Alaskan_Son

For anyone reading along, please note that this thread is from 5 years ago and several version back. A good handful of things have changed since then.

Ya. I think that was their intention at one point but they found out so many of us use the feature still so they've left it in place. What I don't like even more than the inability to set those defaults is the fact you can't change a layout box to use Edge or Pattern Line Defaults after the fact. I feel like it should be a toggle right there in the layout box. I personally don't use Edge Line Defaults, but use Pattern Line Default all the time.

I personally use Pattern Line Defaults for almost all 3D views sent to layout. I like my pattern lines to be a lighter gray color with a zero line weight for most all color off views but I don’t want to change my Material Definition because I still like to be able to produce colored vector views with darker pattern lines.

Away from my computer but as I recall, those settings obey the last setting they were given during the Send to Layout operation. In other words, I think the “Default” (or at least the closest thing to it) is in the Send to Layout dialog. Again, that’s just from memory. It might be wrong, but it’s worth a look.

I'm not even sire what I'm looking at there. Those look like inverted dormers where the "dormer" is actually just an inset lower pitch roof with lap siding instead of shingles. Very strange. Can't advise without knowing what's actually happening there.

Whether the wall is displayed or not is controlled by the layer that the wall is placed on. Beyond that, the display is controlled by the Pony Wall Display settings for the Saved Plan View that you are using.

I personally wouldn't overthink it and wouldn't hesitate to just insert a standalone symbol inside an Opening for one off situations like this. Yes, it can be done in various ways with cabinets or doors but I don't see any real benefit in having to futz around with all those various settings and the typically undesirable plan view display. To show open and closed, just use 2 symbols placed on different layers.

Or is it possible that you're trying to snap to one or more objects that are part of a Block?

Object Snaps might be toggled on, but that doesn't mean the various types of Object Snaps aren't individually toggled off. Ares some of these that you need toggled off?

No. It’s a Furred Wall to avoid the room issue. And I agree. It’s the method I typically use as well.

You can also use the "Patterns, 3D Views" layer. The 2 settings are interconnected in that the one reverses the other. NOTE: You may have to click Rebuild 3D in order to see the results of using the "Patterns, 3D layer" as a toggle

3D>Toggle Patterns

@GeneDavis, there's actually more going on than meets the eye in that plan (and possibly other similar plans). It goes beyond improper calculation--in fact, it may not be a calculation issue at all but rather some other bug. Check this out... If you adjust the Fascia Top Height of RP-4 to match RP-5 then all your fascia will align. If however you open up RP-3 you'll see that it now has a different fascia height from what it was. Changes to RP-4 are affecting RP-3. Super weird for sure.

He just used a meticulously positioned 3D molding polyline.

of course CA (or Pella) should fix it. And no it’s not worth anything to me. I couldn’t care less. I don’t use Pella. For anyone who needs the macros to work NOW though, they can be patched quite easily as I’ve demonstrated.

I wasn’t even talking about that. I was just pointing out that there are at least 3 coding issues inside the macro. All but one can be avoided by not migrating and the other can be fixed by modifiying a couple of the label references as I did in the macro above. I hadn’t even noticed that each window type is using a different macro. For now, they can each be temporarily patched individually using the same approach I mentioned above.

I took a quick look at that Pella macro this morning and it seems to have a handful of problems. In addition to the issue with the new Measurement class, there's also an issue with their use of the word "label" which currently conflicts with the name:value pair using the same name (an attribute that didn’t exist when the macro was originally written). There are other issues as well but I don't have the time or inclination to figure out what those are. For now, see if this modified version of the macro will work for you. Just DO NOT Migrate it. Leave it using the old deprecated behaviors. Pella quick mod.json And please report to Chief so they can incorporate a proper fix.

Carefully read the advice given by @rgardner and @JacobB given above, but if some nuance about how you're doing things still requires or otherwise results in those fractional values that you don't want to see, you can always using the round method to round your values: %schedule_number% - R.O. %width% X %height% %type_code% SH %bottom_elevation.round% - HH %header_elevation.round%

In addition to using Defaults and Style Palettes, you can also change one cabinet and use the Material Eyedropper/Painter, the Object Eyedropper/Painter tool and/or Match Properties.

Yes. Chief doesn't work this way and they have yet to provide any setting that allows us to do so. The best replacement option that I know of continues to be the method I mentioned earlier in the thread: Again, you can customize your hotkeys if desired to make the operation easier, but the basics are the same.

Your best bet is to just turn the arrow off and place one manually.

You are completely correct. The Structure setting does (or at least can) indeed affect other things in the model--particularly if you are lowering the roof so that the bottom of the defined structure starts to encroach into the ceiling and wall framing below. I corrected my post to reflect that. I guess I've very rarely had to lower any of my roof planes. I'm almost always making them higher so the Structure settings don't affect much of anything. I should have known better. Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. I stand corrected. The Structure depth should be changed if you're trying to lower a roof after it was initially built using the wrong settings. I'm not sure it matters if you're going to raise the roof, but as a matter of good habit, it should probably be changed in either case. Thanks again. Good catch.

Yes. I do this exact thing myself. Here are a couple examples with visuals: One option is to do as @Kbird1 suggested and just set you Drawing Sheet to be 22"x34" in Layout, but when you print, simply select Check Plot at>1/2 Scale: Example using 24x36 and 12x18 but same exact principle applies: If scale doesn't matter, you can also do as @VHampton suggested and simply use Fit To Paper. I would however note that the percentage completely depends on your title block and borders. For me, 100% works just fine for printing 24x36 to 11x17:

If a person is going to use trusses, then the Structure thickness won't even matter. It's all about setting the Baseline Height correctly. For existing roof planes that were initially drawn using the incorrect settings, I can think of at least a few options, but in all cases you are correct that the Structure Height should be changed to match the correct Truss Top Cord Depth. Check Trusses (no Birdsmouth) in your Roof Defaults, draw a new roof plane, open it, copy the baseline height, delete the roof plane, open your other existing roof plane(s), Lock Pitch, and paste that baseline height into the baseline field. Open another existing (but correct) roof plane, copy the baseline height, open your incorrect roof plane(s), Lock Pitch, and paste that baseline height into the baseline field. You can draw a truss, take a section view and simply measure how far your roof plane needs to move. After changing the Structure Depth as @Chrisb222 suggested, inspect the Vertical Structure Depth on the General tab. Lock pitch, and set the Baseline Height to Top of Plate+Vertical Structure Depth.

This isn't quite right (or its at least an incomplete picture). Changing the structure setting in Roof Defaults will only cause the roof to be lowered for newly drawn roof planes. It will not however affect any existing roof planes and even newly drawn roof planes will get set at the wrong height since rafter framed roofs get the baseline height set differently than it would if Trusses (no Birdsmouth) were checked.