Alaskan_Son

You bet. Here's another quick example of an option where the bottom side of those side units is actually part of the cabinet and not added to the unit as a shelf from the library... One piece cab complete 2.plan

By the way, the bottom part of the 2 side sections is tricky and requires some custom shelf symbols if you want them to be part of the cabinet itself (as opposed to manually positioned and free floating) but it's still totally doable. Not something I have time to go through in great detail, but here's a rough finished example... One piece cab complete.plan I didn't perfect all the specifics. Just enough to get the point across.

For the record, I agree, and this is the basic approach I typically use myself. I almost always build those combined units out of several cabinets. I was only offering a way that it could be done with a single cabinet.

All 12 of the wall defaults are essentially identical in functionality. They just give us multiple defaults to work with. NOTE: The various wall defaults are also used for other things that those walls are used for such as automatically produced foundations, Retaining Walls, deck railing, etc., but for the intents of this particular discussion, they're essentially identical in their capabilities and any one of them can be set to match any other.

For efficiency of course. Why not just give us a single text default too eh?

NOTE: I didn't finish the cabinet. Just took it far enough so that you understood what was going on. Next step would be to add separations (or shelves) for the bottom of the 2 side sections and to change the back to something solid (Blank Areas or similar).

Totally doable... One piece cab example.plan ...and we have also commonly built cabinets in one piece to get rid of unnecessary stiles, rails, and redundant case work, so I completely understand why you would want to do so.

No attachments, and I can pretty much guarantee that the AutoCAD version is just newer than X9 can open.

I haven't done that specifically, but I do often times have several layouts per project. CD's, Cabinet Plans, Misc. Details, etc. It works great. X12 just made it a little bit easier. Having said that, I pretty rarely work with more than one of those layouts open at any one time anyway. Usually I'm working on one or the other. Your use case would be one where having both open would be far more useful.

Only if you draw them manually....which a lot of us cabinet designers do anyway for a number of other reasons. Here's a quick video I made a couple years ago that might be of assistance in this regard...

Try the Rooms layer.

A few ways to skin that cat too. First thing I’d say is that using the Page 0 method is really risky unless you are VERY consistent about always using the same scale for every single view. If you are though, what you just spelled out is about the only method. A safer method is to either strategically position the %scale% macro in the view itself, this way it always reflects what’s actually happening; OR, use the layout box scale macro instead (either in the actual label or using a referenced context macro). Aside from those methods, I think manual entry is best.

Away from my computer, but if you select the cabinet and then click Generate Custom Countertop, I don’t believe you’ll have the same issue to contend with. I believe the problem is that the automated cutout is being created by a Hole In Custom Countertop (which is part of the 2D Block for the sink symbol). When you draw out a Custom Countertop, you’re defining an edge that crosses that hole. The result is an extra 2D face. When you use the Generate Custom Countertop tool however, Chief recognizes the problem and doesn’t draw the extra edge.

A few notes: That %scale% macro works great, BUT it must be placed in plan if you want to get the correct printed results. When placed directly in layout, all you'll get is the scale of the actual drawing in layout as it relates to the page. So, if you print your PDF "To Scale", then the resulting text will be "1 in. = 1 in." Don't forget that we actually have automated page number macros. Not sure I see the benefit to using the page label. It just seems like extra work to me based on the page numbering system you're using. If it's me, I would just do this: As Mick said: Open Layout Page 0 and uncheck Include In Layout Page Table Replace the Label Column with the Number column and Rename it "Page"... Replace your "%view.name%" macro with "Page: %page.print%"... The results will be totally automated page numbering (no need to enter it manually), and in my opinion, the Layout Page Table looks less cluttered without the extra "Page" on every line...

Current version is 22.1.1.1x64

I've been asking for labels and various attributes for CAD based objects so we could do stuff like that for quite some time now. In the meantime, the best we have is Line Style>Show Length which DOES display the radius for arcs. It's just really limited what you can do with it is all.

Just opened an old X3 plan. No problems at all.

Pretty sure X12 will open an X5 plan just fine. I think the X8 thing only applies to the old PL1 files.

I also use the copy/paste hold position method for plan views, HOWEVER, this isn't a good solution for other view types and details. For those, I use lines (not temporary points). These can be copied and pasted from page to page, but whenever reasonably possible, its best to just pace them on page zero so you can use the same line as a reference on all pages. These lines can be left off the page and used for alignment and centering without the need to ever turn them off, or they can even be placed in the middle of the page and can be toggled on and off by placing them onto a unique layer.

...and have you made any additional progress?

Oldest one I currently have loaded is X7, but it worked the same in there as well... I agree.

If I'm understanding correctly, he wasn't trying to move it. He was trying to initially draw it. That is, he was trying to drag out a 3/4"x1/4" polyline.

It's not that such a small angle creates the problem, its that the problem only comes into existence at a specific combination of angles and it only takes a single degree to put it over that threshold. This is true of almost every software limitation. There's a specific threshold. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this same problem occurs with reflections in PBR's too. It can get really frustrating because you're essentially forced to position the camera where you don't actually want in in order to get acceptable shadows and reflections. Its one of the big areas where I see Ray Traces remaining irrefutably superior.

It’s always worked that way Joe.

You mention changing the floor/ceiling heights and changing the wall types, but did you check those other settings I mentioned? They were all major contributing factors in that plan.