Alaskan_Son

Me! Joking Okay, Not joking ... Its tricky because you have to use both Ruby (programming language) and Chief which are 2 entirely different and separate constructs. You can use any number of online resources to learn how to program in Ruby including the actual Ruby documentation, the StackOverflow forum, and even ChatGPT... ...But then you also have to learn how to use the various tools that Chief has given us to work with. This is where it gets tricky. There is a lot of nuance and interplay between the 2. We have certain information in Chief that we can access and parse, various ways to access and parse that information, and some (but not all) of those ways can optionally use Ruby. Chief has quite a bit in its documentation about built in name:value pairs, special built in Classes and Methods, and other text macro stuff, but has very little about actual Ruby programming (and rightfully so). If you're serious about custom macros and otherwise using Ruby to access and parse information in Chief, it is well worth the effort to pay for an hour or 3 of consultation/training time. You'll save yourself many hours...days..even weeks of otherwise unnecessary experimentation.

Use a simple Ternary Operator: %height > width ? height : width% ...or put into an Array and use the max method: %[height, width].max%

Yeah, I don't get it. It seems like it would be an easy thing for Chief to just make the calculation conversion internally, but clearly its not that simple or I know they would have done it already.

It was a totally serious question and you seemed to acknowledge its legitimacy in your last post where you seemingly admit that its a problem. Just like me, I'm sure you have seen countless examples of AI changing crucial details (not only in renderings but also in simple text). People gush about how great the results are and many times don't even realize the extent to which the end result has been changed. And when you mentioned "(altered architecture)" it was proceeding "heavy demand time" so I assumed it was a catchall phrase for the level of service you were using and could include material changes, landscape changes, trim details, and so on. Again, I really and truly was just curious if you care that AI changes things because you stated... It's a hard pass for me though. It's 90% cool, but that remaining 10% is a deal breaker. It's not a useful rendering in my opinion unless its accurate and in just about every single example I've seen to date AI does something either structurally or with lighting that I think would be a disservice to my clients no matter how pretty it looks.

Yes. That is what happens if you bring objects over from imperial plans into metric plans. Feels like it shouldn’t be necessary.

...or just open up the camera and uncheck Clip to Room. If you set up the camera as a Wall Elevation, it will automatically clip the sides, bottom, top for you (Clip Plane) and it will Clip to Room which cuts off the view of anything beyond the defined room. You can take advantage of the automatic Clip Plane behavior and just forgo the one Room clipping behavior though by unchecking the aforementioned setting.

Not sure man. I think you might just have to turn on all your layers in a 3D view and start group selecting anything that didn't move with the room.

I guess maybe I've never personally had to import settings between plans with different units. I just assumed it would work like any other plan. You're right though, Default Settings don't seem to carry over. Now that I think about though, I guess it makes sense that Importing Defaults from a plan with different Units may be problematic (although I feel like Chief should be able to make conversions internally so that this type of thing is possible). That being said, you can still Import: Saved Plan Views Layer Sets Default Sets (at least anything not store with Imperial Units) Wall Types Note Types I tested in X17 and it appears to let you Import EVERYTHING but in doing some quick additional tests just now it does look like the Default settings (at least any that I noticed) don't actually carry over. There's no message to say that they don't, but they don't. I guess maybe just Import what you can, and adjust the rest.

Do you not care that Chat GPT completely changed your house?

Rich Text has a number of benefits over Standard or Simple Text including but not limited to: The ability to have multiple colors, formatting options, alignment options, and text sizes in a single text box. The ability to have some sections of the text be all UPPERCASE and other sections in the same box be Standard Case. The ability mix and match Line Spacing and Margin settings in a single text box The ability to use various Bullet styles along with optional Number Prefixes and Suffixes The ability to insert one or more clickable hyperlinks Standard or Simple Text on the other hand has several benefits of its own including: The ability to create adjustable tab stops or rows The ability to display gridlines The ability to create a single link that can be accessed through the edit tools Perhaps most importantly, the ability to dynamically control your text by either layer or by text style My suggestion is to use the one that makes the most sense for the situation, but but BUT, if you're not sure and don't specifically need a Rich Text feature, use standard Text. Standard Text will give you more options that you're likely to want in the future (namely the ones mentioned in the last bullet point) plus you can always convert Text to Rich Text. You cannot simply do the inverse and convert Rich Text to Text.

Ya, it's definitely best to start with a metric plan if possible. I think the best approach is to just open an empty metric template and Import all your various settings as desired. Chief made this a lot easier in X17 but could still be done in X16. That being said, the problem you're seeing is actually due to a limitation Chief has with cabinets in Imperial plans. I've never been 100% sure why, but cabinets (and by extension shelves) are one of a very small handful of items that Chief limits to specific increments (in this case 1/16"). Most items can be set to a much more exact dimension without issue. Try this quick experiment in an Imperial plan to see what I mean: Draw a couple otherwise identical shelves using both the Shelf tool and a 3D Solid and enter "50mm" as the thickness for both. Dimension each of the 2 "shelves". You should see that the Solid will show 50mm and that the Shelf will show 49.21mm Now open the dialogs for your 2 objects one at a time. If your change your Number Style to Decimal Inches, you should see that although they both displayed 1 5/16", that they do in fact store more accurate values when Chief allows it (which they do for almost everything). In the case of Cabinets though, Chief just happens to limit them to 1/16" increments. Again, I'm not 100% sure why but I wish they didn't.

I've designed and otherwise helped set up a few different alternatives to the Project Information system that allow for the addition of as many project info. line items as you'd like. Some are macro based, and some are not. I'd be happy to help set you up with something as well if you'd like. Just email me at alaskansons@gmail.com if you'd like to discuss further. That being said, one of the easiest OOB solutions is to simply add your Assessor Parcel Number as a custom, non-evaluated, user-defined Text Macro via Text Macro Management. See example below where I have created an %APN% macro... P.S. This should be in the General Q&A section.

And the Match Properties tool is yet another good option.

Looks like a faulty font. Exactly which font is that and where did you get it? I know you said sans seriff, but that's just a generic term for fonts without fancy tails coming off the ends of the strokes There are a few that have leading issues like that, but that is one of the worst I've seen. I would definitely just fine a different font.

I agree with almost all of what you said. All except that last sentence. Believe me, Chief is fully aware of the need for collaboration between multiple machines. I'm about 99.99% certain that one of main reasons (if not the main reason) for implementing Project Management in the first place was so that they could address some of these collaboration issues, more specifically with the goal of a managed cloud store so you eventually wouldn't have to import/export anything at all.