Alaskan_Son

I would send this in to tech support. The problem seems to be caused by the furred wall. That wall precludes the window treatment for some reason. Not sure why though, and don't have time to mess with it any more right now.

%%d is recognized as a control code in Draftsight just the same as AutoCAD and results in the ° sign. I changed them all to "%%g" for illustration purposes only.

Quick example of how easy this would be with a Find and Replace tool. Sorry, having problems with my mic. so there's no sound, but you should be able to get the idea. What could take FOREVER in Chief can be done in a few seconds in many other programs...Draftsight in this example. Quick Find and Replace example.mp4

It CAN be fixed. Chief can easily fix it too and here's your evidence and workaround: Import the original DWG Export a new DWG from Chief Import the new DWG Fixed.

Just draw me something even. On a side note, I think it might have something to do with the software or process being used to export the dwg file because those control codes don't always get exported like that. For example, if I import a "%%d" text box from Chief into Draftsight I will get the expected ° sign. All I need to do is save the file in Draftsight (no changes) and import into Chief and I will get the ° sign in Chief. In other words, the file exported from Draftsight used the same control code but it wasn't exported that way.

By the way, this is a good instance of where a Find and Replace tool in Chief would be super handy. Post the dwg file and I'll see if I can't maybe show you what I'm talking about.

Actually, that’s not quite right. %%d is the control code that was entered in AutoCAD. In AutoCAD, that control code results in the degree symbol. It just doesn’t always carry through to Chief that way. In other words, Chief isn’t always converting anything per se. It’s just importing exactly what was entered in AutoCAD sometimes.

As I mentioned before, I’d be more than willing to help you get what you’re after. It just wouldn’t be free. Most of that section of code you’ve referenced was copied from code that I’ve already shared. A man can only donate so much time and energy.

This has been an ongoing problem for quite some time now. Please report to tech support so they can get as many complaints as possible and get it fixed. In the meantime, what I typically find to be the fastest solution is to group select the text, open it, and then click okay.

Yes and no. None that don't require either adding faces manually or changing the model to a symbol and going through a series of manipulations.

They're going onto your " DEFAULT CAD LAYER". Just turn that layer on.

Post the plan FILE and you will get a better answer but it’s really pretty simple to get a solid fill in section view. There are a couple very easy ways depending on your structure and settings, but here’s one...change the floor structure material to concrete, create an elevation view, and then click CAD>Auto Detail. There are other non-CAD based solutions too.

The reason you are having a hard time with that because it’s not a tile-able pattern as it is. You need to take that center row of tiles (or equivalent) and copy it to the top or bottom. Then you will have a pattern that can be tiled...after cropping the 2 nubs on the right and moving them over into the voids on the left that is... oh yeah, and then doing the same things to the ones on the top/bottom.

I can’t speak to the default stacking level as it’s not something I’ve ever changed, and I’m away from my computer so I can’t test, but assuming Dermot is correct (and I’m sure he is), it’s not the only window default that affects both doors and windows. The Minimum Separation works the same way.

That's how its always worked and its always frustrated me too. That attribute you're using is Object Type not name. Why it shows the name I don't know. In that particular instance you should probably use the object type and the layer both to filter out the unwanted blocks. Depending on what your trying to do, you can also use Replace From Library and/or apply some other different setting to allow for easier group selection in the future. It would definitely be nice of we could group select CAD Blocks based on Name though. It's one of the many little things that has bothered me in the past but somehow hasn't made it onto my priority list of things to send in to tech support.

I'm not 100% sure of the request you're referring to, but I imagine it was with regard to a jamb profile.

Lane, There are a few methods for dealing with this, but here are the 2 easiest IMO... Create new Plan Views for the additional floors. You have to remember that a Plan View remembers its floor as part of that Plan View. If all your layout boxes are referencing the same Plan View then they all change as soon as you Save that Plan View in its most current iteration. OR... Open the layout box and under Plan View>Linked Plan View, set this to None. This will keep all the settings except it will no longer change to reflect changes to your floor level.

What do you mean by this? We've always had jambs for doorways.

There are a couple other methods of storing those CAD Details that would allow for less extra moves... 1. Use CAD Block Management to store some of those CAD Details (especially those that get edited often). This way you only have to drop into plan, explode, modify, rename to original name, and you're done. The biggest downside to this method is that it CAN cause some otherwise unnecessary plan size bloat. 2. You can use a CAD Block warehouse plan and either store the CAD Blocks in CAD Details, in CAD Block Management, or right there in Plan View. The beauty of this method is that you can optionally link these CAD Blocks to layout files so that changes are essentially global; otherwise, you just copy and paste. No futzing around with all the extra steps either. If you want to edit the block you just edit it and leave it sitting right where it is. As far as storing in the library...Yes, I think you're doing about the best you can do. It sure would be nice if we could simply right click and "Edit CAD Block" wouldn't it?

WARNING: What your are about to read is ridiculously convoluted. For your own safety you should stop reading here. Its actually not necessarily quite that simple Eric. If the wall below is an exterior wall AND its exterior side is oriented correctly, AND you have a non-default material assigned to your default exterior wall, then the attic walls will obey the material setting for your default exterior wall's exterior material. So... You could change the material for your default exterior wall (in the material tab, NOT the wall definition) and draw your exterior walls using a wall type from your library that is assigned to a custom Place Library Object button and by doing so, create a quasi default attic wall setting. You would use the custom button to draw your exterior walls with and you would use the Exterior Wall Default as your "Attic Wall Default". This really only addresses the exterior material though and I would consider the term workaround for this one extremely generous at best.

I think you just have unrealistic expectations based on some clever and somewhat deceptive marketing. No one ever said you would get intelligent 3D objects automatically, only that you would get an editable, layered, CAD plan...which you have. The marketing literature goes on to say that you can "extract floor plans" which you also can...by starting with the aforementioned layered line work that shows up in the DWG file.

Here's my advice. Instead of simply moving the meter base to the electrical layer, make it an actual electrical object. Drop it into the plan, click Tools>Symbol>Convert To Symbol, select Advanced Options, and then set the various parameter like you want them. From that point forward the labels will be on your desired layer, it will get added to the correct schedule, you can connect electrical to it, etc. etc.

Absolutely.

I had a chance to take a look at your plan. Honestly, the intent of my challenge was to show the simple level at which 3D molding polylines fail to deliver; HOWEVER, it looks like I inadvertently presented a sort of ideal example of all that the 3D molding polyline CAN do. I learned a couple things in the process though. I can definitely see that the 3D molding polyline is capable of handling at least a little more than I thought BUT, the example I posted basically illustrates its limits. Anything much more complicated than that (such as the challenge I posted in my last thread, or continuing that molding from the wall down onto the floor while still having it lay flat on the floor) would require multiple molding polylines with multiple molding profiles. Definitely a bit more versatile than I was originally thinking, but still won’t likely make my list of favorite features anytime soon. Thanks for the example Graham.