Alaskan_Son

I could be missing something here but it sounds to me like you're just trying to increase the resolution right? So, just bump up your resolution setting to double it.

Here's a really quick and crappy video for you Lew...

Not sure exactly what you're going for Lew, but I just changed the fill style to solid and bumped the transparency up...

If you're in X10, use a Custom Field instead...

What version are you using? If you're using X9 or X10 you can use one of your Object Information Fields and just enter that value manually... ...or possibly just add that height as a comment.

Didn't feel like I needed to. I was just suggesting a possible starting point and it only takes a matter of seconds to test out the settings yourself. Are you familiar with changing the roof pitch using your wall settings?

You could just lower the pitches without adding any gables. All I did after opening up your plan was changed the pitches to 10:12 via wall settings...except for that front and back wall which I changed to a 7:12 and the result was a perfectly acceptable hip roof in my opinion. Would it be my ultimate choice? I don’t know. Only reason I mentioned gables was to suggest that when you’re dealing with what seems to be a very challenging roof, that you not limit yourself by trying to force a style that’s just not working very well. Didn’t mean to say one was better than the other. Just wanted to throw an alternative out there that might open up your options.

That is correct. You just need to modify your macros something like this... ... $StairRiserNo_A=obj.num_treads+1 rescue $StairRiserNo_A You can then use the macro in plan view (which will initiate the global variable) and the same macro in a text box in elevation (which will raise an error and therefore execute that rescue exception and just display the global variable). Just remember that the macro in plan view needs to be visible if you want accurate results. There are a number of methods to do that without actually having to see the text such as setting the number height to zero but you can play around with it and see what works for you.

Unfortunately I think your best and easiest solution is probably to label in plan and use global variable for elevations. Only way to access object attributes directly in elevations is either to use the actual object label (not available for stairs) or a referenced macro and those only work with CAD in elevations (a very last resort anyway due to disconnect problems). Most plans only have a couple sets of stairs anyway, so a couple global variables shouldn’t be too hard to manage.

Stringers and skirt board or skirting around these parts.

Its really a matter of personal preference and the look you're going for if you ask me. I'm personally not a huge fan of hip roofs and tend to use gables a lot more often. Having said that, I think with your example, with the least amount of tweaking, I would consider changing all your roof pitches to something more like a 10:12 with the exception of the front and back wall. Maybe change those to something like a 7:12.

Its all good. If we get the terminology too screwed up communication just starts to break down. Whether you used the term correctly or not, I see now why you described it a saltbox actually, and I didn't realize it before but Gene posted a picture of Eric's sample plan not your plan. On a side note, it would still really help to see the plan file.

Same thing I was thinking. I would take a second look at that terminology Grego.

Select the desired door front from your library, drop it in the plan, and then move it into position is one of the easiest ways.

I think your original assumption was correct in that the terms carriage and stringer are interchangeable. It seems like perhaps the client just wants a detailed section similar to what Jerry posted with the stringer depth, rise, run, stair nosing, etc. all properly dimensioned and labeled.

Another really good illustration Eric. So simple, but so clear.

This^^^ Although, I think you'll have a bit of cleanup to do in order to remove fills from text, text boxes, callouts, etc. , and to change the color of items to white that aren't set to be controlled by layer.

Sorry, yeah I'm in X10. Don't have time to redo in X9 right now. Here's the gist though... 1. Make a brick and mortar for your 3D molding symbol and Tools>Symbol>Convert to Symbol. Add to library as a fixture. 2. Drop that symbol into a blank plan, reduce the height by a known percentage (height * .5 for this example), and then Tools>Symbol Convert to Symbol. Add to library as fixture. One of the big things to understand is that Chief uses the bounding box information for a number of things depending on where and how the object is being used. In the case of window sills and 3D molding symbols, the bounding box is used to cut the wall's finish layers back. What you want is a smaller bounding box...we'll deal with fixing the height of the symbol itself later. Its important that you create the new symbol though in order to generate NEW GEOMETRY. You might have a resized symbol, but until you Convert to Symbol, it will still use its original geometry and bounding box. 3. Drop that modified symbol into a blank plan and Convert to Symbol. This time add to your library as a Molding. During the Convert to Symbol process, check Show Advanced Options, and on the Sizing tab, change your bounding box height by the same percentage as you changed you original symbol in Step 2 to make it even smaller. The 2nd big thing to understand with the bounding box is that it is also used to tell Chief how tall the symbol has to be in order to display the geometry at full height. This is normally a 1:1 ratio, but you can utilize this number for all sorts of other purposes. In this case, the symbol's geometry is already 1/2 as tall as we want it to be. Lets assume our desired sill symbol is 6" tall and we've already reduced it down to 3". This means when we assign the molding to our window sill, that it will only be 3" tall. By further reducing the bounding box height to 1-1/2" we are telling Chief that we want the full 3" geometry to display when the height is set to 1-1/2". The problem with window sills is that we can't control the height of the sill. The height is set by the original geometry of the molding symbol (3" in this case). That means if we want our symbol to display as the full 6" that we need to make it twice as tall as it is...1-1/2" will display the original 3" geometry, and 3" will double that to the desired 6" height. 4. Adjust the origin offset of your molding symbol as necessary by right clicking on it in the library and selecting Open Symbol. Giving it positive Y offset will push it deeper into the wall, adjusting the Z offset will move it up or down, and adjusting the X offset will adjust the pattern a bit. The X offset is something you may end up wanting to adjust on a window by window basis sometimes. Note that you can use the same molding symbol to do this. The window will remember the molding as it was originally placed. I would probably recommend you take a cross section of your window to pull measurements and watch what happens when you change the offsets. Oftentimes you can just click on the sill with the library object selected to see your changes, but you may find the need to open the window back up and re-select the molding from the library to see your changes. I know that all sounded pretty complicated but once you wrap your head around it, it's really not too bad. It just comes down to understanding the difference between the symbol's geometry (which is always static), the symbol's bounding box, how the bounding box is used to control display of the symbol's geometry, and how the origin offsets work. Oh ya, just on a side note, some of the other solutions offered above were totally valid. I just wanted to show that you could indeed use the sill. And a second side note: I could have redone the example in X9 in the time it took me to type that up. I thought my quick description was going to be a little quicker than it was : )

You’re mire than welcome. To answer your question though... No, I don’t have a website but I have seriously comsidered setting one up at some point here. Most of my free offerings can just be found littered throughout my last several thousand posts and in the 200 or so videos I have posted on my YouTube channel. I also create various custom tools, symbols, macros, videos, customize fonts, and provide consultation and handful of other services on an hourly basis as time permits. I’m thinking I may set up some kind of website or subscription based service at some point here. I’m sure you know how it goes though...It all takes time. I only have so much of the stuff though

I appreciate you asking but if I post it here in the forum you can always assume you’re free to use and share it unless I specifically state otherwise. On a side note though, I also do welcome and appreciate donations if you ever find any of my offerings valuable enough to you. It helps to offset the time it’s takes to answer questions, post tips, create custom content, and produce tutorial videos amongst other things. Anyway, there’s my plug. Have a good rest of your night

I'd be very curious to see that first plan. I suspect you did something differently. Too many variables to guess at though. BTW, this kind of thing can totally be done with the sill but it requires some relatively advanced symbol manipulation techniques. I don't have time to get into it right now, but here's a quick sample plan that includes the 5 symbol generations it took to create the final 3D molding symbol (polyline solids>fixture>1/2 height fixture using bounding box>molding symbol>molding symbol with modified origins and bounding box)... Sill example.plan

Sounds like you must be using some relatively large bits to speed up production? I’m just curious...Are you using a good panel optimization software? I assume you are, just wondering because I’ve never actually heard anyone mention a notable disparity due to that last 5/8”. Something else I’m wondering too...Around here I don’t know that we can get a lot of hardwood sheet goods in anything other than 4x8 sheets. Are you saying you lose a full 2-1/4” on all of those too? That really sounds like a lot of waste. Seems like adding a panel saw to the mix might pay for itself, no?

Oh ya, just to be clear, we’ve used all sorts of custom base cabinet depths but the vast majority have been 24”.

For the past 6 or 7 years all our cabinetry has been custom built locally and the vast majority has been face frame. The shop that we used for most of it during that time used a panel saw so waste was negligible. In other words, 24” was not inefficient. Having said that, the other shop we use has a CNC machine but I don’t think 24” deep was a problem there either...at least not for face frames. I think the 24” depth is really only inefficient for CNC shops and even then...mostly just for frameless. Even if the box is dadoed into the face frame, that’s still only a 23-5/8” panel...MAX. That leaves 3/4” for router bit loss even for 48” sheet goods. Plus...some sheet goods can be had in 49” widths so...that brings me back to thinking it’s only CNC shops that don’t use a panel saw that should have that problem, and only when working with 48” sheet goods.

Bottom line is that Linda needs to use multiple material definitions. I mentioned Material Regions in my first response, and then a few more alternatives were added to the list but the rest of you guys, but the most important aspect wasn't the object being used but the fact that she needs to use multiple objects and multiple materials. For all intents and purposes the only real difference between the Wall Coverings and Material Regions in this case is the extra depth in 3D (if the user even sets that properly).