Alaskan_Son

Members
  • Posts

    10953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alaskan_Son

  1. Set landing heights manually and then simply drew stairs from landings to landings and from landing to ground. Same thing you tried to do with floors but with landings instead.
  2. Are you sure you actually connected to the landings? I just tried it with your plan and it works just fine.
  3. There probably is. I'm still not quite sure what the problem is. In reading back though though, and after having opened your plan file, I think I may have stumbled on it... You don't need to draw 5 floors. What you need to do is simply draw 5 Landings. Then the stairs can automatically reference those.
  4. Lines 1 and 2 are NOT the same line weight as the rest, therefore your polyline is NOT fully enclosed... The line weight of the main polyline was just manually changed at some point... All you need to do is open it up and check the By Layer for the Weight. Then just click on one of the end nodes and then click on it again.
  5. Can you explain why placing onto a different layer isn't a good solution?
  6. Not sure I understand why anyone would need a floor at all. Is it just the automatically calculated Riser Heights that you're looking for?
  7. +1. I was going to make the same suggestion myself.
  8. I don't have a lot of time to dig into exactly what might be happening, BUT...Chief seems to be getting confused by not only the invisible wall Glenn mentioned, but also by the solid wall types being used to define the deck. Its as if Chief thinks those walls are the building when generating the deck supports. Change those to railing walls or Invisible walls and the problems also seem to go away that way. I would definitely send this one in to tech support.
  9. I posted my own personal thought on the subject here...
  10. Also bear in mind that you can ENTER values in a number of different formats provided that you also type in the appropriate unit indicators as well.
  11. To be fair, I didn't actually accuse you of anything. I suggested that you make sure "you're not unintentionally pirating software" and that "the original purchaser isn't violating their license agreement." You could cost that person their license.
  12. Chief has made it pretty clear over the years that they don't mind people keeping copies of previous version installed and even using them as necessary. I think the intent of that section is to keep people from using multiple version simultaneously.
  13. I don't think the pony wall is the problem. Its the solid wall that's the problem. Normal railing walls with a defined height and with their newels and balusters (or panels) allow for easily following a terrain contour due to the very obvious and straightforward way these components can be logically be broken up and separated into individually undulating sections. A solid wall on the other hand has no such logical breaks. Its kinda like building a fence in real life. With regard to your specific application, it doesn't really sound like you actually need to use a workaround so much as it sounds like you just need to find (or make) yourself a suitable railing panel symbol. Note that you can also reshape solid walls in 3D and that you can overlap a room definition wall and a no room definition wall to get a few more options.
  14. 2 wall types of the same type (room definition and no room definition) cannot occupy the same plan view space. Try one set to room definition and another set to no room definition.
  15. From the Help File Check Follow Terrain to have the railing or fencing follow the terrain smoothly. Not available if the selected railing is a Solid or a Pony Wall.
  16. How so? You were quite obviously equating my response in another thread with your responses here. I think you're smart enough to know that there's a big difference. Regarding my hypocrisy. I think we all have a tendency to be hypocritical from time to time and I won't pretend to be innocent. To be honest, I normally wouldn't have cared so much if someone had brought up an opinion in passing like you did. I do it all the time myself, but this was a little different. Not only was it really besides the point seeing as how the OP had already clearly stated his rationale for wanting to do so, but 3 of you guys kinda attacked the guy in a really insulting way. Plus, I feel like some of the statements were really unhelpful and unproductive. I absolutely hate the idea of Chief removing a capability because someone thinks it should never be used. You can argue all you want, but if someone finds it easier and more productive to work with cm, even if they want to use cm on the plans, then that's really their prerogative. And whether its an accepted standard in most circles or not, cm are still used in certain applications and as such, if a person wants to use them they should be able to. At the end of the day though, I really just didn't like the way so many of you guys swooped in and ripped on the OP. It just seemed kinda mean and unproductive with regards to the question that was posed.
  17. I was actually typing up a response when you posted that but decided to hold off. For the first question, I really shouldn't even dignify that with a response. If you don't already understand then what I say will be of no value to you. For the second part, I never actually said the standard of using mm was subjective (even though that could actually be argued in certain circles as well). What I said was that the choice was subjective. And just FYI, I carefully consider how and when I use downvotes, and I try to only use them when I legitimately feel a post is unhelpful or misleading.
  18. @John_Charles, can you really not see what I'm saying here? The OP asked a super simple question. He just wanted to know if there was a way he could change the dialogs to use cm because that's what he is accustomed to and 3 of you guys all essentially jumped down the poor guys throat making him sound like some kind of idiot without offering any semblance of an actual answer to his question. Based on your response to another thread you seem to think this is on par with potential piracy/licensing agreement violation? I'd suggest you rethink your priorities a little.
  19. That's true. This issue actually affects me as a paying customer though. Furthermore, piracy is a serious issue, not a subjective choice like I don't know.... say something like typing values in cm instead of mm.
  20. Here's one little trick I know of: Before exporting, you can create one or more Terrain Holes to bisect the contour lines. Just make the Terrain Holes so that they're super super narrow (0.01" should do it) and so that they visually look like a simple line. Those terrain holes will cause different contours to generate on each side of the "line" and therefore you'll get an extra set of labels. Just turn the layer off before exporting, OR once the labels are generated, simply create a CAD Detail From View, group select the extra labels, paste hold position back in your view, and then delete the Terrain Holes.
  21. Ah, I see now that you're back in X12. That name:value pair is new to X13.
  22. I would make sure that you're not unintentionally pirating software and that the original purchaser isn't violating their license agreement.
  23. Okay, in that case, what you're after is totally possible. How proficient are you with custom macros? If you know what you're doing you can parse and combine information from the following name:value pairs: width (returns the total window width) height (returns the total window height) component_section_size (returns the size of the flanking units unless set to zero in which case unit is divided into 3 equal sections) automatic_description (returns the window type_name followed by a description of the sections and their hinging) If you're not proficient with writing your own custom macros, that is a service I offer and I would be happy to help you, but I'd need to know a few more specifics with regard to how you like other window labels to display. Shoot me over an email to alaskansons@gmail.com if you'd like to discuss further. In the meantime, the information is all there so its definitely doable.
  24. Are you using a triple casement or a mulled unit for these?