Alaskan_Son

Try setting your Default Slab Footing to a Pony Wall using a Room Divider as its main wall type.

Sorry, but I don't believe that there are any defaults that will control that setting. A couple tips though: In my experience, the Display Bounding Box setting is only checked by default if the objects in the Block are different object types. If objects are all the same object type, then the setting is left unchecked. This doesn't necessarily solve your problem, it's just something to know. The bounding box is controlled by the Architectural Block layer's line style. Changing that line stye to the invisible line style will essentially just make it disappear. If your goal then is to always have no bounding box lines without having to open up any dialogs, you can either make sure to only block items of the same type, or change the line style for the Architectural Blocks layer. The latter option does however mean that you couldn't check Display Sub-Object using Block Layer.

Click on Plan Defaults and see what they say in there.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they're using the same material. You can have 2 materials with the same name.

I currently do this in a roundabout way by placing a break in the wall at that desired location. A small section of perpendicular Room Divider Wall at that desired break location can help give more refined control over where the break takes place and can be relocated to move the break. The main downside of course is that you're no longer dealing with a single wall. To keep the wall from auto merging you have to either toggle Auto Merge Colinear Walls off or change something about the adjacent walls (reverse layers, change a structural setting, or just create a copy of the wall type).

There definitely seems to be some weirdness with the Inserts Into Wall Symbol behaviors when it comes to both railing walls and off angle walls. Not something I feel too inclined to dig into, but I can easily reproduce and see what you're talking about. Here's a couple ideas fro you to possibly play with though: You might try using an Inserts Into Wall Symbol or even windows for the slat panels instead of the other way around. This way you'll simply be attaching to a solid wall. If you decide you still have to use a railing, you may find that inserting the symbol before converting to a railing will behave a little differently.

Having only taken Cedreo for a quick spin, I can't tell you for certain, but I can say with about 99% certainty that at best it offers about 5% of the capabilities you get with Chief. Its not even in the same league. The program seems to have been designed with the goal of quickly designing and visualizing spaces and little else. No CAD tools, no wall, floor, ceiling, or roof assembly layers, no framing, no parametric object components, no schedules or materials lists, not much of anything aside from basic 3D surfaces. As a tool for Construction Documents it seems almost useless. Its like comparing the calculator app to an Excel spreadsheet. If however all you need is the ability to quickly visualize a space or draw a floor layout...still no. I'd go with one of the Home Designer products.

I make it policy not to import feces.

Is there a question in there? Or are you just looking for a cookie?

It surely sounds that way.

HECK YEAH!!

I'm curious what this one is. Per the wording, it seems to be describing something we already have.

Whoa. This is huge.

Section 3.7 clearly states that under stairs there is no specified height requirement. I could see an argument for any enclosed or inaccessible area beneath the stairs as being considered unfinished but But BUT...considering that the area is typically both minimal and inaccessible just like any other areas covered by interior partitions, exterior walls, siding, chases, furred walls, etc. then I'd say the intent of the code makes it relatively clear that it should be measured. Its inside the finished footprint and not unlike any other finished area of the house where there exists areas covered by unusable voids, trim, wall framing, wall surfaces, etc.. If you leave it out of the calculations then you head down a path to leaving other inaccessible areas out as well (chimney chases, thick walls, cabinet voids, etc.)

You're one of the gitterduners. Nice work man.

Good information. I'd like to expand a bit upon it though. The top one can actually be achieved in large part by simply setting Terrain Surface Smoothing to Linear: Any other setting though and you are correct. We get a wave behavior: I think the thing people tend to expect less though is how the terrain is interpolated beyond the specified elevation data because we have to remember the interpolation and the resulting "wave" does have to continue: And what is even more difficult to account for is what happens when additional elevation data is added that directly affects what happens between the previously specified points: It should also be noted that the above examples are perfectly orthogonal projections. This is all much further complicated by off angle elevation lines/elevation points (and the resulting 3D waves) as well as the fact that the interpolation can start to affect objects around corners (around the end of elevation lines and around the ends of terrain breaks). I think the bottom line is that we have to remember that interpolation is taking place and that any given piece of elevation data can have a far reaching effect. Any modifications to elevation data at one location can have effects across the entire terrain. To limit these effects you may want to place new elevation data at your desired extents to help "lock" those particular locations. In the example given by the OP, one thing I would consider doing is generating a terrain based on the elevation points and then using the Contours tab to generate and label an adequate number of contours that I could then use to help add some of the aforementioned "locks". I could either add additional points at various perimeter locations, or I could even create a CAD Detail From View, copy and paste the various contours, convert those to properly defined elevation lines, and then use those instead of or even in addition to any number of elevation points.

Absolutely makes sense. I have always counted stairs twice myself. Not only is there commonly usable space beneath the stairs but they require at least twice as much of everything that occupies said space, and to say they double the time required to design and build that space would be a gross understatement.

Better yet: Default Settings>Walls>General Wall>Connect Island Rooms This settings should really always be checked for most people and most situations.

Not sure what to tell you on this one. It works for me. Model something using any number of methods and position it to where you want it. You could even just draw a short section of railing wall off to the side as I suggested for the first option, select that railing, click the Convert Selected to Symbol tool, and then position that newly created symbol in your opening.

Place as freestanding symbol OR draw railing off to the side, set to No Room Definition and then reposition.

Never had anyone ask for square footage using those parameters. I could see why certain departments could potentially want that information though. It may not be a usable living space number, but it could definitely be a valid number for lot coverage or other overall footprint/building envelope information. As a more extreme example, around here we occasionally use something called the REMOTE Wall System which is comprised of Framing Exterior sheathing Building wrap Exterior Foam Insulation Furring strips Siding That could mean an extra 5-1/2" or more of conditioned space or building envelope around the entire perimeter (energy code stuff), and if we use 6" of foam, up to an extra 8" of building footprint around the entire perimeter (lot coverage stuff)...so again, it could make sense that certain departments would want this information under certain circumstances. Not at all normal in my experience though especially for standard construction.

That catalog doesn't actually contain any cabinets. What it contains are door and drawer styles as well as moldings, trim components, and wood species/finishes. Those are simply applied to one of Chief Architect's generic cabinets. A single cabinet can have components from any number of manufacturers. You'll just have to manually add the manufacturer name to the cabinets as @DBCooper already mentioned.

You have me curious where you were expecting the manufacturer name to come from. Can you expand on that? Were the cabinets or their doors/drawers pulled from a specific manufacturer catalog that you were expecting would be automatically recognized by the %manufacturer% macro?

Haven't explored WHY its happening, but what you're seeing is your Slab Footing Wall from your foundation level extending up from below.

DraftSight is a really good alternative to AutoCAD and was the 2D software I used back when I needed it. It is however not really comparable to Chief at all as it isi essentially just a 2D CAD software and not a full architectural 3D modeling software like Chief Architect, Softplan, Revit, Vectorworks, ArchiCAD, AllPlan, Sketchup, or some of the others being discussed. Like AutoCAD, it does have some 3D capabilities but they're pretty limited.