Alaskan_Son

There are other much more automated ways of setting this particular scenario up so that a person could still use their layout box label for other purposes and that don't require a text box with arrow either. Again, it wouldn't be free, but shoot me over an email or PM and I can help you set something up.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. Mick is right, the tool displayed in those parent drop downs defaults to the first valid tool in the list when you first open the program. Otherwise, it’s always the last tool used. I would suggest either adding the child tool or simply creating a Hotkey.

This is how all dimensions always work. They obey the Locate Object settings only upon initial creation. After that, they will snap to anything and everything.

I could be misunderstanding the question, but simply modify your toolbar by dragging the unwanted tools offscreen during your Edit Toolbar operation.

I would HIGHLY recommend that people read through the New Features list at every single upgrade and don’t move to the next item on the list till you have tested or otherwise fully understand the one you just read. I find that in general people tend to only understand a small percentage of the program which really limits what they can do with it. After using the program for long enough, it’s very difficult to prioritize time (and to choose topics) to backtrack and learn. So, when a new version is released, you can either fall further behind or you can take advantage of the opportunity for a sort of forced refresher course. At least this way you stay abreast of any changes and as a bonus you get to learn a few things you’ve possibly been missing.

I offer custom modeling services for things like this. I just charge hourly and the time it takes really just depends on the complexity of the symbol and on how much detail you need put into it. Below is a pretty typical example of how accurate I would model something though... Adding the True® monikers and interior items could also be done but would take just a little longer. In addition, the accuracy of some of the various architectural details could be increased which would take longer but would also result in a much higher face count. I like to try and find a good balance. Sure you're paying someone to model a new object (or maybe just to tweak an existing object)...sometimes just for a single plan, but I encourage people to think about not only the increased quality and accuracy, but also how much of your valuable time can easily be spent searching and searching and searching online, tweaking something that already looks wrong, explaining to clients that its just a placeholder, etc. etc. If your time is valuable, consider maybe just continuing to do what you do best and hiring the little time sinks out to someone else. At the end of the day, you might pay for a couple hours of someones time, but you get more work done and your end product is better than it would have been. Just a thought. Anyway, I’m providing this one as a free download for a limited time...as a pretty generic and average example of the type of modeling I can do for you... True Double Door Refrigerator.calibz True Double Door Refrigerator.3ds If you find it valuable enough, maybe consider sending a donation my way via my pay pal link at www.paypal.me/alaskansons Otherwise, enjoy.

I do something similar myself except I have my full size layout template set up to print at 18x24 and print 1/2 scale check plots at 9-1/2x11. Seems to work well for most average sized residential plans.

I actually did it right in Chief. Just about never use Sketchup anymore. Not secret. Used a more perfected method of some basic methodology I've posted here on the forum in the past.

It sounds to me like you're asking for a tool where you can... Click on an object with an eyedropper sort of functionality in order to pick up that object's layer Draw or place another object and have that object get placed onto the layer of the previously selected object. Is that correct? If so, no. There is no such tool in Chief. I would suggest you just adjust your workflow to more efficiently and effectively utilize Active Defaults and Plan Views. Click on Help and search Multiple Saved Defaults.

Here you go as a one time courtesy.... DS Chair.calibz If you ever need stuff like this fixed up for you in the future, shoot me an email. I offer this type of thing as a support service for quite a few people. I basically help deal with some of the oddball complicated little time sinks so you can keep doing what you do best.

I continue to believe Chief should just provide a toggle to allow the baseline to be located at either the inside bottom or the outside top. For rafter framing auto roofs would automatically place the baseline at inside bottom. For truss framing, auto roofs would automatically place the baseline at outside top. Outside auto build, the toggle would be on a plane by plane basis and could be toggled at will.

Yeah, truss details are totally different. There’s really only one truss detail.

Sometimes I find it extremely handy when manually modifying wall framing to cut from one wall detail and paste hold position into another in order to combine walls. Of course, I only do this if automatic framing is either turned off or retaining wall framing is checked in the walls in question.

Not sure what you are trying to say.

...and don't forget you can also use evaluated macros as methods: macro_a = 3 ----> 3 macro_b = 7 ----> 7 macro_c = macros.macro_a + macros.macro_b ----> 10 instead of being limited to... macro_d = "%macro_a%" + "macro_b%" ----> 37 or a non evaluated version of the same... macro_e = %macro_a%%macro_b% ----> 37

Think of it this way... Evaluated = "Hey Chief, I want you to send all this text over to Ruby to execute as code". Text macros are a pure Chief construct and have nothing to do with Ruby unless the macro is set to evaluate, and even then, it's only the code execution that involves Ruby. Non-evaluated = "Hey Chief, I just want you to just use this as dumb text." Anything between % signs is pure Chief and has nothing whatsoever to do with Ruby. Ruby only sees the text value of the two % signs along with the characters between them. Chief sees %macro_name% onscreen in the plan and it spits out the results of whatever that macro is whether it be evaluated or not.

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.