Alaskan_Son

I've added it to at least one of my own fonts as a special character. It makes it super easy to insert into a line of text and change size based on text style, layer, scale, etc. Easier than placing a block for sure.

If you truly did Select All then you may have also selected something that was ineligible for copying and pasting. I don't know...just a thought.

I share files back and forth with a pretty large number of people and I have issues accessing files via Google Drive pretty regularly but I don't recall having ever had an issue with Dropbox.

Yes. Don't place fixtures in cabinets. I actually almost never place fixtures in cabinets anymore and instead place them manually. There are actually a lot of benefits to doing it this way.

I'm guessing Chief was just getting too many complaints about all the unwanted, excessive, and duplicate/triplicate dimensions showing up on the plan so they decided to help us by doing a little micromanaging (forcing us to use the tool in the edit toolbar instead). I think it was a good move.

It has actually been available in the Edit toolbar for a long time. Now its ONLY available in the Edit toolbar by default.

Thanks Richard. Chop actually mentioned that to me yesterday as well. Definitely good to know.

No. You aint. You can create as many new categories as you want...

Nothing imports those Revit symbols except Revit and nothing can convert them except Revit (and maybe 3DS Max but I’m not sure about that), and even then, I believe last I checked, the only useful Revit export is 3D DXF which isn’t the greatest file type for symbols...not the worst, but not the greatest. At the end of the day, your best bet is to find a Revit user and have them convert to 3D DXF and send those to you. You’ll have to assign all the materials after import, but it’s better than nothing.

Sorry, I spoke too quickly. The bar scale would be correct if scaled down per my suggestion and placed in layout by the corresponding layout box, BUT it would visually be way too small or way too big depending on the scale being used. You’re right, numbers would need to be changed. In that case though, so might the size of the bar scale as well as the relative sizes of the bars themselves (depending on the scale being used). I wasn’t thinking too clearly. I actually never use a graphic scale on my drawings. I typically only note the scale, so I probably shouldn’t have said anything. The answer seemed so easy though!!!

Way to own your mistake man!! Love it!!!!

How so? I’m away from my computer but as I recall, there is no scale reference included with the bar scale in question...only the bars themselves and 0-6 notations. Those bars should represent that exact say length no matter what scale they’re at. Should be no reason to change any numbers unless I’m totally missing something.

Ironically, the easy answer is to just scale the scale. Select the block, click Transform/Replictae, and then enter the appropriate scale (.25/12 or .5/12).

The bigger issue is the plan view where there seems to be no way to get the jamb to display for these mulled units.

Closest thing to what you've described is the Replace From Library tool in your Edit toolbar. Select the symbol you want to replace, click on the aforementioned tool, and then select the item you want to replace it WITH. It won't keep the "attributes" (as you say), but it gets you partway there.

The line around the floor is caused by the fact you specified a brick ledge depth on your exterior walls when you didn't really need one. You should EITHER have a brick ledge depth OR use the pony wall approach that you're using...not both.

Those line styles are controlled by your layer settings. You put the lower floor walls on a layer called "Walls, Exterior" that is set to use a gray color in your Camera View Layer Set. The walls on the upper floor on the other hand are on the "Walls, Normal" layer which is set to use black in the Camera View Layer Set. The walls on the foundation level are similarly on a layer set to use a black color in that layer set.

Good catch. Easy to reproduce too. Its not just fixed and non fixed doors. Its doors in general mulled to anything.

We don’t build anything that looks like that around here and I haven’t needed to draw that particular scenario for anyone else yet, but if that’s me, I’m probably just gonna draw a standard stemwall foundation with slab at the top. Only manual tweaking is with the fills on the elevation views to combine them and provide the little inside corner chamfer. Might also be tempted to just build that as 2 floors...one to provide the actual footers and then next for the monoslab with its stemwall footers.

I think you’re doing something wrong because they work just fine for me. I use them all the time. I suspect you’re trying to place them as macros inside macros instead of simply using them properly as name:value pairs (object attributes). I tell it like this: People have to look at Chief and Ruby as 2 entirely separate constructs/entities. Whenever CHIEF sees two % signs enclosing some text, it will display any appropriate automated text. If that text happens to match a user defined, evaluated text macro then Chief will defer to RUBY to run the code. RUBY has no clue what anything between percentage signs means though. Only Chief knows that. When CHIEF “sees” the percentage signs on screen, Chief either fills it in per the defined macro, leaves it as dumb text, or defers to RUBY. The only thing Ruby can and ever will do with the text wrapped in % signs is display it as a “%name%” string or error out. My favorite example is to write a custom evaluated macro with a value of “%layer%” into an object. You should see the result is what you might expect...it reports the layer of the object. Now modify the macro to “%layer%”.reverse and see what you get. In both cases, RUBY is doing nothing more than placing the dumb text on the screen. CHIEF is the one that replaces the text with something else when the resulting on screen text results in a defined macro (either internal or user defined).

What you described is actually only partially true. For rooms, it works as you describe (the schedule is recognized as the owner for any macros executed inside the schedule) and I've requested they fix this in the past. For other objects though, they do recognize the parent object when executed in the schedule as long as the macro is placed into the label or into an OIP field. The schedule number issue Mark has been describing is actually an anomaly in this regard.

There's a method I often use to do this type of thing by not using the schedule number at all and instead using a global variable inside the schedule that builds its own order based on the schedule order. ...and thanks for the heads up on the rest. I find it a bit curious because I was able to use the schedule number similar to what you were trying to do above in past versions. It just doesn't work in X11 anymore. Something changed.

I put that link down in my signature during a time when I was providing a notable amount of free macros, training videos, custom symbols, etc. as a way providing a convenient way for people to support my efforts should they choose to do so and if they wanted to continue to see more of that type of thing, as well as an easy way of knowing how they could make payments for the items I had listed for sale. I have since changed course a bit with those various offerings but just never adjusted my signature to remove the link since it still comes in handy from time to time. I have no problem removing it though since it seems to be at least partially disqualifying me from having an opinion on what constitutes proper appreciation for a persons time. I get the feeling that you don't have the slightest clue or appreciation for the quantity of time and energy some people pour into helping out on the forum. My statements above were just an honest and straightforward statement about the way I feel after having done so for a number of years, and I should be free to share it. You're right. No one is pointing a gun at my head but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite for the right to a personal opinion on the matter. And my personal opinion is that people want/need help...and some of us spend a lot to give it. Its not very considerate of somebody to ask for somebody else to take that time out of their day to describe how something works if they actually don't have any real intention of doing anything with it. That was my point. And with regard to the rest of my post, I was just offering my personal, professional, and experienced opinion on the matter...I'm not looking for a job, and in fact, I barely have time to help people with private sessions much of the time anyway. I just know that almost nobody ever makes any real progress in certain areas by fishing for little tips on the forum. Take my opinion or leave it, I really don't care, but I see it play out all the time. If I could help solve your problems with a few little tips, I would, but certain things take a lot more than that, and I'm just trying to paint that picture clearly and honestly for people. Its just become exceedingly clear to me after watching a lot of forum users here make almost no progress year after year after year and then seeing how much progress other people make using more appropriate learning methods in a very short time span, that there is a better way. I feel like NOT saying things sometimes is actually doing a disservice. It may not be what people want to hear, but sometimes "free" is a lot more expensive. In fact, I don't even care if its me that people go to for proper tutelage, and I tell that to people all the time. I even point out many of the free resources we have at our disposal. The real point is that there are better ways to learn certain things and if someone has the real intent to learn something I want to share with them how they should really be going about doing that. I'm sorry you feel that way. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head either. You can feel free to ignore me in your preferences or just not read my posts, but I'd much rather tell people what they need to hear than what they want to hear. Again, take it or leave it. I apologize if my opinion offends you, but I'm not sorry for what I said.

Not sure I’m following because the answer seems too easy, but have you tried simply increasing the height of your footers to 36”?

I would use a different approach. Switch to the All ON layer set of anything (may not be necessary if you know the layers are on in the correct layer set), make sure all the layers are actually turned on, and then switch to the Hole In Ceiling Platform tool. Now draw a marquis around your entire plan while holding down the Shift key. This will select ONLY Holes In Ceiling Platforms. You might need to check on multiple floors, but this should whittle things down for you.