Alaskan_Son

Members
  • Posts

    11928
  • Joined

Everything posted by Alaskan_Son

  1. Thank you for chiming in. I think you helped nudge me that extra bit I needed. Its clear to me that having files with the same name (whether Chief handles it fine or not) is going to cause me problems. I just know I would have a MAJOR problem keeping track of which plan I was working on without a clear identifier right there in the name if the plan. I have a big enough problem managing open program tabs sometimes.
  2. Ya, this would be a problem for me as well. I actually already have this problem to a smaller extent because I do some manual syncing sometimes and end up having 2 files with the same name showing up on the list. To deal with this, I've learned to float over the name and wait for the popup showing the file path before I open it:
  3. Oh, I see what you're saying. We can do that in Windows but Chief still displays the actual file name. Same with linking to layout. We can link to an alias but the link immediately grabs onto the actual file and not the alias.
  4. @rgardnerand @Renerabbitt, do you guys ever have problems with a layout trying to read information from the wrong file if multiple versions using the same name are open at the same time? I would assume not but it does seem a little weird having several files with the same name open at the same time. In thinking this through, that might actually be my biggest concern aside from the file bloat. I'm not sure I would mentally be able to handle that very well. I could easily see myself with 2 version open at the same time and accidentally making a bunch of changes to the wrong one.
  5. Yes, it has its potential problems but it also has some pretty massive benefits.
  6. Okay. Ya, you guys are both using a variant of the first version I showed. You plan files are renamed for each new project since something like "Koenig_New.plan" would obviously need to be renamed "Smith_New.plan" when you start drawing for the Smith's. That in turn means the "Smith.layout" would need to be relinked when you first start the project, or am I missing something? The 2nd version/variant I suggested would alleviate the need for EVER relinking...even when starting a whole new project. The layout would get renamed but the plan name would always remain the exact same.
  7. The actual PDF file name gets a unique identifier like so: Smith Prelim 1 Smith Prelim 2 Smith Cabinetry 1 Smith Cabinetry 2 Smith Permitting .... On the PDF pages though I just use the date stamp: I guess if multiple versions going out on the same day was a common problem for me, I might consider using an actual time stamp and not just the date. I used to included a manual version number on my PDF cover page but got tired of manually updating that. I realized at some point that a time/date stamp serves the same purposes without any of the extra work.
  8. I can't speak for Rene, but I personally version PDF's only by date. Preliminary vs. Construction might get a different title or watermark of some sort, but versions I only reference using the date.
  9. Can you show one of those folders expanded? I think you and Ryan are using 2 different (although similar) systems. His seems to be more like the first Option I showed above whereas yours seems to be more like the 2nd Option.
  10. Yeah, that's different from what I described. The first version I showed describes a system with an identifying name being assigned to the plan and layout file (this is the one you seem to be using). The second version I showed (the one you just referenced but seem to contradict with your file naming description ) has no unique identified whatsoever. Every single plan and layout file across any and all projects would use the same name. What you just described has both the plan and layout files using a name that ties them to a specific project. Any unique identifiers in the name of your plan file would necessitate a re-linking at some point.
  11. Interesting option. I might have to consider using it myself. Essentially your folder structure looks like this right? Smith Project |__________Version 1 Folder |__________Smith Plan |__________Smith Layout |__________Version 2 Folder |__________Smith Plan |__________Smith Layout |__________Version 3 Folder |__________Smith Plan |__________Smith Layout ...my only worries would be that I might have a difficult time searching for files since there would be tons with the same name, and that the identically named files might eventually cause problems with a layout trying to grab the wrong version. I assume the latter should never happen because I believe Chief will always look in the current folder first, but it feels like a potential problem. I guess I also don't like the idea of all the redundant files bloating my system. It does look super easy though so it might be worth it. It should be noted that this approach still requires re-linking for instances like what the OP has presented since the plan and layout files would both be getting new names. I wonder then if your system wouldn't be better served using this folder structure instead where (hypothetically at least) no relinking would ever be necessary: Smith Project |__________Version 1 Folder |__________My Plan |__________My Layout |__________Version 2 Folder |__________My Plan |__________My Layout Johnson Project |__________Version 1 Folder |__________My Plan |__________My Layout .... The system I currently use works more like this: Smith Project |__________Smith V1 Plan |__________Smith V1 Layout |__________Smith V2 Plan |__________Smith V3 Plan |__________Smith V4 Plan |__________Smith MAIN Plan |__________Smith MAIN Layout ...where the "MAIN" Plan and layout are always the current version. No need for re-linking for any given Project because I never change the name of the current file. Whenever I reach a fork in the road where I want a new version, I simply do a Save As, give the old version a Plan VX name and then immediately Save As again back to the Plan MAIN name. I will only version the layout if its something I know I'll want to return to. The biggest problem with my system is that simultaneously having access to multiple Layout version requires re-linking. It's not something I need very often, but your method would make that part incredibly easy. I could also modify my system to alleviate ever needing to re-linking for new projects by simply removing the unique name from my MAIN versions like this: Smith Project |__________Smith V1 Plan |__________Smith V1 Layout |__________Smith V2 Plan |__________MAIN Plan |__________MAIN Layout Johnson Project .... |__________MAIN Plan |__________MAIN Layout Hmmmm. I might be rethinking my file system here soon. I do kinda like that very first version I demonstrated above (the one I think you described in your post). I just have to decide whether the issues I mentioned are really going to be problems or not.
  12. Its because Chief's Sliding Doors are essentially designed to operate like an exterior slider where one side is fixed and one side is operable. If you want or need Sliding Doors to have 2 independently operable panels than you might want to send in a suggestion.
  13. That's not what I said to do. I said to change the file...so that you're referencing the correct plan. Select the Old Plan from the list of Referenced Files, click the Browse button, and then select your New Plan.
  14. You can do this with the Reference Display for both your Plan View and your Camera Views. You just have to set the Reference Display to use the desired Plan file. In X15 Chief expanded this capability to include not only the ability to offset that Referenced Plan in the X, Y, and Z directions but also the ability to skew the angle:
  15. I know I might be sounding harsh, but it’s totally clear that you either don’t understand the geometry very well yourself, or that you don’t know how to use the tools properly. I can both draw and maintain every single thing you’ve described completely in chief, without any problem whatsoever. The fact you mentioned having to go into “engineering, CAD” to figure out what you needed makes it clear that you don’t know how to use the basic tools Here are a few tools and methods you really might want to familiarize yourself with: 1. Making sure that you were selecting the appropriate wall before changing a dimension. 2. Making sure you are activating the correct Move/Resize mode when actually clicking on a dimension to change it. 3. Making sure to select the appropriate Lock Setting when changing a length in an object’s dialog box. 4. Making sure to GROUP select before rotating when appropriate. 5. Using the Rotate/Resize About Current Point Edit Mode (along with a Temporary Point) if necessary. 6. Using Angular Dimensions to rotate objects 7. This one is more of a trick then it is a proper tool, but you can also place a short, perpendicular section of a Room Divider wall that intersects right where you want your break in order to help keep a wall from moving on you. it should be noted, however, that this should almost never be necessary for any of what you’ve described above. It’s just a somewhat related trick that’s good to be aware of. 8. As was already stated by several of us above… Use CAD tools when necessary. You can’t claim there’s something inherently wrong with the software just because you either refused to use the appropriate tools or just didn’t know how to. This is especially true if you are going into another software and using the same tools over there because you claim chief can’t do it. In particular, you can use the circle tool to find intersections of various lengths to make your geometry problem solving really quick. You can also use temporary lines, Construction Lines, the Stretch CAD tool. 9. Using Point to Point Move when appropriate. 9. Using the Make Parallel/Perpendicular tool 10. Using the Enter Coordinates dialog …. I could go all day. I assure you that everything you’ve described is completely possible to manage inside of Chief though. I’d like to kindly suggest you consider investing in some training sessions with a good coach if you find yourself struggling with this kind of thing, because truthfully….many of us don’t have any problem with these scenarios.
  16. Okay, now we’re getting a little further. That seems like something you should have mentioned. Still not quite there though. As I have already demonstrated, dimension 4 can be almost anything you want it to be even with that angle fixed.
  17. based on this post, it sounds like you just confirmed what I demonstrated in my last post. Without additional constraints dim 4 can be almost anything you want it to be. You are still not making it very clear what we are solving for. It seems that perhaps you are just demonstrating that you may not actually understand the geometry very well yourself and although you think you might’ve found the one answer, you just found one of MANY possible answers.
  18. Hahaha! Yeah, I do that more than I probably should. My bag of secret tricks is still pretty full though : )
  19. Absolutely! My method remains live. Any changes to the sheets themselves and the Layout Page Table updates to suit.
  20. Click and drag using the title bar until your mouse pointer is roughly centered over one side or the other and you should see the new location highlighted: Then drop it and resize as necessary:
  21. We actually do have a trick for this. You can Cut and Paste you Layout Page Table to a CAD Detail in Layout, and send that CAD Detail to Layout. You can then copy, crop, and reposition to create the illusion of either multiple or wrapped Layout Page Tables . If you're willing to pay for a little of my consulting time shoot me over an email and I'd be happy to expand on the idea for you, offer a few additional tips, and/or make you a video walking through the process in more detail. Just shoot me over an email to alaskansons@gmail.com
  22. This you should be able to do without even figuring the problem out. Just go to Tools>Layout>Referenced Plan Files and change all linked files to the one single file of your choice.
  23. I'm just trying to clarify what the end goal is because I don't understand which dimension(s), angle(s), or point(s) we're trying to solve for. In reading through the description it would seem to me that we're trying to make Edge 1 align with P6, but that would require Lines 1 and 2 being at different angles. If we're simply trying to solve for Dim 4 on the other hand, then we don't seem to have enough information to work with since simply rotating Building 1 would allow that number to be just about anything by simply moving Building 2 up or down to suit. And if we're simply trying to find the angles of the lower wall on Building 1 and the upper wall of Building 2, then again, we don't have enough information to work with without some clarification. We can currently model to meet the limited specs given and use an infinite number of configurations even if we were to lock Angles A, B, and C at 90 degrees. ...and that's before allowing for some of the other variables I asked about. In any case, this doesn't seem to be an issue with the program at all but rather a basic geometric issue about which there's either a lack of understanding or lack of proper data.