Alaskan_Son

Have you read the Help files on this subject?

That particular method only sort of works, only for certain object types, only for limited scenarios, and it can be a huge pain even when it does work. Examples: Bumping and Pushing still picks up on hidden objects so this makes placing new cabinets, symbols, etc. a big pain. Cabinet under even hidden countertops still think they have one already so they won't produce their own. In addition, they won't give you the Generate Custom Countertop tool either. Walls still connect to and/or override existing walls Windows and doors still cannot properly coexist in the same 3D space and will still cut a hole in the wall even if that window or door layer is turned off in the other view Automated moldings will not behave as expected in the various views as they still pick up on hidden objects in order for the program to work correctly ...and this is just a few of the issues to contend with.

Here. See if this helps...

Yup. This would be my guess as well.

Sorry, I spoke much too quickly earlier and didn't study your plan well enough so I just deleted my statement. It doesn't matter what floor you put the terrain on. It should behave the same and it should always reference Floor 1. Your discrepancy comes from your elevation line settings. That 21" offset is referencing a 0" elevation height. The highest point on your terrain however is -18".

Wow...That's hard to believe. If its true, I salute you...you must have been sprinting too and fro, and must be crazy fast at setting up that tripod (assume there is one). Okay, I guess it doesn’t sound too crazy. Pretty fast though considering the camera itself must take a little time at each location too. I’d be curious as to how much time it takes you from the moment you open the thing up to the moment it’s put away. Let me know if you ever actually time it.

That's pretty stinkin' cool. If nothing else, it seems like the ability to record and review basic site conditions alone might be worth it. How long did that "scan" take, and how many sample locations did you use?

I would...and have. There are a couple pretty great (albeit rather complex and advanced) methods I've developed and utilized. There are different variations of each and they can be further automated using some more complex steps, Ruby, text macros, and/or macros in Excel, but here are the 2 basic methods in their simplest forms and in a grossly understated nutshell... Method #1 (using solids): Draw an existing terrain Draw a proposed terrain Use Multiple Copied Polyline Solids that reference terrain at top (these should represent your desired sample size and shouldn't be more than you really need), convert to Solids, combine using Solid Union, and chop the bottom off at a specific height using another Solid. This will result in a solid version of your terrain from which you can get a Volume using Ruby. Do this for both terrain versions. Use those 2 terrains to get your starting volumes of each terrain. Use Solid Intersection to find undisturbed volume of those 2 combined terrains. Take Cut and Fill volumes from that. Method #2 (using an object and schedule to automate the old-school grid method): Draw an existing terrain Draw a proposed terrain Use a multiple copied object that has a schedule to distribute your "grid" reference heights. This multiple copied object should reference the terrain at bottom (0") and should have a usable "bottom" in its schedule. Once distributed, change the reference to absolute (but DO NOT change the height). Drop a schedule with a "bottom" column into the plan. This should give you a list of your sample heights that you can simply copy/paste into a spreadsheet for your existing terrain. Copy paste your distributed objects and schedule to your proposed plan, and repeat the appropriate parts of the process to get numbers for your proposed terrain. Use Excel or other spreadsheet to carry out desire calcs. Quick Note: The required boolean operations for Method #1 can take a long time for Chief to carry out so don't overdo the sample quantity, and the schedule for Method #2 will be very slow to work with since it will inevitably be quite large...especially if you use any macros to further automate the thing, so again...don't overdo the sample quantity. ...and that's about all I have the time or inclination to spell out on that right now. Totally doable though and the results can be about as accurate as you can get anywhere else. As accurate as you want to get really.

Love it!!

It's about 10 below at the moment. We're hanging in there though : )

In addition to being able to remove the path length restriction in Windows 10 (a quick search will show you how), you can also actually map a folder to a drive letter thereby cutting out a whole bunch of characters from the path name. Plenty of articles out there on this as well. Just search something like "map local folder to drive letter".

I believe it's been 260 for a long time. I think the 255 number is a generally accepted length after a few necessary characters have been accounted for (drive letter, colon, backslash and....not sure...file extension or terminating characters or some other technical jargon).

As Chop said, you can add spaces. If you are using dimensions below the line this could be solved by using a Marker Default that has the Alignment set to Away From Marker so that the dimension just gets moved with your text. The other things you can do is manually position actual markers which DO have the capability you're asking for.

Not sure if you read that completely or not. It's not just the product keys. It's the installers too...

I’m with you. This is a common attitude amongst most Chiefers, however I assure you that Chief DOES have the ability to model things extremely accurately and there are a handful of us that do exactly that. It really just comes down to what you’re using Chief for I guess. Quick and dirty CD’s and I can’t fault people for just getting it close enough. I personally however model things to a very high degree of accuracy on a regular basis. It’s just about investing the time in properly learning what tools you have available, how those tools work, and how to let go of your preconceived ideas of how the tools should work based on your experience with other programs. Anyway, here are some quick tips that immediately come to mind... 1. Learn what Multiple Saved Defaults are.... 2. ....and set up/utilize Active Defaults from the start. It’s just very important from a productivity standpoint that you learn to place your various CAD/annotation items using the appropriate defaults, the appropriate settings, and onto the desired layers, etc. This makes quick work of dimensioning your tiny little molding details as necessary. 3. Study and learn the Enter Coordinates dialog (Tab entry method). It might not be what you are used to, but it’s the method Chief uses, and it’s really quite efficient and effective once you get used to it. 4. Learn to limit your work to plan views and elevations/sections whenever possible if you want to model super accurately, and in conjunction with those views... 5. Learn to use CAD Detail From View along with Cut/Copy and Paste Hold Position. This is the way I always obtain snaps that aren’t otherwise available. Assign the tools to hotkeys and the process becomes pretty stinkin’ quick. 6. Turn the various Snap settings on and off as necessary. The last thing you want when trying to draw things accurately is Chief snapping to the Angle or Grid when you want to snap to an object. 7. Learn to use both dimensions and the various dialogs to set object parameters. I know it’s easy to get used to simply typing in parameters during the initial draw with Sketchup and you can do that to a certain extent in Chief using the Tab key; however, it simply doesn’t work the same and in my opinion that just comes with the territory in large part when moving from CAD and basic 3D modeling to a program rich with built in parametric functionality. 8. Learn to import, resize, and trace over/measure from images and PDFs. ... I could go on all day with additional power tips but those are the top few that come to mind for accurate modeling.

Issue has been around for a very long time...

...or just mask it in layout with a filled polyline (background color, with or without a hole, and with or without the invisible line style).

Good catch Eric.

I pretty much never use PDF's for anything other than temporarily as a reference. I prefer to draw/type that stuff up myself. All my use case scenarios as referenced in the latter parts of this thread are CAD Details located in a Plan file that have been sent to a Layout file by opening the CAD Detail and using Send To Layout. I then copy that Layout Box from that layout using Control+C and paste into a second open Layout using Control + V or Control+Alt+V and all works great. Richard seems to be having a different experience.

The problem here is that situations like this almost invariably require code that only works for one specific use case scenario and so its not some simple pre-existing idea or code that you really need. In this case, you need a very specifically (and creatively) designed, written, and configured code that meets your specific use case. In other words, it requires someone to do the work. If you already know how, I could give you some quick tips, but otherwise I would just need to do the work for you. Sometimes I feel like people think we're being stingy with our knowledge and ideas, but I could literally spend all day everyday answering followup questions to that free information I provide. Its akin to designing homes...it takes someone who knows what they're doing to get it done and its not something you can learn in a few posts. This is why there are VERY few people here who know how to effectively write and use some of the more complex custom macros. The investment is simply too great, and I would argue that its typically not even worth it either. You could spend literally hundreds of hours getting it all figured out from a technical standpoint, but maybe you're not the creative type, so you still end up hitting roadblocks. Plus, even if you are super good at devising creative solutions and you master Chief and you master Ruby, is it really worth all the hundreds of hours invested if you could simply pay somebody for a few hours of their time to do it for you? Anyway, I don't have much extra time to play with right now, but here's some quick custom macros and general ideas on-the-house as a one time courtesy. Just open the attached plans and see how I set the 2 joists up. They both contain a slightly different solution depending on what your end goal is, but they both essentially do what you're trying to accomplish... Material List price mod.zip Again, that was as a one-time courtesy. Use it freely as you wish, but if you need further modifications, in depth explanations, or coaching, that would be a different story.

This is totally doable using Ruby. Are you competent with Ruby and custom text macros?

For this, simple text macros usually do the trick. The scale always changes with CAD blocks because each CAD block just retains it's original size. You could technically "fix" this issue by simply grouping something like a much larger but empty text box with your desired text so that the size of the block was always controlled by the much larger borders. This way, the affected area of the block would remain unchanged with any changes.

I would call this instancing, and yes, it would be great if Chief had some more true instancing capabilities. I made a quick video a while back during a discussion we were having elsewhere... I think the main problem with any BIM type CAM software is that for things like walls, windows, doors, floor systems, etc. where there are automated connection/interaction behaviors, that it would be nearly (if not) impossible to allow different instances to interact uniquely with each unique instance. For at least simple non-parametric geometry though, it would be really nice if we had some more capabilities in this department. Not sure how useful it would really be for this particular example, but it would be useful nonetheless.

You just seem to have a faulty room definition. Check out the Structural panel for that room and look at the settings in there. Specifically, check the ceiling height and decide whether that room should really be set to have a monolithic slab or not.

I don't understand the problem. Can you show a quick example?