Alaskan_Son

This is just how Chief handles room information inside the Room Specification dialog and only while it is open. The values that get reported to the Materials List should be correct.

I showed that in the quick GIF clip above unless I’m misunderstanding the question. I both added walls and edited existing walls. Moving existing walls changed the automatically produced foundation walls which also updated accordingly.

I've tested and used quite a few different methods for this type of thing, but I hated having to manually refresh things or depend on timers, so I recently went back to the drawing board and developed an entirely new system... It remain constantly live, and allows using either a standalone total or a functioning schedule that can be reordered. Its a rather complex system with its own limitations but I love how it works. I don't have a lot of spare time these days but I can offer my services to help set something up or teach you how it works as time permits. If you're interested, I think you have my email.

Not everything is subjective. We're talking about objective functionality here. The issue being discussed can only be "corrected" as you guys seem to be proposing by breaking the existing and purposeful function. Let me give you some examples of what we can currently do: Send a view to layout without any clipping... Send a view to layout and clip the layout box... Clip the camera and then send that view to layout... 2 different clipping tools for 2 entirely different purposes. Just use the right one for the right job. If you are suggesting that camera clipping should clip what gets sent to layout then you're literally just moving the layout box clipping tool to the plan file and removing the function of camera clipping...or at least making it so that the clipped camera views that are sent to layout need to have the layout box expanded. No, I hold that you guys just need to request a different tool. I'm still curious why you feel its inherently better to clip in plan then it is to simply clip in layout.

You seem to be suggesting that this tool is somehow broken or doing something its not supposed to do but its working exactly as intended. Its designed to clip the camera view, period. Its not a layout tool. What you seem to want is a different tool entirely. In fact, the thing you seem to be looking for is exactly the thing we already have in layout. You can already simply clip your layout box. Clipping camera views allows for removing unwanted 3D information while still allowing for CAD whereas clipping the layout box removes everything. 2 different tools for 2 different purposes. It sounds like you want 2 different clipping tools available in Plan so that you can not only clip your camera views but also clip your layout box ahead of time. Would that really be better though...you have to adjust the box either way.

I think its entirely intended. It's sending everything that's being displayed in your view. This gives us the ability to create a clipped view and then annotate or otherwise dress up the view with CAD/Text objects that extend outside the clipped area. If you don't want the various CAD in your view I would argue that it probably shouldn't be there at all. If you need to leave it there and would like only the clipped area to send to layout, maybe try turning the unwanted layers off before sending or group selecting and cutting the objects to your clipboard before sending. Then when you're done sending the view, Paste Hold Position.

The issue with the extension lines disappearing is definitely a bug and something I've seen multiple times in my own plans. Not sure what the trigger is either. It seems super unpredictable. Sometimes you can even get the extensions to come and go depending on where you position the dimension string and even on how quickly you move it (whether you move it all in one go or move it a little at a time). The weird thing is that the extension is actually there. You just can't see it.

If you simply Add to Library (instead of converting to symbol) you shouldn't have any of these problems.

Open your Camera Specification and study your Scene Clipping options for a minute.

...but then I think it would largely defeat the purpose. Anyway, here's my take: I don't care that they changed it. The bounding box caused me at least as many problems as it solved. It didn't allow snapping to or measuring to the actual tank or bowl, it precluded easy placement of items that encroached into the bounding box area even f they weren't technically a code issue, they made it a pain to position toilets in as-built or other non-code compliant situations, they made it impossible to resize the toilet geometry to any degree of accuracy, AND they were barely even useful for their intended purpose since I pretty much never design to the minimum anyway (I still ended up needing to reposition the toilet regardless). Yes, they helped make sure I maintained the code minimum, but that's something I constantly need to keep track of and verify anyway, especially considering I'm commonly overriding the bounding box for the placement of various objects either way.

Are you looking for something like the example I posted in this thread?

Its in the Help Files: Custom Configuration Buttons By default, new Toolbar Configurations display a default configuration ../../Resources/img/btn/defaultTBSet.png button; however, if you want you can make your own button icon for your custom Toolbar Configuration. Create a .png file with the same name as the configuration and save it in the Toolbars folder. To see an example, look at the Default .png file in the Chief Architect Premier Toolbars folder, which corresponds to the Default Toolbar configuration. See Chief Architect Premier Data. Toolbar button images must be 20 x 20 pixels in size. The color (R:192, G:192, B:192) maps to the system 3D face color. The color (R:128, G:128, B:128) maps to the system 3D Shadow color. The color (R:223, G:223, B:223) maps to the system 3D light color.

I think you'll need to provide a bit more detail. Are the numbers slightly off, or do the settings seem like they're being ignored entirely? If the latter, you may also want to provide a screen shot example of what you're talking about possibly along with a plan file if you really want an accurate answer.

My statements had nothing to do with getting the correct value. I was just spelling out how to get a default value other than the 30" value some of the guys said they seemed to be stuck with.

Do you mean this: ...because I've spelled out how you can get a NEW plan to use a new default.

Like I said, it just remembers that last value you typed in there...well at least the last value that was used. To get a different value by default: Open your Template Plan Open your roof settings Set the Framing Method to Trusses Change the Heel Height to the desired value Click Okay. This alone should change the default value; however if you would like to leave Rafters as the default... Open your roof setting back up and set the Framing Method to Rafters Save the changes to your Template Plan. Next time you start a New Plan, you should be able to open up your roof settings, check trusses, and the heel height should be your desired value.

This would seem to be the logical solution on the surface, but there's a bit more to it than that. Most notably, the VSD would change with any changes to the pitch of any given roof plane. In particular, this would become a big problem wherever roof pitches were being controlled independently using Wall Directives. The current system is set up to handle either a static heel height OR a variable (Automatic) Birdsmouth. What I think Steve would need to solve his probelm is an Automatic Heel Height checkbox.

It sounds to me like you want a setting to auto calculate for a variable heel based on the Vertical Structure Depth of the Top Chord to mimic the old behavior. If so, I think you'll have to send in a request for that. I think that's a capability we simply lost with the introduction of the new heel height control. It's not something I personally need, but I get it.

Auto populates with 12" for me. My guess is that it has something to do with the template you're using and how it may have been modified in the past. I believe that setting just remembers the last value you typed in there.

Yup. Easy to reproduce. Looks like a bug to me too.

Not sure shy you're using a Referenced File. Why not drop the DWG information directly into the existing plan file? This way you can simply place onto its own layer and move it around freely.

Next time post your question in the General Q&A section. This forum is for sharing actual symbol and content resources. To answer your question though, double click in the Formula field. That field on the right is just the results of what gets entered on the left.

Open Object>Advanced Sizing Uncheck Update when Object Dimensions Change under 3D Geometry Dimensions Change the Object Dimensions>Width to 32" (or whatever you want your bounding box width to be) A couple notes: You should see that the Bounding Box Spacing numbers are automatically populated with the required Left and Right offsets. You could replace Steps 2 and 3 by just entering these offsets manually if you want. With Update when Object Dimensions Change left unchecked (under 3D Geometry Dimensions), any changes to the toilet dimensions will only change the bounding box. This is really a pretty handy feature but you may or may not want this behavior, so it may be a good idea to recheck that setting once your offsets are auto calculated.

Here’s a possible clue: Where is your sub fascia?

This really depends on what you mean by "the right way". If for example the cabinet will be ordered as 2 separate units, then I'd say 2 separate cabinets is the right way. If you're drawing plans for the cabinet shop and you think simply adding a note that says "Build island as single unit" will do the trick, then I see nothing wrong with simply building with 2 cabinets. If its just for a rough cabinet layout, I would use separate cabinets all day long. If however you're building a frameless unit and need to show and account for only a single 3/4" divider between those openings, then a single cabinet is probably the right way. It just completely depends on what exactly you need to communicate and to who.