Alaskan_Son

OK, now that’s something to go off of. You want to know why the 2D blocks look smudged. Your problem is that the line weight being used for those objects is too thick. I’m away from my computer right now and I can’t remember off the top of my head what controls those particular line weights. I want to say that it’s the layer for the objects themselves though. Try putting that schedule into a CAD detail instead of the plan and then change the line weights for that electrical layer in the layer set bring used for the CAD detail. You could probably do the same thing in your plan view but then your electrical objects are also going to display differently. Anyway, give that a shot. If it doesn’t work I’m sure somebody else will be along to help you out or maybe I’ll take a look when I get back to the office. One way or another, it’s definitely a line weight issue.

Somebody give this guy a point^^^. That was a really good answer. On a similar note, can anybody tell me why walls are like they usually are? I know I’m not giving you anything to go off of but you guys don’t have anything better to do right? Let’s hear your best guesses. Seriously though, if you want help you’re going to have to give us more information than that. What are you expecting to see?

No...Yes...WAIT!!!...No...well maybe...

What needs fixing? I used to think it could stand to be renamed, but with the new Plan Views, the name actually seems fine now too.

Absolutely possible. I sent you a PM, but the short answer is that you would need to use one or more custom text macros that were formatted to your liking. The best solution would depend on a number of factors but in essence, you would take the attributes available for a window (height, width, and rough opening settings in this case), add write a bit of code that would add those values together as necessary and then display those values in the desired format.

For me it really just depends on the symbol but more often than not I use the Architectural Block method. Also another thing I VERY commonly do is save all the parts and pieces to the library until I’m 99.99% sure I’m done and the delete everything I doubt I’ll ever use again. At the end of the day, you’re right...all methods can lead to a lot of clutter and so we have to just make decisions sometimes. If it took a crazy amount of time to model? Sure, save the parts in a warehouse plan or in your library. If it was pretty easy? I’m a lot quicker to just delete it. Also, there are a couple other methods that work pretty good too. 1. Just keep the parts and pieces in the plan you originally created them for. To me personally, this is often easier on my memory than some plan or library object naming scheme I thought up on the spot. 2. Just export the library object to your “junk drawer” and only import it a year from now when you really need it. Not much different then using a plan or the library except that it compartmentalizes things just a bit further and makes exporting to legacy plans a bit easier than opening another plan. Its a tuffy.

No, it just got relocated.

This kinda depends on what you're after. Its actually really quite easy to automate this to a certain extent using some very simple text macros... ...actually it can be as easy as group selecting a few framing members and just putting the %length% macro in the label. I know, its not the most elegant, but its all some people really need.

I assume you meant Rockwool (mineral wool)? Ya...we don't use the stuff around here. Pretty much always fiberglass for everything. By the way, one other thing that can be pretty easily and affordably added to the assembly to help reduce sound transmittance even further is RC channel (resilient channel).

You bet. Its actually really easy. The biggest question mark is how accurate it is which seems to vary a bit. If you're pulling elevation data from Google Earth though I assume accuracy isn't really the highest priority.

Michael goes over the steps pretty well between these 2 posts...

Who knows. It really depends on what exactly needs to be done. Post the symbol along with a description of what needs to happen and you'll get a much better answer.

The way we've always done it gets a double layer of 5/8" on both units which should give it a 2 hour fire rating. This double layer continues top to bottom except where solid framing can be included in the fire rating calculation. I don't know off hand what the fire rating of most lumber is, but as I recall its somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/2 hour per nominal inch meaning we might only put one layer of 5/8" over 2x joists in the center, or if joists/trusses are running perpendicular we might use 4x blocking and no GWB at all. If we're using I-joists then they would get the full 2 layers. It all really depends on the job though.

We have been involved in the construction of MANY duplexes and here's how we've typically handled that area. I just copied Ray's CAD block and modified it a bit... PARTY WALL EXAMPLE.calibz

That behaviour TOTALLY depends on exactly HOW you move the wall. Move the wall using Edit Area or the main edit handle and you should have no problem...accidentally group select the wall or use your center mouse button and one of the other handles and you'll have a problem. If you're using dimensions to move the wall, make sure to select the Move Both Ends option and not the Move Object option.

Select it while holding Control or Shift and then click "Make CAD Block"

I would kindly suggest that you read the Help Files or Reference Manual and perhaps go through the Tutorial Guide because your question seems to indicate a lack of understanding how to use Chief at a very basic and fundamental level. I'm almost hesitant to answer your question because I suspect you really need to reference the aforementioned materials, but just to get your started... All you really need to do is open up one of your dimensions and you'll have a few options right off the bat. Explore those a bit...

This particular issue was addressed in X10. We now get automatic foundation walls when we check Create Wall/Footing Below for porches (or similar exterior rooms) that are defined by railings and invisible walls.

Block it and then rotate it. Would be a valid suggestion though and one that has come up before.

Two things… 1. Try one of the other call out shapes (like a square maybe). The ellipse, capsule, and rectangle callout shapes are a little unique in that they don’t rotate. 2. Try to include a section line.

Yes I do. I have attached information below… Contact a local engineer.

Yep. That's my preferred method for those as well.

That is one of many reasons I very rarely use window symbols for anything. I'd typically rather just cut the opening (using material regions, a doorway, or a pass through) and then place the symbol as a regular fixture. And now, in X10 we have the new Inserts Into Wall option which basically gives you the cutout and the symbol all in one.

I obviously can’t speak for you guys in California and elsewhere, but in Alaska they completely did away with that section of the code (IECC or IRC... I can’t remember which) allowing windows to be considered for code compliance. Basically our state amendments require mechanical ventilation, there’s no other option.

Might be a good idea if you added your support to Johnny’s suggestion here…