Alaskan_Son

It will if you open those walls and tell Chief to Create Wall/Footing Below.

Same basic naming convention but just written differently using superscript... 2⁶6⁸ or dashes... 2-6 x 6-8 or slashes... 2/6 x 6/8 etc. I know what 2668 means but I still have to expend a lot more mental effort to sort it out in my mind when I read it that way. I prefer the superscript labeling to any other hands down. It's clear and it takes up less space.

A few biggies IMO that will really hamper your abilities (even just on interior design), and I'm speaking from experience as both a designer and as a trainer, consultant, and coach... Active Layer Display Options CAD Detail From View TAB input method Custom Dimension Text Match Properties Ruby Limitations The average user could probably do without the last one, but the other 5 alone are worth the upgrade IMO. And that says nothing of the other tools that your bound to end up wanting for the little side jobs, unexpected requests, and other opportunities that are almost certain to come up.

By the way, just a side note, but it’s totally possible to do superscript labels in X12 without a custom font. I still prefer a custom font because the superscript numbers are too small with most fonts and look just plain terrible with others, but Chief does fully support Unicode now so all it takes is a pretty simple text macro.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the 2668 nomenclature either, and I still find it confusing even when I know it’s happening, but in Chief’s defense, it’s really not uncommon. Plenty of window and door companies call sizes out the same way.

Don’t think it could ever work properly that way. Chief needs some kind of placeholder in order for Auto Rebuild to remain toggled on.

Not entirely true. If you delete an attic wall while Auto Rebuild Attic Walls is toggled on, the wall is automatically changed to an invisible wall and put onto the "Walls, Invisible" layer. Delete it again and it changes back to a normal attic wall and put back onto the "Walls, Attic" layer.

I think you should ONLY post it in suggestions. It wasn't a question and your thoughts on the matter are of little effect if you don't send them to Chief.

Completely subjective. It could be just as easy to start from the bottom using the Height (Starts AT Height) or from the heel (In From Baseline). I've framed houses for many years, and I honestly don't believe I would ever use that top number you're talking about as my main point of reference. Is it a lower pitch?

Another thing you can consider and what a lot of us do is skipping double and single digit numbering altogether. My first page in every sequence is 101 (A-101, S-101, E-101, etc.)

All great advice Rab

Yes. Completely automated using a schedule and custom macros.

I'm kinda curious. Do you actually order very many cabinets with a reveal that small? We always have those built to 1/8"+. 1/16" is way too small IMO. The slightest tweaking of anything and panels are bumping into each other. Not very functional in my personal opinion and experience.

It just got switched to an invisible wall is all. Maybe you accidentally deleted it at some point.

Whether you agree with the logic and approach or not, I'm sure the reason is because they wanted to re-use the code and dialog box. I would do the same thing if it seemed logical to me. I think that's where the core of our disagreements lie (whether between you and I, you and Chief, me and Chief, etc.). Chief chose to use the baseline of the perpendicular roof plane. I see nothing wrong with this. Yes, I can see the benefit of using a different parameter such as width at wall. Go ahead and request it. That would be great. I think you're grasping at straws with this one. Sure if you measure it from that direction there's no pitch, but its easy enough to understand that its pitched and its also an upper plane. We can use at least a very small amount of deductive reasoning there. This I can certainly agree with. True, but the more we can use auto settings, the better.

You are correct. No need for the extra wall. You can just overlap a door and a pass-through in the same wall. There can be a few little quirks though when 2 openings occupy the same space in the same wall and you also get less control over where the wall lands relative to the wall.

For the record, I haven't had to use door panel take-offs from Chief myself, but quite honestly I've never needed to do probably 75% of the things that I've needed to provide to various Chief clients. In other words, I don't need it, but I figure out how to do it for others. I've found that this practice commonly brings me to these 2 realizations: A. The reason others may not be doing it isn't because they don't want to or have no use for it. It's simply because they haven't considered that it was actually a viable option. B. There are a lot of things I had never considered doing that I realize are great ideas and start to integrate into my own workflow. In this particular instance I could see this being quite handy and I would argue that 1/32" isn't going to make or break anything with almost anything we do in our normal course of business, and besides, there are steps that can pretty easily be taken to round numbers down too. Anyway, with a little custom macro work, this is totally possible albeit with a couple of minor quirks...

Yes. This^^^^^

It can be done using walls set to no room definition to hold the doors, and pass-throughs to create the openings. Quick example... Doors.plan

By the way, just to be very very clear, I think there definitely should be angular dimension defaults.

This is highly debatable. There are many many things that have no default setting and there are many things that can be controlled via several different defaults (due to our own incessant and somewhat self destructive desire for options). Not so sure Chief needs to make a point of highlighting everything that doesn't have a default setting. That's not something I've ever seen in any software. If you can't find the setting using the appropriate channels than there probably isn't one.

No. Not really. You asked what that setting was for. You question was easily answered by reading the description and clicking on Help. And you would very naturally and easily be directed there going the other direction as well...

I feel like this is a flawed question... "Which Universities offer Architecture Studies via Chief Architect Software" No universities anywhere offer architecture studies via software of any kind. Architectural degrees have nothing whatsoever to do with software. The question is kinda like asking which universities offer law degrees using Microsoft Word. Chief Architect is simply a tool some designers choose to use and is nothing more than a supporting class a person might take. An architectural or engineering degree is a huge investment and requires a butt-load of prerequisites as others have mentioned. In addition to the academic prerequisites you're looking at several more years of study and then several more years working for someone else before you'll get your so called stamping privileges. It's no small undertaking by any means and if you ask me, "which software do you teach with?" is not even a question worth asking. You can learn software anywhere.

By and to the the way, its all right there in the Name and in the Help files... I find that Chief is far more clear with things than we often give them credit for when we take the time to slow it down a notch and actually read their descriptions.

Yes. As far back as I know. It controls the displayed angle for lines...