Alaskan_Son

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.

A couple ways you could go about this... As Mike pointed out above (albeit with some extra details), you can simply open a blank blank, Build Foundation>Make new blank plan...and then start drawing your foundation before even placing a single wall on Floor 1. You could simply draw your Foundation on Floor 1, your first floor on Floor 2, etc. There are oftentimes other good reasons to do this anyway.

It should only be working this way if you are changing it in your Door and Window Defaults. You have to uncheck "Default" at that location to even enter a new default label, BUT your individual door and windows also have a default checkbox. Maybe try reading this again... I'm not talking about group selecting your default settings. I'm talking about group selecting your actual doors and windows...

Try this...

According to your filter settings, you’ve chosen to hide all your catalogs. Unhide them.

If you don't have the default checked then where do you "change the header label to (n) for new windows and doors"?

Depending on what you need, whether or not you're making heavy use of the material list and/or fixture schedules, and how adept you are at the tools, you can also create a single custom symbol that includes both sinks. here's a quick example that has both sinks in a single cabinet without having to create a block... Base Cabinet w Sink Pair.calibz

Seems like a person would be hard pressed to give a logical reason for "going back". Not setting them up in the first place is one thing, or not fully understanding how they work or how to set them up maybe, but going back just sounds bonkers to me. For all intents and purposes Saved Plan Views are no more difficult to set them than a group of Active Defaults (Annotation Sets) are but they carry with them a lot more benefits.

Before you start drawing your new plan, group select all your windows/doors and on the Framing tab right next to the Header Label, uncheck Default. With Default checked, it will continue to use whatever you assign to the Default label. Either that or (depending on the situation) check Retain Wall Framing for the appropriate walls. I might even do both in many circumstances.

That’s what I’m saying. Chief does that with a TON of things. It changes wall heights and shapes, changes moldings, changes platform and wall framing, changes terrain, changes foundation cutouts, changes wall connections, changes wall layers, changes wall types, adds walls, deletes walls, allows slabs to extend through cabinets, allows beams with no bearing, cuts posts down to beam heights, etc etc.... sometimes in ways that result in a totally unbuildable structure and that make no sense at all, but that’s also what gives us creative freedom and allows us to actually progressively model things. Do you really want to open the door for all those warnings? And by the way, I purposely place windows and doors in positions all the time that don’t allow for the defined header height to fit—sometimes with intentions to change the header afterward and sometimes I don’t care and I’m not using the wall framing anyway. For example, I might be placing some windows under a gable that don’t actually require a header anyway. And what happens if you drag out a roof or ceiling plane that’s cuts into the window or header area? Do you really want a warning to pop-up every time that happens? Or do you really want Chief to change your openings on you? Ya, I definitely don’t think this change is necessary.

This is a slippery slope guys. This type of thing happens with just about everything I can think of in Chief. If we can justify spending development time on a warning for door and window headers then I’m sure there are 30 or 40 other warnings that could be justified as well. I don’t think anything should be changed about the way it works now. I would just turn the warning off myself and I sure as $#!+ don’t want Chief automatically moving or changing the size of my openings. It’s my job to make sure my window and door heights are set correctly just like it’s my job to make sure my beams have support under them. By the way, think about what happens when we place things with intentions of making adjustments later....like placing taller doors knowing that the ceiling height will be increased. Do you really want Chief to downsize all those openings just so you can open them all up and change them back? Or what about those circumstances where window/door headers aren’t actually necessary or could be pushed up into or even above the top plates? Lots and lots of scenarios where having Chief make changes automatically would be a bad idea and as such I think almost everyone would just end up turning the added function off anyway.

You can't. YOU have to define the terrain itself. The pads (slabs) aren't terrain objects so they won't have any affect on the terrain at all. I don't have a lot of time, but I'll leave you with the first few things that jump out at me... Your have defined your Terrain to be higher than your Slab (1) with an Elevation Line (2). If that isn't correct, you should not have put that line there. I would suggest you Break that line to cut out the section that overlaps your Slab. If you want the Terrain to flatten out at that Slab, you'll need to tell the program what the elevation should be in that area. There are several ways to do so, but I would likely just use an Elevation Region (essentially just a closed Elevation Polyline) in the same basic shape as that slab set to Interior is Flat. You have included a Terrain Break (3) that essentially tells Chief for the generated terrain to ignore elevation data that you place on the opposite side. I can't be sure, but I kinda doubt this is correct. At the very least though you may need to add some elevation data (Elevation Line, Elevation Point, or Elevation Region) on the downhill side of that Terrain Break...otherwise, Chief doesn't have much of any kind of information to work with.

Your best bet is to post the plan file. It can be tough to get quick answers for Terrain related questions regardless though because modeling terrains requires some intense dedication and investment in learning to use the tools. And once you do know how to use the tools, it comes down to understanding specifically what YOU want to show. For example... Because that's what you told the program to do, and it may not be wrong. I've seen that exact situation in the real world countless times. Here's what I typically tell people as a basic starting point though. Terrains are all about: Giving Chief the correct elevation data to work with Giving Chief enough elevation data to work with Not giving Chief conflicting or confusing elevation data (i.e. overlapping data or data placed too close together) Understanding the difference between defining your terrain (i.e. elevation data) and modifying the defined terrain (i.e. terrain modifiers). But ya, post the plan and maybe you'll get some better advice.

Again, it's because they aren't parametric (smart) objects. They're just dumb door symbols made up of various triangular faces so there's really nothing to fix. If you want a 3/4 or full light door than you should use an appropriately sized Glass Panel door.

Not a bug. The tool was only designed to work with the parametric behaviors of the Glass Panel doors. Those are the only doors where Chief knows very specifically what is glass and what is not. Door symbols are a different creature entirely and are just dumb 3D geometry so it's not too surprising that special functionality of the Custom Muntins tool doesn't work in those.