Alaskan_Son

I understood the question. Select a Layout Box (what you're calling a "layout view") and open it. Click on the line style tab. You'll find that the layout box itself doesn't actually get placed onto a unique layer. It's only the border that gets placed onto a unique layer. Turning on the Layout Box Border layer only turns all borders on because all borders are getting placed onto that layer by default...

I teach people to avoid painting walls for the most part too. Usually best to change the wall definition or add a material region. BUT, I do stop short of saying not to do it altogether It has its place in my opinion. It's just not very common.

No. Not true. You can place any layout box border onto any layer you want and then turn only that layer on. Layout boxes are unique in that the layout box itself doesn't actually have a layer. It's the border that has a unique and definable layer.

I believe this particular definition to be totally erroneous and as far as I know, it’s a definition that only exists in Chief Architect. They do it with some other things as well.

Ya, that’s a really weird one in my experience. Been framing and building houses for the better part of the last 20 years and I’ve never really know what to call that little wall on the side of stairs. I guess I default to pony wall myself but it’s really not that either. It’s like a really short half wall...a “tenth wall”. Yup that’s what it is a Tenth Wall Railing Stubby.

We got that in X11

Click on Help and search Multiple Saved Defaults

Pretty sure I understand what you are asking and its a question I personally posed on the old forum close to 9 years ago. If I'm understanding correctly, I think the question in it's most basic form is this... What should a good designer provide, and what should be provided by the engineer? In my experience the general workflow varies quite a bit; not only from region to region, but even from office to office. Some designers draw up everything and only submit to engineer for review. The engineer responds with any requested changes to the plans and the designer incorporates those changes. On the flip-side, other offices provide basically what you spelled out above and the engineer will provide a few pages of their own to supplement/clarify whatever is missing. Around here, most people fall into the first category, and I personally feel like that particular method most clearly delineates responsibility and results in the cleanest and most seamless set of plans. My thoughts are that things will be a lot more coherent if only one party is drawing things up. There will always be little gray areas I think...We might insert an engineer's page from time to time, maybe we re-draw it so it better matches the style of your drawing, maybe we copy/paste notes, or maybe we simply insert a PDF with some generic drawings or notes, but for the most part, we draw the plans and the engineer reviews and approves. At the end of the day, we just have to find what works best for our individual localities and workflows, and around here, most engineers who deal with residential work don't actually have the time, inclination, or even ability to draw anything so that kinda sets the tone. It really makes sense to me though. Now once you get into mechanical plans and commercial work, I think the conversation starts to change a bit.

Agreed.

Here’s a video I made a while back that goes over some of the basic ideas you’ll need to know. The fireplace is a little different but hopefully you’ll get the idea...

Openings typically aren’t a problem. Mostly just the outside corners. One thing I do from time to time is use a single click material region or custom backsplash to get the shape and then convert to plain polyline>convert to polyline solid >add any necessary cutouts manually.

Material regions don’t wrap at outside corners.

This depends a lot on what type of work a person is doing. For the types of complex remodel projects and ultra custom new homes I often work on and when collaborating with other designers, I personally think there’s usually NOT ENOUGH thought given as to how changes are tracked and archived. Sometimes we spend weeks or months heading in one direction and then the client wants to go back to a prior design. Proper archiving makes it easy to go back to any given iteration or fork to either start again from there, cut and paste from there, or simply to refer to for any given reason. If strictly using the Auto Archive, there’s no great way of saving or tracking based on any specific fork other than the date.

Yup. This is a very good method. In addition, I also use the ceiling height on attic levels again at a third height for temporary purposes in order to use the Ceiling Break Lines to show where my usable ceiling height areas are when laying out bathrooms, cabinetry, etc. Once things are positioned I move ceilings back up to where they should be.

Ya, that's a pretty old post and the links in it aren't valid anymore (I'll probably edit that) , but I do have a system set up that helps expedite that process and I recently tweaked it to work a little better in X11...

Use polyline union while in plan view. Not so sure the Join Roof Planes tool was ever intended to connect co-planar surfaces since they have an infinite number of intersection points. Also, don't forget...It's not called Combine Roof Planes.

You're more than welcome. Just another side note on this too... We could consider making more use of our PDF editors sometimes. Perhaps we need Chief's super high quality output on 3 pages, but the rest work just fine having been optimized. Most all good PDF editors provide for an easy way to remove and insert pages. Just pick the pages you want from each. Sure it takes a little extra work, but not much, and its really a pretty easy way to get the best of both worlds.

At the very least, you need some kind of saddle here...

Most PDF editors have an optimization/file reduction feature built-in. I have been using Nitro Pro myself for a number of years. The issue is far more complicated than just using the right PDF printer or optimizing the file though. Here's a quick real world test case: Working with a pretty basic 12 page plan printed at 24"x36" with 20 cameras Using Chief's built in Save As PDF for initial print set at 600 DPI Using Nitro Pro to optimize as much as possible after the fact Scenario 1: Using Plot Lines with Shadows and no color fill ----> 3,060 KB initial print (looks crispy and beautiful) ----> 1,800 KB optimized (still looks pretty good but shadows are a little more pixelated and referenced image files don't look as good). My biggest beef is with things like my company logo... Scenario 2: Using Plot Lines with Shadows and color fill ----> 9,973 KB initial print (looks crispy and beautiful) ----> 3,769 KB optimized (looks okay and all the line work is still crispy since those are vector based, but the pixelation becoming more noticeable because the color fill is all image based)... Scenario 3: Using LIVE views with Shadows printed in B&W ----> 8,910 KB initial print (looks pretty good, but non-elevation 3D views are nowhere near as clear and crisp as with Plot Lines) ----> 4,807 KB optimized (elevation views look okay still, but other 3D views are no longer in acceptable territory )... Scenario 4: Using LIVE views with Shadows printed in color ----> 20,483 KB initial print (looks pretty good, but non-elevation 3D views are nowhere near as clear and crisp as with Plot Lines with color fill) ----> 5,428 KB optimized (elevation views look okay still, but other 3D views are no longer in acceptable territory )... Takeaways? If file size is of concern: Consider using Plot Lines instead of Live Views (usually look better anyway IMO and give us more refined control over display) for any or all 3D views Consider forgoing the color for any or all 3D views Consider optimizing after the fact, but understand that it comes at a cost...especially with images (not as much with text and other vector based information) Just in this one simple example you can see how Chief settings alone could potentially decrease a file size by 85%!! Or conversely how you could make a file size 7 times as large. NOTE: This little test only covered using Chief's built in Save As PDF and a third party optimizer. It did not cover initially printing with a 3rd party PDF printer. That's a bit of a different story but I can tell you from experience that the reduced file sizes still come at a cost. In my experience nothing creates a higher quality print than using Chief's built-in capabilities; although the quality variation still depends quite a bit on the shapes, views, and colors (or lack thereof) involved. A perfectly horizontal black line or a text box for example may be indistinguishable, whereas your company logo image or your 3D perspective view with shadows and color fill may be a deal breaker.

This is a funny statement. Chief file sizes are likely larger BECAUSE they wanted to give the overall best results. Nothing is free. I personally take no issue with it. If I want smaller file sizes, I can use another PDF printer, OR I could even optimize the PDF after Chief has already done its thing. Anyway, I wouldn’t recommend we complain too much about this. We have plenty of crappier options so the last thing I want to see happen is for Chief to reduce their built in printer settings and just give us another crappy option. High quality is just too hard to find and we really shouldn’t turn our noses up at it (not sayin’ you are Chop).

2 quick tips: 1. In my experience and in my opinion these things are usually the result of either bad imported DWG information or polyline solids that were drawn in anything other than plan or elevation/section. DWG files seem to contain objects way off in space all the time, and if a person isn’t careful or doesn’t realize what they’re doing, it can be really easy to draw a polyline solid way off in the background when doing so in a 3D orthographic or perspective camera view. 2. To find and delete errant objects, it can be as easy as All On Layerset>Select All>De-select the good stuff>Delete. Fill Window and isolating layer could optionally be squeezed in there too. Kinda depends.

Your plan has been corrupted. The problems are all being caused by a couple poly-line solids that are like 280 billion miles (not exaggerating) away from your building. Find them, delete them, and you should be back in business.

Always report. It doesn’t matter if they’re onto it or not. The more people they hear from, the more likely it will get fixed. I’ve seen legitimately broken tools that remain unfixed for years because only one or 2 people report it, and I’ve seen very powerful and perfectly functional tools removed or changed completely because a good handful of beginners were having problems understanding them. It’s simple prioritizing.

Group selecting and opening/closing is just super fast.

Amen brotha!