Alaskan_Son

I haven't seen any example where the behavior sticks when the redundant copy is moved or deleted.

Not an error on your part. Just a weird bug. Not sure it's worth discussing though because it's really a non-issue. As soon as you move the redundant copy, the behavior goes away. You might want to report to tech support though.

Also uses less material so it’s less wasteful and they almost always look a lot nicer since they don’t have unnecessary seams. Having cabinet shop build groups of potentially separate cabinets into single units also allows for a lot of configurations that would otherwise be super inefficient or even impossible. It’s something we’ve done a lot.

Curious. Did you just stop there or did you check any of the other files? For example, did you click on the link in that file the directs you to “Saved and Unsaved Plan Views”?

The main goal (at least the challenge I was personally trying to help solve) was to get a SINGLE cabinet for material lists and schedules (something that a block somewhat solves), and to get 2 sinks that BOTH show in schedule images and that BOTH carry with the unit when it’s added to the library (something that the block also solves). The block has various problems and the double sink symbol method also has various problems, but they solve the challenge that was posed by NateGeno (not the OP).

You are correct in that the need for such a tool is much lower with wall than it is with CAD and that's it's tough to come up with a relevant scenario when put on the spot, but I can assure you that I've run into many situations where I wish I had trim and extend for walls. Here are just a few scenarios and reasons though... Reason: It can be a whole lot easier to Extend a wall with a single click or by dragging out a quick fence than it can be to zero in on and grab the end edit handle. Reason: It can be much less error prone to click or use fence to extend a wall where multiple potential connection points exist. This can be particularly true of larger, busier plans, or when working on plans with off angle walls. Reason: It gives us a quick, fluid, and dependable way of working with angle snaps turned off. Reason: In order to use CAD and walls in conjunction with each other for trimming and extending the other. Scenario: Drawing double walls, furring walls, other multi-walls, etc. Scenario: Drawing large grids of rooms. This is something that's actually come up many times in my own personal experience. Scenario: Drawing walls for non standard purposes or non living space type reasons. Various fence, retaining wall, decorative wall, a no room definition wall scenarios come to mind...again especially when working on large busy plans, when working with a lot of angles, or when working with no room def walls that overlap regular walls. Scenario: Group select and change thickness of walls and lose all the connections. This one I have had had come up many times and its always a huge pain to go back and fix all those connections. Having the extend tool available could make this a lot easier many times. Scenario: Adding a quick bump-out or multiple bump-outs by simply drawing the bump-out(s) and then using Trim to remove the unwanted wall segment. I’m sure there are plenty others, but point is, for me, they definitely arise from time to time.

Same exact reason we use it for CAD. For productivity.

That’s a funny statement. Did you read somewhere that it SHOULD show up? And just FYI, you won’t find it stated anywhere that wall’s can’t be converted to elevation lines either, but do we really need Chief to tell us everything that a tool CAN’T do? By the way, all snarkiness aside, I totally agree with you. Walls SHOULD have this capability IMO and I’ve suggested the same thing myself in the past... In the meantime, the closest thing we have for walls is the Connect Walls tool.

Ya, I tried (apparently in vain) to point that out multiple times and in pretty extensive detail in my posts above. There are Header Label Defaults and Header Labels for individual doors and windows. There is a Default checkbox in both of those dialogs but they do 2 totally different things. At the Default level, it seems to do nothing other than tell Chief to use the built in Header Label Defaults. At the individual object level it tells Chief to use the Header Label Defaults. Again, currently the only way to disconnect the individual door and window headers from those Header Label Defaults is to group select them and uncheck the Default checkbox. Like I said, I told Chief early on that this was confusing and I might be missing something, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the Default checkbox at the Default level is not only confusing but just plain unnecessary. I’m guessing they just haven’t heard from very many other users on the matter. To be honest, I don’t use those header labels for a whole slew of other reasons including... -No height attribute -No way to move the label and leave auto framing toggled on -No way to pull other vital information from the Parent Object (individual Window or Door) forcing us to modify 2 labels instead of just one (change window to “(N)” and then change header to “(N)” for example). ...so, like Joe mentioned—still just using custom window and door labels for all of it.

Ya, I totally get it. Just not too common in my experience. There are other ways to show old vs. new too. Did you try the pony wall method I mentioned to see if that might work for you? I’m kinda curious if it has any other downsides in an average practical application (assumes of course you don’t need to set the wall as a pony wall for other reasons but that would typically be pretty rare for a mono slab in my experience).

Honestly never had to do this before (thus the reason for the reason for the somewhat uncertain nature of some of my responses) and my memory may be failing me, but I don’t actually recall having seen it in anyone else’s plans before either. I think Chief just set it up so that it works for the vast majority of users since typically a person wouldn’t want to see if fill. I wouldn’t be opposed to something like a Show Wall Fill In This View toggle though.

Yet another advantage that wasn’t mentioned and that remains in the shadows and largely forgotten it unknown is the ability to display pony walls differently in different Plan Views. This in and of itself is reason enough to use Plan Views for many plans IMO.

Was just chillin' here and it occurred to me that in addition to these and Glenn's extra idea there's also one more option that doesn't actually seem to have any downsides to speak of. At least none that I can think of off the top... Leave the desired walls as slab footings, leave the room as a Mono slab, but change the wall to a Pony Wall. Set the upper wall to be a copy of the Lower wall, but change the material to a copy of the Concrete material with a non-concrete material definition. Chief needs a concrete material to define the mono slab properly but it only hides walls that are defined as concrete...

I just stopped back into the office for a moment and it looks like there's essentially only 2 ways to force those walls to display as solid if you're using them to define a monolithic slab and they both come at a cost... 1. Uncheck Foundation Wall. This would require that none of the walls defining your mono slab area be set to a Foundation Wall though, and they would all get their footing definition from the Default Slab Footing Wall definition. 2. You change the room definition to remove the Monolithic Slab designation. You would lose your beveled footing shape though. and would have to join your auto fills in section views to get one solid slab/footing (you could add the beveled shape when you do this though.) There may be other ways and there may be other downsides to those 2 methods, but I think that's about it. P.S. You could also just add the fills with CAD.

Yes. It’s because you’re working with a monolithic slab and are using the Slab Footing tool. That’s how it works. Away from my computer now, but it feels like there’s a way to force what you want. I don’t recall for sure, but when the walls close up to form the slab, did they change to invisible walls? If so, try changing them back to visible and see what that does. Either that or maybe play with the settings on the foundation tab. I think for example that changing from a Monolithic Slab will also fix your problem but you’ll lose the angled footing edge.

In my opinion, deleting your attic walls and turning this setting off is a poor solution. It’s going to just cause other problems. Sure, you might be able to place the dormers, but then you’ll most likely have to replace the necessary attic walls and figure out how to tie those in with your dormers without breaking the dormers again. When you mentioned 2 dormers in your OP, I figured you must have known you had 2 in the plan. As Mick said, the layer is turned off. And just FYI, you don’t check IN layers. If anything, you check in IN Layer SETS. You turn Layers on and off in those Layer Sets. I already did that. I just didn’t post the plan. Did you read the Help files on Dormers? And did you check anywhere except the first tab in the Dormer Specification dialog? I’m away from my computer now, but it’s on the Walls tab I believe. Don’t mean to come across as rude, but if my posts sound short, it’s because the nature/wording of your question coupled with how long you’ve been active here kinda makes it feel like we are doing your homework for you. Dormers are tricky and unless you take the time to learn them properly you will struggle with them on every project that you want to use them on. Anyway, like I said, you can either change the height (by opening the dormer and modifying the height) and reposition the dormer. That or you could do it manually. Turning off Auto Rebuild Attic Walls at your current skill/knowledge level though is an extremely short sighted solution at best. It will likely solve your problem right up until you open a 3D Overview 2 minutes later.

No. But if you read up on the tools and adhere to the rules and recommendations Chief supplies then you can make them work. For example, don't make them so tall...

Then you're out of luck. That's just not how those tools work.

Not really. The only problem I can think of would be with things in your schedule or material list that reference a floor number. If you want those to reference the logical/true first and second floors than you would have to address that using the Object Information Fields, customized schedules, etc. Very minor detail IMO. No. You could use the other option of simply starting with a blank foundation plan though if you wanted to go that route.

Exellent points Glenn. Thanks for highlighting some of the additional benefits of the extra capabilities. These can actually be major time savers are very large/complex projects too.

Sorry I tried to help then I guess. I'll try to remember in the future and just pass on by. For anyone else though that thinks it doesn't work, it does work. It just works differently than you might expect and in a less efficient manner for certain operations. You just have to know what's happening. I suggested way back in X10 that Chief should change the way that Default checkbox is set up because it can be very confusing. As it is right now, the ONLY way to get a Header Label to disconnect from the Header Label Defaults is to manually uncheck that Default checkbox after the window or door has been placed in the plan. In the example Perry posed above, this would be right when you're done drawing the As-Built and just before you move on to the New (or Proposed). This can be as simple as group selecting all the windows and doors and unchecking the box, but this step really shouldn't be necessary. That being said, the way Header Labels work actually also carries with it some pretty cool capabilities that other labels don't. That is, it provides for a dynamic custom labels that can affect any/all previously placed objects whereas other objects' labels only affect future objects. It would really be great if we had this capability for ALL labels. There just needs to be a way to set this behavior up at the Default level though.

Honestly, that's totally fine. If you don't want/need to take advantage of the new capabilities then don't, but what started this conversation was the idea of "going back", which is utter silliness IMO. There have been no logical reasons given to go back. Only reason I can even think of is a person not learning to use the tools correctly and just getting frustrated...for example, making themselves set up a unique Plan View up for every single floor--something that is entirely unnecessary.

You had your workflow down pat when you were working on a drafting table with pencils, erasers, protractors, compasses, squares and rulers though too I bet .

I could sort of agree with this statement up to a certain point. The truth is though that there were things people could never do with Annotation Sets before so they made them work. And there were a handful of things that you actually had to use the Layout Box for that the Annotation Set couldn't provide (Floor, Zoom, Reference Display, etc.). You might know all this, but for anyone that doesn't, take a quick look at this graphic. Note what the Annotation Set remembers in blue and all that the Saved Plan Views remember in red with notes for the added functionality. Do you really think its accurate to say Saved Plan Views are the redundant feature?

This would only be true if you were unnecessarily creating a different Layer Set for each and every Plan View.