Alaskan_Son

No, it can be zero. I do it all the time. You must have just coincidentally done something a little differently when you tried it at zero.

The one character longer answer though is yes... You can use the Arc With Arrow tool. Just set the arrow to be 0" or perhaps use the arrow that just looks like the end of a line. You still won't get the automated 3 way and 4 way notations but that's not something I personally care about anyway. Actually, my current preference is to just leave those notations out.

This is most likely due to the new Plan Views feature. To avoid having the views change on you there are at least a few options... 1. Use a unique Plan View for each of your various views that you send to layout. 2. Change your Plan View to "None" before sending the view to layout. 3. If the view has already been sent to layout open up the Layout Box Specification dialog and change the Linked Saved Plan View to "None" 4. When sending to layout select Make Copy Of Active Layer Set And read up on Plan Views so you understand what they are.

You just need to uncheck Use XOR Drawing. XOR drawing cancels out overlapping lines that have identical properties. In Chief though, it doesn't always work as I believe it was intended too and oftentimes seems to cancel out a few other things as well.

2 things here... Its pretty standard drafting procedure in my experience to display floor framing with the walls BELOW and it has nothing to do with Chief. It's just the way its done. I have seen some draftsmen draw walls above along with their floor framing and I have occasionally done the same thing as well with really faint lines, but these are usually IN ADDITION to the walls below and not instead of the walls below. If you want to display floor framing on a different floor, you don't need to use a CAD detail. You can either overlap views in layout or you can use the reference display and reference the floor below using a layer set with everything turned off except for the floor framing.

There are 3 different things being talked about here: A line that is converted to an arc. The arc is generated in a clockwise direction from the start of the line to the end of the line. An electrical connection. These are also drawn in a clockwise direction from the start of the line to the end of the line. A plain arc. The way these are drawn depends ENTIRELY on the Arc Creation Mode you have activated. My personal favorite is Start/End/On Arc.

Eric has it right but just to explain a little bit... In prior versions there was almost always a JPG (or PNG) Texture Source file associated with any given material. If there is a good Bump Map (or Normal Map) available though, the Texture Source is no longer necessary. What the Texture Source file does is produce a repeating pattern to simulate a "material's" color(s) and patterns. What a Bump Map essentially does is it uses a repeating pattern to simulate texture (high spots, low spots, and the resulting "shadows"). Let's take tile vs stucco for example: With tile, the JPG Texture Source is absolutely necessary as it provides the grout lines' shape and color, the shape and color of the tile, and any patterns in the tile. With stucco on the other hand, its really all about the actual texture of the material which Bump Maps can do just fine...especially with Chief's improved rendering capabilities. Following so far? Now here's where the current misunderstanding seems to lie...If there is a Texture Source file in use, Chief uses the colors in that JPG instead of the Material color. This is where you are given the option to "Blend". If there is no Texture Source file though, there is nothing to blend with and so the Material color is used.

We call these outswing doors and just FYI, they can be automatically labeled correctly in the schedule using custom macros. It's really not very difficult.

Some of us ARE the builder and we are using the schedules specifically FOR ordering. I personally use custom macros and notes/comments as necessary to make sure I get the correct information across. I also set up my schedules with the specific supplier in mind. A couple things to think about… Who do you I think is more likely to make a mistake on a door or window order? You, or your supplier? I personally trust myself more than I trust my local lumberyard. Not only did I draw the plans but I know exactly what I want. Secondly, just because you try to produce an accurate schedule doesn’t mean it can’t be double checked. There is definitely something to be said for having another set of eyes look things over. In order for it to be doublecheck though it first must be…single checked. BTW, even if I’m drawing plans for another builder, they may want to use the schedule for ordering too. Actually, the example I posted above was originally developed for another builder. I honestly don’t think the perceived difference in the way we call out door swings is nearly as widespread as some people make it out to be. I’ve actually never dealt with a door manufacturer in the northern hemisphere that calls out doors differently than any other. Anyway, assuming there is a great variation, a diagram in the schedule along with the appropriate notes can pretty easily clarify things.

If you download Sketchup you can use the 3-D text tool to create a symbol and then import into chief.

You can always do something like this...

I just got back to the office and checked out your files. They're all working perfectly fine. Your problem is that you're going about some things the wrong way. The reason you can't seem to be able to select or resize your symbol is you might expect is because you changed the bounding box during the import process... You have to remember that your symbols have a certain 3D geometry and the bounding box does NOT change that geometry. All it does is tells Chief how you want to control/resize that geometry. I can see from the 3D symbols you posted that the height of that car symbol is about 36,000"W x 12,000"D x 9300"T. When you changed the bounding box dimensions to make the car 242"W x 78"D x 68"T, all you really did was tell Chief that you wanted the geometry to be represented at full size when the dimensions are set to those numbers. Again, you didn't actually change the original geometry at all. This means you would need to set the dimensions to something like 1-1/2" x 1/2" x 3/8" if you wanted to size the car all the way down to its proper size. Also, the Sketchup symbol has some extra geometry off away from the car that needs to be deleted. All the corrections can be done directly in Chief for these types of things. Here's the process I would recommend using for the SKP file... Import the model into Chief but do not add it to your library If there is any extra geometry, take a 3D view, use the Delete Surface tool to delete it all, and then Tools>Symbol>Convert To Symbol Drop the new symbol into your plan and delete the original. Repeat steps 2 and 3 if any extra geometry still remains. Once you have any extra geometry cleaned up, Open Object (not symbol) and change the size to what you want it to be. Take a 3D view, Convert To Symbol, and add to your library. You should now have a clean and properly sized symbol in your library for use. Delete any of the temporary symbols and use this one.

I’m away from my computer now. I’ll take a look when I get back to the office. I’m sure someone else will probably chime in with an answer before then. In the meantime, here’s a potential solution for you so you can keep moving forward... Drop the symbol into a blank plan, convert to symbol, drop that NEW symbol into blank plan, resize, and then optionally convert to symbol one more time and save the correctly sized version to your library.

You're going to need to give us more than that. Post a plan with one of the questionable symbols in it, post a Zip file with the Sketchup symbol, or at the very least...point us to the Sketchup Symbol.

Here's my tip for the day... You may not be able to delete all your materials, but you CAN Merge them. In doing so you are essentially deleting all the others. Also, just inspect the material settings and keep the one that is set up properly. Mirrors for example...Make sure the material class is set to Mirror with a high reflection setting and set the type and color of the material to whatever you want it to be. Its not that materials "don't work", its just that the settings need to be correct. Okay, that was 2 tips, but hopefully they help you out.

Probably goes without saying, but just in case...make sure that video card will fit and work in your current machine.

I agree that an Import/Export option for Plan Views would be good but I suspect that is far easier said than done. Plan Views remember a lot of things, amongst those things... -X/Y location and zoom settings. Importing and exporting these settings could very often result in plan views being focused on all the wrong places. Not a huge deal but something to think about. -Floor. This might be the most significant. What if the floor doesn’t exist? -Referenced Floor. Same as above. -Layer Set. What if the layer set doesn’t exist? And if the layer set DOES exist, what if it’s set up differently in the legacy plan? What to do with any layers that exist in the legacy plan but not in the new plan? What to do with the layers that exist in the new plan but not in the legacy plan? -Annotation Set. What if the Annotation Set and any/all of its defaults don’t exist? And if if you opt to import layer set and Annotation Set information, what exactly do you import/overwrite, and what other adverse affects does it have on that plan? Anyone who has dealt with trying to import/export layer sets and anno sets probably knows how potentially messy that process can get. Anyway, I’m sure an import/export process can be developed but I think it’s not an easy task.

The best method I’ve found is to send all your plan views one by one to a special layout. Then, one by one: -Open the layout box dbx, take note of the Plan View Name, set the Plan View association to “None”, relink the layout box to your legacy plan, open the relinked view, and then Save Plan View As and give it the name you took note of. Repeat as necessary for remaining views.

The reason the stairs don;t seem to work in that situation is due to the lack of a landing. Another method you can use is to draw an actual landing and then simply place that landing onto a unique layer and turn that layer off... The 2 key components are that you have a landing and that your stairs be set to winders (at least for the one side). The trickier part is how to deal with the nosing. Here I just moved the landing down 1/8" and changed the line style for the Floor Surfaces Layer to Invisible... ...and here I just used a molding polyline for the nosing...

Your problem is that you changed your Room Divider default to No Room Definition. Not sure why you did that as the whole point of the Room Divider is to define rooms. At any rate, the connecting wall for your island room needs to have that setting unchecked and then you should be good to go.

This might be true, but I have personally used the special wall type I mentioned in my post earlier for other reasons. Most notably... I hate how the wider attic walls look in plan views. Not really an ACTUAL issue...just something I don't like to see. Those attic walls are also necessary down at the eves sometimes and the framing down there is a whole nuther issue. Using a wall type with no framing layer allows for the finish material to do their job without the occasional (and incorrect) extra studs and plates being generated.

I'm not gonna get into an argument about how it SHOULD be done...frankly I don't have the time or will to do so...I was just showing a quick and incomplete example to get the general idea across.

OR you can use Rotate/Resize About Current Point (one of my personal favorite tools) along with one of these 2 methods... Multiple Copy: Just place a point at the center of your circle or arc and make sure to use the Rotate handle when dragging out your copies. Copy/Paste: Same as above except you can use the Copy/Paste tool in Sticky Mode and place the copies one at a time.

You can always set the Plan View association for your layout box to “None”. I personally see very little benefit in having a layout box linked to a plan view anyway. Layout boxes essentially are (and always have been) “plan views” in and of themselves anyway.

I could make something a lot closer for you. How long it took (and the resulting price) would depend on how perfect you need it to be as well as which parts and pieces you actually needed.