Alaskan_Son

I tested this one out ^^^ and it seems to be very easy to use and quite powerful. I've tested some of the others in the past too but they were much more limited and much less intuitive. If you know somebody with AutoCAD, they also have lisp routines that can can convert line work to patterns.

Good tip. Either that or grab your Chief Window by the top bar and drag it over to the edge of your screen (same as your solution but with the mouse). You can do the same thing with your other window to get it onto the opposite side of the screen.

Exactly the same thing we do around here 90% of the time too except that the header is usually a 4x12 and the lower 2x6 doesn't continue over the top of the trimmer...

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but just in case (for you or anyone else reading along), this is what the Truss base tool was created to do. its like a special roof plane that stops trusses below from framing into roof plane above and visa versa. Now getting the overframe framing correct is a whole different ball of wax. It's a little time consuming, but one of my currently preferred methods for both ease and 3d accuracy is to just use trusses for all of it. The overframe portion is very easy to do with trusses. Once the overframe trusses are in position, lock truss envelope and no special snapping (X10), open truss detail, delete unnecessary parts and pieces from the valley trusses, and optionally adjust the framing as much as you see fit. For the ridge beam use a roof beam with a custom rafter tail. For the ledgers, kickers, or whatever those things are called...a couple 3D boxes. Build one, rotate in elevation, rotate in plan, move into proper position, boolean operations to trim; and then copy paste in place, and reflect about to create the second... Overframe example X10.plan Not super easy although its not really all that bad with a little practice. I just can't stand it when something isn't accurate enough to take a 3D view of something without having to say things like "this won't really look like that".

Are you talking about the header or its label?

No, I added that. I was just referring to the description field problem you mentioned.

You can always just add the modified symbol to your user library or even to your toolbar.

I may be misunderstanding but I don't have this problem...

I think Joe is probably right, I think I've actually made several videos going over this process in that past, but here's another, for your specific situation...

Yep. That's one of the methods I was referring to that will also cut the hole. You could also set to be a Window Symbol, or use the Inserts into Wall method along with the new Edit Wall Cutout Polyline tool...one of the most fabulous new X10 features.

Quite a lot of options actually, some of which could cut the hole for you too, but here are a few pretty simply solutions to directly address your question... In X10 you can set the object to Inserts Into Wall. In the Depth field just enter something like .01. It will still show as zero unless you have you Number Style set to decimal inches but it should do the trick. Place the object into a blank plan and Export 3D Model (3DS should do the trick). Then import the model. During the import process, specify the object to be a CABINET. You'll probably need to open the object in your library and delete the countertop. Just block the object. Chief treats Architectural Blocks just like like cabinets in many ways...cutting trim is one of them.

You actually didn't need to do the second step. Simply converting to a polyline solid is enough...converting to any polyline based object for that matter...faster then the method I showed in the video above too.

If you just learned that than I suspect you may have been missing out on some pretty great functionality elsewhere too. You can actually use ANY polyline based object along with any other polyline based objects. You can subtract a roof shape from a polyline driveway, you can combine a custom countertop shape with a slab, you can find the overlapping union of a landing with a room molding polyline, etc. etc. Just remember that the object you start with is the type of object that will remain, get extended, etc.

Correct. The problem is that the circle is not a polyline until you do so. Here's another quick tip...

You didn't need to convert them to p-solids, you needs to convert the circles to polylines.

Yep. Like the guys above said...

2 methods. Control or Shift select the layout box and use the single edit handle to resize. This is the method Val already spelled out above. Use the Resize edit mode and one of the corner edit handles (with or without Rotate/Resize About Current Point active). If you try to use the Resize edit mode by just temporarily activating it with the hotkey (X) then you need to hold X down BEFORE grabbing and moving the edit handle. Don't let go of the key till after you have clicked on the corner edit handle.

I'm kinda suspecting there's really no good solution for this one, but can any of you guys offer any practical advice for searching the library for textures? It seems like every time I really want to try and get the look right it takes like an hour just to get one of the tile surfaces right. I know one good method is develop my own library of "go-to" textures but I don't use very many of them repetitively enough to make any good use of this technique, and even then...I can always just go to the plan I remembered using the texture on and copy/paste from there. The bigger issue is just finding what I'm looking for. I know what I want but how to tell Chief what I want? Take this last project I was working on. I just wanted a relatively common dark gray 12" x 24" bricklay tile. How in Sam Hill do I find that if I don't already know where it is? I usually resort to just scouring the bonus and manufacturer catalogs and find something I can work with after sorting through 400 textures. Okay, that wall is done, now lets find this small format blue and light gray chevron...back to the library to search through 500 more textures. Anyway, these are just a couple quick examples. I run into this all the time. I know some of you guys advocate for a sort of crowd sourced tagging system but there are online libraries that work that way and I honestly don't think they solve the issue very well either. Search results are always hit and miss and at the end of the day I'm still searching through 500-1000 different images to find one that works. I guess this may prove to be more of a mini rant than anything, and that there's probably not a whole lot that can be done (aside from having Chief organize their library to work specifically for my way of thinking), but I would seriously appreciate any tips that might help speed up my workflow in this area.

I'm with you buddy. There have been a couple other things I was making pretty heavy use of in unconventional ways that Chief took away from us. Oh well...I guess the best we can do is send in our heavily worded objections if we want them that badly and hope we were convincing enough. NOTE: In their defense, I will say this; that Chief gave us replacement methods for both of the instances I alluded to above. The functionality wasn't completely replaced in either case but they've gotten pretty close both times and I have to say I would take the newer methods over the old both times...but don't tell them I said that........I hope they're not listening

Sorry Johnny, try as I might, I couldn't replicate your problem either. Looks normal on my end.

I can't give you an authoritative answer Cliff, but it was my assumption that Chief always looked at those subcategories as nothing more than a way to get user defined items into schedules and that the reason they were deleted is because the functionality was completely replaced by the new Custom Object Information Fields.

You can also just use 2 doors with zero separation...

I know you were just trying to be helpful but I think these things are absolutely terrible unless MAYBE if you live in the desert. Introducing all that moisture into a house, and at such an extreme rate is a recipe for disaster. We actually had one of those things in a trailer we lived in. I think we lived there about a year and a half. When we moved out, I kid you not, there was black mold behind almost every piece of furniture that lived up against an exterior wall. It may have been coincidence, but my wife and I both inexplicably developed some new health problems around that time as well. Anyway, just to be fair, this was in Alaska where moisture inside the home is a much bigger problem than it is in warmer climates but the same principle holds true in a large part of the country. I would just really encourage anyone seriously considering one of these devices to proceed with EXTREME CAUTION and even then...only if you live in the dryest and warmest of climates or REALLY REALLY understand what you’re doing. That’s a lot of moisture to dump into the air at one time.

Yeah, I did that on one of my own personal houses years ago and I hated it. We almost bought a new dryer one time thinking the dryer had gone out on us till we realized the stupid screen was just totally blocked up with lint. So, we had to climb up on the roof and clean it off every few months. The alternative is to do away with the screen and use a flapper but then you end up with an ugly “lint stain” on your roof just below the vent hood. Anyway, I only go through the roof now as a last LAST resort.

Statement like this would be helpful... ...IF you would send them to Chief and and IF you would somehow qualify your statements. What you said is basically the same thing as saying I wish My Ford worked like my Chevy... What is anyone supposed to do with a statement like that? It would really help if you were to at least specify exactly what you want to be able to do with Ruby that you can do with VBA. The truth is that Ruby (in Chief) already CAN do a lot of what VBA does in Excel. And BTW, don't forget we're talking about 2 entirely different programs and user interfaces though and so there are going to be inherent differences in what is possible. Anyway, I agree that there is a lot that can be done to improve Ruby implementation within Chief but again, if we want to see any changes we have to supply Chief with at least some semblance of specificity or its just noise.