Alaskan_Son

That guy’s “comedy” may be lost on me, but one thing I do find rather interesting is the placebo effect his videos seem to have. The methods he’s using are just plain trickery but time after time people are convinced their computers are running better. Is he helping those people despite himself? That’s a tuffy.

Go to Print>Drawing Sheet Setup and make sure your Drawing Sheet Scale is set to a 1:1 ratio.

Definitely subjective. That kind of humor is funny like pushing old ladies into a busy street is funny...Not so much.

Okay, I see what you're talking about. I misunderstood. Ya, that situation is tough, and also something I've never needed or wanted to model before. This example isn't perfect but it's not too terrible either... Example for Eric.plan I don't know though...It depends on what I needed to draw that up for. If I needed something really accurate I'd probably end up doing a lot of that manually.

It should take almost no time to convert all those objects to symbols of the proper category which is what I would probably do, but depending on what information you need to show in the schedule, you can also block the object, check Treat As One Object, and then select Fixture from the Include In Schedule list.

Dunno. Never had to do that before. It would depend on a number of factors I'm sure, but I imagine I would probably do something like this (similar to what you did way back in post #13)... Barrel vault.plan ...and I don't see myself using the ceiling plane framing either. I would likely just add any of those elements manually.

I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. In that particular situation I wouldn't personally be building that with the 2 short walls anyway. It would just get built as 2 framed walls with a drywall (and maybe plywood) wrap and I think a single wall definition suits that situation just fine... I think at most in some circumstances I might add a couple CAD lines to show the plywood and/or drywall wrapping the opening...

,:-/

Absolutely worth the “effort” in my opinion. No doubt about it.

That's because its not one of the available tools. I think your best bet is to just draw manually using CAD arcs. Just draw a series of connected arcs to form a closed polyline. Once you have your closed polyline you can block it and add to your library for future use. You might want to create a series of these at different sizes even. When you drop it back in the plan, you don't really even need to explode the block. If the callout size is anywhere close to the right size you can just resize the CAD block. I'm going to assume you're referring to a triangular callout. You can draw that using CAD>Text>Callout. Just select the triangular shape.

Yes, but its also common for the back of that cabinet to be unfinished and finishing that back can be a major consideration. It would not be out of the ordinary for us to actually build an entire island like that in one piece or with extended back panels on the 2 side cabinets and splines to join the 3 back panels together. Again, its all in the details.

Yes, but my point is, we still need to know the details. One of the easiest solutions for example is this... If the middle cabinet isn't going to be a rectangle then it could be masked... ...of course this may or may not work depending on what you need for material lists, schedules, 3D views, 2D details, etc. Completely depends on what the end goal is.

Not sure you understand the reason for my questions. Yes, the cabinetry CAN be represented accurately in the plans. In order to represent accurately though a person has to know exactly how its going to be built. Are we in agreement? The method used to obtain the desired end results would depend ENTIRELY on how the cabinetry is going to be built in the real world.

How will you actually be building that? Are you going to use a cabinet shaped exactly like that? Will there be skins/paneling added to cover the back side of the cabinet or will it be custom built with a finished back? Or will that be built with a rectangular cabinet and skins/panels applied all 3 of those faces?

This^^^^^was the correct answer. The dialog box looks the same but in previous versions unchecking Railing On would also preclude Railing At Wall. In X10 you can control both independently.

I deleted my post because I was incorrect. I didn't read your queries well enough.

The Material List setting is Layer Set specific, meaning that you can generate different material lists using different layer sets. The problem is that Chief doesn't currently seem to be respecting that setting for all object types.

You can Open Symbol directly from the user library and thereby only need to do it once. OR, you could do it in plan and then add that modified object to your library and thereby only need to do it once.

You are correct. It's not working correctly. Please file a report with tech support.

All you really have to do is Open Symbol and uncheck "Outlet".

No, I was just being humorous but also at least partially serious. Sometimes it’s only a handful of lines people really want to get rid of. BTW, you can also adjust material definitions to change the pattern’s line weight/line color or even remove the pattern entirely if it’s just one material that’s causing you problems...and there are several other methods too.

...or delete the lines 1 by 1 in layout.

Or toggle the “Patterns, 3D” layer and then refresh your view (F5 or Rebuild 3D)

There are a lot of people in different countries that don’t use it for that reason but in my opinion that shouldn’t discount it as a little useful tool for finding various projects calculations and information.

You can also explore exporting to ResCheck to get those figures.