a wall, check the status bar to make sure you are dragging at 221/2 deg. You should never have to set any of those angles as additional as they are all on when Angle Snaps is on. Or I don't get what you are saying.

Bob, I will be sending you my invoice for a large revision fee! Bob is a user who I really like helping because I can see that he has invested a lot of time and effort in learning Chief and pushing his skills as far as possible. He is quite prepared to jump in and bite the bullet. What he has created from what was originally a limited understanding of Chief, is truly amazing. Sure, he has been frustrated (very!) at times, but he has created something truly amazing and I know that any future projects he gets to do in Chief will be a breeze based on what he has gone through on this project. Maybe when the latest round of amendments are finished, Bob could post a pic of what he has achieved.