Alaskan_Son

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?

This is actually a really really good argument against pinning the slab to the foundation walls. If the slab settles and it wasn't designed to carry its own weight over the span of the floor system, then its just going to end up breaking. Might even cause a big step in the slab somewhere if it settles enough. Better to just let the slab settle with the substrate if you ask me.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound condescending. Just wanted to see if there was some unexpected step in your process that might be causing your problems. That is usually the case when one person seems to be having problems that others don't seem to be having.

Despite the fact that there are various workarounds, in my opinion, this actually IS the best way.

I have yet to experience anything like this. I'm curious...How exactly are you copying and pasting?

If you don’t save, the detail in your current layout will just revert as soon as you close the plan.

There is definitely a distinction. One requires that the layout be linked to another layout. That simply isn't normal and is likely what Brian was telling you the program wasn't designed to do.

Totally disagree. The whole point is that the view is sized, cropped, scaled, labeled, etc. exactly like we want it. I think you might be missing out. Anyway, it seems to work flawlessly for me... NOTE: The above isn't the highest quality GIF so it might look like some lines aren't displaying, but they are.

Weird. That's basically the same thing as saying you can't copy layout boxes. That would really defeat most all the purpose of having 2 layouts open. Or are you talking about copying a layout box that references a layout CAD Detail? Because what Bill (as long as I understood correctly) and I are both talking about is copying a layout box that references a plan CAD Detail.

Huh? It works perfectly fine for me. Sounds like you must be trying to copy and paste from the Project Browser itself because copying a layout box and pasting into another layout box seems to work just fine.

Is it though? It's pretty easy to use the same detail for multiple scales by simply using different layer sets.

Nope. That process sounds about as valid as any. Only note I would add is this. If all your project specific details are linked to that same layout, just don't forget that any changes made to that detail will affect any and all plans they were sent to. That probably goes without saying, and more often than not its a benefit. It's not always beneficial though and its important to remember.

Do you have any other CAD software you work with? Many (Sketchup, AutoCAD, Draftsight, etc.) have a tool to convert text to polylines or 3D objects. I simply use one of my other pieces of software to convert text to polylines or other 3D, import into Chief, and then use the resulting to polylines. Really quite easy. Here's a quick video I made a little while back. I since switched to using Draftsight instead, but the basics are the same. Import DWG and use polylines...

To be fair, Larry IS a long-time user. With as long as he’s been in the industry and as much time as he’s spent on the forum, I guess I assumed he knows what a CAD mask is. If not, sorry Larry... The idea of using a CAD mask is this: You can use any elevation camera and just draw a polyline to cover an area you don’t want to see. You can reshape as necessary and even put holes in it. Give the polyline a solid fill (set to the background color) and it will cover anything you don’t want to see. Think of it as a completely customizable clipping setting. You can even set the line style to the invisible line style so that it doesn’t draw any lines. Besides the ability to custom “clip” your view, it also has the benefit of allowing you to place notations outside the view which cropping a layout box will negate. Hope that helps.

I wasn’t suggesting anything of the sort. Just pointing out how easy and versatile CAD masks are. I see people fighting those wall elevation cameras all the time to get them to either show or hide something...for no really great reason. CAD masks are just far more flexible and advantageous. But ya, knowing you needed to export to DWG would have been a good piece of information to include as the CAD masks could potentially cause issues there depending on what the end goal was. Then again, they’re just filled polyline masks over there too.

CAD masks. Could have been done 100 times in the time it’s collectively taken us to create and respond to this thread.

A few quick notes.. 1. You can use a material region instead of separate walls (I would probably use a material region for the center section if I went that route). 2. If you're trying to "paint" the material onto the wall, then the way to do is by using the Material Painter in Object mode. Anything else will cause the walls to rejoin and this happens with any walls, not just attic walls. 3. Most importantly, using the Material Painter really isn't the proper way to do that. It should have really been done with unique Wall Types from the start. If you place your breaks, group select the 2 outside walls (or one middle wall) and then simply change the Wall Type, then the walls shouldn't have rejoined. Should have been no reason to move anything out of alignment.

Ya. It definitely has it's benefits. Just throwing another option out there is all.

Never noticed that behavior before.

...and don't forget your Revision Cloud Defaults too.

Oh, right, I forgot you were talking about layout. My bad. Like I said though, don't forget to check you CAD Blocks too. If you have an object placed on that layer in any one of your CAD Blocks, then it will also say "Used in defaults"

Same place all your other Saved Defaults are located Joe...

You can also simply take an Orthographic Overview>View Direction>Top View, use Delete Surface as necessary>CAD Detail From View>Cut/Paste Hold Position>trace.