Alaskan_Son

That's the functionality we were talking about with the first 2 posts and like I said in the second post, it only requires the alt key or right mouse button. What Rene was talking about was something different.

Still not sure what the "arrow handle" is. And what you described is simply continuous draw mode. it works that way with lines, arcs, splines, walls, etc. but doesn't require the control key. It simply requires that you start drawing with the right mouse button or while holding the alt key. Still not sure what exactly you guys are talking about with the "arrow handle" and holding both Control and Alt.

What do you mean by the "arrow handle"? And what's it supposed to do good sir? Doesn't seem to do anything unexpected on my end with ANY of the edit handles.

Alt key or right mouse button

No. I typically draw that with a second wall reshaped in elevation or with a polyline solid depending on the situation. A wall is usually necessary though in order for the railing above to behave and display properly.

Not totally sure, but they really are pretty good about getting us the ones we need when we request them.

Chief will only put the arch on the built-in door styles (slab, glass slab, panel, etc.). If you want to use a custom door or one from the library then you'll need to make the changes yourself or pick a more suitable door.

You are correct. It seems you can use rebar length if you set the overlap to zero, but you also have to know if the wall is connected to another wall or not... Not Connected: Rebar Length/2 Connected on one end: (Rebar length/2)+Footing Width Connected on both ends: (Rebar length/2)+(Footing Width/2) As you know, we really just need the footing height as an attribute and we wouldn't need to jump through any of the hoops. I also think the "thickness" attribute should be renamed width. I'm starting to suspect that the "thickness: attribute was actually always intended to report the footing height and that it was just programmed to report the width by mistake, because we can get the width in other ways but that's not true for the height.

Just FYI for whoever cares, if you set your rebar overlap to zero, you can simply divide the rebar length by your rebar count and get the actual footing length...from which you can calculate a perfect footing height. I haven't quite figured out how to calculate with a different overlap value, but I never use the overlap so I guess I don't care.

It works just fine for me Joe. I wonder if you're possibly using the wrong formula. It should be: Footing Quantity/Wall Length/Footing Thickness You'll probably want to write some rules as to how things are rounded though and might even want to use the Rebar Length somehow (if you can actually figure out exactly how its calculated) because Chief actually counts the Footing Quantity so accurately that it accounts for the extension beyond the wall ends which would lead to deceptive footing heights without writing some proper rules. NOTE: The footing "area" is the cross sectional area of the footing measured lengthwise (footing length x footing height). The 2 things we don't actually know are the footing length and the footing height. We really just need to be given the footing height as an attribute.

It has to be extrapolated using values in the footing_layers Collection.

Are you talking about a perpendicular extension? Or are you trying to rotate the polyline so that it is perpendicular? If you;re talking about rotating then you need to use the Make Parallel/Perpendicular tool. If you're talking about perpendicular extensions then you'll need some kind of reference point to snap to (end of line or center of line) and you should get the extension snap if you temporarily turn off angle snaps.

Here's one I made a little while back... Curved shower rod with curtain.calibz

The file size Glenn and I were referring to was for a stripped down version.

This comment intrigued me, so I opened the plan and simply saved it on my system without making any changes. The newly saved file is only 1,740 KB. I wonder if it's a Mac thing. super weird for sure.

Not sure what the problem is. They look joined to me. Can you be more specific?

No, but it's all I'm going to have time to help you with today. Maybe another user can chime in.

Like this? There are other ways too, but that's the easiest I could think of.

Also... -The Exterior Room -Room Moldings -Make Room Polyline -Make Room Molding Polyline -3D Molding Polylines -Molding Symbols -Symbols -The Inserts Into Wall option for symbols -The Hangs On Wall option for symbols -Material Regions -Custom Backsplashes -Wall Coverings -Wall Caps All the above can be used in various options for "Wall Sweeps"

I agree, but the problem is that it also cuts off any notations so I still mostly use the CAD mask method.

Be careful. It's probably not the trick you think it is. It's not changing the camera view-port as one might hope. As Dermot pointed out, it's actually changing the model, and as such, it could have a lot of unintended consequences.

Room labels will wrap like any other text box. All you have to do is resize the box.

For this reason and others, I personally almost never use the Wall Elevation tool. Just use a normal elevation camera and either crop it in layout (by reshaping the layout box) or mask it in the elevation with a polyline.

I just noticed there is another little trick that might work for you... Once you get the schedule how you want it, you can copy it, block it and then mirror the block. It requires a second copy of the schedule or else the numbers won't generate in the block. Just drag the faulty copy off to the side.

I find it useful to get a pretty good feel for how I would like the trusses designed so that I can adjust the design accordingly as well...bearing walls, point loads, beams, feasibility, etc. The plan above for example...It wouldn't actually work around here. The truss manufacturer won't build trusses anywhere near that tall, and our snow loads wouldn't allow for the truss even if they did. In addition, piggy back trusses wouldn't likely work either since the trusses below wouldn't be sufficient to carry the load. I'd much rather catch all the potential problems myself early on in the process then wait till trusses are drawn up and then have to totally re-design the project.