Alaskan_Son

I agree. This isn't something you can do in Chief; HOWEVER, I do think those 3D DWG files can be quite useful. I could have been a little more efficient with some of this stuff but hopefully this at least gives you something to work with...

Tools>Project Information

This feels like deja vu. I think Jonathan gave you a very good answer in the last thread. As I recall, he basically suggested the same method I used in the video I made you for the apron sink situation. Go back and take another look. I think the answer to your problems is to learn how to adjust the 2 side stiles either directly or by splitting face items vertically.

Bryan, I only tested very quickly, but maybe try changing your drawings margins. They seem to be set to some very odd dimensions... I just changed them both to zero and I don't seem to be having any problem printing your drawing without any of the problems you described.

Joe, I'm only saying that there is a way to get those things into the material list and there is a way to attach some additional information. That's all. It's not perfect, but it can certainly be done. I should have also noted that a person can also just add any desired info. for the object(s) directly to the material list itself. There are plenty of situations that could benefit from leaving the object as a primitive rather than converting to a symbol so it's good to know there are ways to do that and still include the object(s) in the material list.

You may not get a Components dbx but you can block the solid, open that block dbx, and under Schedule and Material List you can check Treat As One Object. This will allow you to utilize the Object Information fields to more usefully populate your material list.

I'm not sure I one hundred percent understand this, but just in case… You can actually use point-to-point move like I think you might be talking about. Select your object, click point to point, and then click on any two points in the plan and your object will be moved by exactly that amount and in that same direction. In other words, the two points do not have to be related to your existing object at all. You could for example snap your block to the edge of your wall, click point to point, and then use the edge of your wall adjacent to another properly positioned existing block and the center of the same existing block. Your SELECTED block will be moved that same distance and therefore right into position.

There are bajillions of ways to deal with centering objects like this. Using an insertion point is just the one that seemed to fit the bill best at first thought. A few other things I could also see using/exploring... - Copy/Paste in place an already centered block and slide it into position. - Placing your blocks in the front drawing group. - Centering on wall and then using the tab method to offset the item the appropriate distance. - Creating and using an actual 3D object along with origin offsets or other tricks to allow the object to snap to a known constant. This is one of my preferred methods as it increases the accuracy of your 3-D model as well. - Drawing temporary lines, boxes, or circles to snap to. - Using the tab method to relocate an existing object a specific distance, snapping to that object, and then moving both back over the same distance. - Drawing your objects on a different floor where you have something better to snap to and then cutting and pasting in place on the appropriate floor. - Using ALDO to temporarily turn off layers. - Using a Distributed Object Polyline …and I'm sure the list could go on. I think it's just one of those situations where you will have to find the method or combination of methods that works best for your workflow and/or for the particular situation.

Just use an insertion point. Offset the insertion point so that you can center it or even snap it to some constant...wall layer, wall center, or whatever works for you.

Set your room labels to Use Layer For Text Style... ...and then set the text style for your Room Labels layer differently in your different layer sets...

Thanks Richard. I actually do that all the time too. It wasn't the math I was actually having a hard time with though. For whatever reason I was drawing a blank with regard to exactly what numbers I was supposed to be calculating. I felt kinda silly when I realized all I needed to do was subtract bottom of sink height from the cabinet height. Just one of those mental blocks...I get them from time to time

The problem is that your "Walls, Foundation" layer is not set to be included in the material list... ...fix that by placing the little M in that box (checking Material List or just clicking in that box) and you should be good to go.

Not my cleanest or most organized work but hopefully this helps...

Truth is that you ARE using active defaults. In fact, EVERYBODY uses them. They just don't realize it. There are always a group of various defaults active whether you actually use the Active Defaults dialog to change them or not. There are just 2 ways to change those currently active defaults... 1. Piecemeal by using the Active Defaults dialog. 2. All at once using an Annotation Set. When you switch to a specific Annotation Set you are just changing all your active defaults (the group of CAD, dimension, text, callout, etc. defaults that are currently active).

I won't argue that this stuff could be made easier but part of the reason this stuff is so complex is because there is such much misinformation out there with regard to what Annotation Sets really do. I only have a few minutes so I'll make this quick... Annotation Sets do not control what layer your text, dimensions, CAD, etc. are placed on, its the Active Defaults that do that... ...More specifically: Your Current CAD layer is the layer any new CAD will be placed onto Your dimensions will be placed onto the layer set in your currently active Dimension Default... Your text will be placed onto the layer set in your currently active Text Default... Etc. etc. If you want to change what layer these things are automatically placed on, you either need to change the layer for the existing defaults for CAD, Rich Text, Text, etc. as shown above or you need to create new defaults for those items. You can set which one of those Defaults is currently active by simply switching the appropriate default in Active Defaults as shown above. All that Annotation Sets really do is activate a whole set of the aforementioned defaults. They can certainly increase productivity but in and of themselves, they don't actually do what so many people say they do. It's very similar to the faulty statement made in the first post of this thread... You don't send items to a Layer Set. You can change what is displayed by changing the layer set, but it's not the layer set that is controlling the display of those items...it's the settings for the layer itself. Switching the layer set simply switches to a layer set where the layer in question is set a little differently. Similarly, annotation sets don't control the display of anything. They're simply a quick way to change several Active Defaults at the same time. Again, the real key piece of information I'm trying to get across here is that its the Active Defaults that really control which layer all your annotations are placed onto and you don't even need to use Annotation Sets to take advantage of them. You can simply use Active Defaults. Annotation Sets just work better for a lot of people because you can use them to change all those Active Defaults along with the Layer Set all at once.

A few little tips re: dealing with those Hatch Wall fills...

How EXACTLY are you "adding a text item"?

I totally agree Johnny. Its been an annoyance of mine for a little while but I just never even thought to request that it be fixed. It really should be though. It may be the single most trial-and-error-prone operation in Chief.

As far as I know it has always been that way. Unfortunately, you have to close down the dialog box and then reopen it for any changes to the bounding box or stretch planes to properly register. We really should suggest that they fix that. If more people knew how to use those settings then I suspect Chief would probably be hearing a lot more complaints.

Create a circle, convert that circle to a polyline, and then either convert that polyline to a hole or use boolean operations (polyline subtraction) to cut the hole. You can also simply draw a square hole and then fillet the corners to make a circle. I'm away from my computer and I'm just rattling off some ideas from memory so there may be other ways but those are a couple that come to mind.

Thanks Ross, and that's funny... I wasn't sure if anyone would catch that or not. That was my youngest son. He didn't realize I was in the middle of making a video and I didn't feel like starting over so I just rolled with it.

Thanks guys!

Made this video at the request of another user. Just an easy way to cut an existing door symbol in half... NOTE: The video basically just goes over cutting a simple door in half but the same basic technique can be utilized to downsize and chop down symbols of all sorts. It just gets a little more complicated with more complex geometry and may require several extra steps if the symbol isn't a pretty simple rectangular shape. Maybe when I have a little more time I'll take it a little further for those more complex situations but for now, hopefully this helps some of you guys out and at least get you started. P.S. Thanks for the donation Ross. I appreciate the support : )

Steve, Is this what you're looking for? If so, I think your best bet is probably to set the wall to be a pony wall and only display the lower wall type in plan view. I only had a few extra minutes to look at it and I may hacve missed something, but I have attached the modified plan so you can take a look for yourself. I don't have time to get into all the details, but in short we're a bit limited with the display of railing walls and I've found that using a pony wall is sometimes the answer for those trickier situations. Hopefully this helps... Railing.plan

Ya, it may not work for all situations. You might need to just use the pad method and then mask the extra lines. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I've used the increased footing method adjacent to and even directly underneath garage door openings like you're talking about but I don't rightly recall the specifics. I'm away from my office now but if you post a quick example plan I might be able to take a look when I get back this afternoon.