Alaskan_Son

I could be misunderstanding Jared's request but I don't think I am. I believe the goal is to keep the drawing so that posts are drawn under beams, beams are drawn under joists, and ALL labels are brought to the front group. In your example it looks like you are essentially drawing the posts OVER the joists...that is all except the row I mentioned which it looks like you left alone. If the labels in that row had landed under a joist then once you moved the labels to the front of the drawing group then the posts would have been moved forward too and therefore they would be drawn above the beams and joists (incorrect). With reagrd to the beams...In your attached example the labels are still being drawn beneath the joists which is what I believe we're trying to avoid. Hopefully that makes sense.

Glenn, your suggested method kinda works except that as you probably know it wouldn't have worked for that 3rd row of posts down from the top had the label been in a different position and it also doesn't work for the beams. It kinda only works in just the right circumstances. The method I used was to overlap 2 layout boxes...one with the normal plan view and labels turned off and another with just a reference set...all line styles set to the blank line style and reference floor set to draw last. That method essentially allows all labels to be placed onto the front drawing group.

Jared, It just occurred to me that there actually IS a way to do this. I only spent a few minutes so I didn't thoroughly test or perfect but check out the attached files to see how I did it. Label Test.layout Label Test.plan

Aside from using manually placed text boxes, moving and rotating the labels is the only thing I can think of that will get you what you're after... Now having said that, I would personally really consider doing away with a lot of those labels and just using plan notes/footnotes and/or text boxes with arrows in this particular instance just to clean up some of the redundancy.

This looks like a bug to me. I would report this to tech support and see what they have to say.

Or...Don't use 2 separate cabinets. Just use one cabinet and split the face item(s) vertically to create the extra openings and center stile(s).

A little off subject, and I know you already made multiple versions of the fireplace, but just FYI... You should be able to rotate that beast using Edit Area (Control+H). Edit Area has had a few bugs associated with it over the years, but currently I think it should work just fine for that particular purpose.

You shouldn't need to enlarge each individual item. All you should really need to do is modify a few CAD blocks. Here's a short video I made on the subject a little while back...

Absolutely. Resize About is an extremely useful and I think oft overlooked productivity setting.

Sorry, wasn't trying to contradict the other advice. Only pointing out something that appeared as if though it could have been a large part or source of the problem that may have been overlooked.

I'm not sure how you got where you did, but I believe the solution to your problem may lie in your wall type definition... Change that main layer thickness to 3.5" and you should be golden. As soon as you make the change everything appears to line up perfectly.

This is a great example of why the problem needs to be clearly communicated. I thought I understood the problem after the first post. Apparently I was wrong. The OP added an additional detail with mention of a "double paragraph" which I didn't understand. Then you helped me understand. Now it makes perfect sense to me...right? WRONG!! What I thought you were explaining apparently wasn't what I thought YOU meant either. This is the light I thought you had shed: This is how the text box appears in Word... This is what happens when that list is pasted into Chief... NOTE: The auto numbering does not seem to behave consistently when pasted into Chief from Word. In this particular instance the numbering remained auto once pasted into Chief but as you can see the numbering is no longer continuous. As I previously mentioned in my post above; in another test the top numbering remained sequential but the numbers below the added paragraph were no longer automated. If that weren't enough, in a 3rd test, I lost automation with ALL numbering. ...And this is done in Chief using the solution mentioned in Item #3 of my post above...

Here's a quick video...

I'll try to make a quick video when I have a chance. In the meantime, just a quick follow up... I had just a few spare minutes to test some things when I finally got back to the office this evening and here were some of my findings (all assuming Mark's explanation of the problem is correct): 1. Changing the line spacing for the one line doesn't actually seem to be a very good solution because it leaves us with no good way of controlling where that break occurs. 2. My assumption that a text macro might be a good alternative was a bad one too. Once the text box is closed, the new line macro just triggers a new numbered line. 3. What DOES work is this...Instead of trying to create the extra carriage return before moving on to the next item on the list, cause the next item to auto number FIRST and then go back, hit enter/return and under paragraph options switch from Numbered to None and set the left margin so that it lines up with the line above. Due to the fact you already continued the numbered list, the auto numbering below will simply continue on as usual. Actually, now that I think about it, there are circumstances where I use this same trick in Word too. 4. I tried copying and pasting the dual paragraph scenario from Word and I can immediately see the problem. The numbered list retains its automated behavior only up until the added paragraph at which time the numbering just becomes dumb text. I didn't have a lot of time to explore much further than that.

Try running your tests again, but this time zoom in and out while you have that text box activated.

P.S. Just a side note but monospaced fonts can also take up a lot more room than a standard or proportional font.

Mono-spaced or fixed width fonts are designed so that each and every character (numbers, letters, symbols, etc) takes up the exact same space. It's easy to test whether you're using a mono-spaced font or not by typing a series of 5 or 10 narrow characters (a period, lower case L, or an I for example), hitting enter/return, and then typing the same number of a wider characters. If it's a mono-spaced or fixed-width font than both lines of text should line up perfectly. It's this even spacing that alleviates the issues Johnny is mentioning. Courier is one of the most widely used mono-spaced fonts. I personally don't like the way most of those fonts look. They always make me think of the 80's...and typically not in a good, nostalgic way...more like in a "This is 2017, why does this text look like I something I produced with my Commodore?" way.

I'm thinking you might be right based on the OP's second post. The first post made no mention of paragraphs or line returns though. It also sounds like your suggestion is a good one to remedy the problem. Depending on the situation I might also consider using a simple text macro to add the newline instead of actually placing a carriage return in the text box. At any rate this request should be made a little more clearly and either posted in the suggestion forum or sent in to tech support. If the problem and suggested solution aren't abundantly clear and communicated to the appropriate party I can guarantee the requested capabilities will never be implemented.

I totally agree. I still don't understand the OPs problem though. I thought I did but apparently not. Does anyone else understand the problem?

I guess I don't understand what the problem is then.

That Quadro card actually IS an Nvidea card. Quadro is just an Nvidea workstation card series (as opposed to a gaming card).

2 things... If you bring your auto numbered list and either paste directly into the plan or paste into a RICH TEXT box, it should remain an auto numbered list. In case you don't realize this, you can create auto numbered lists directly from within Chief using Rich Text. Just click on Paragraph Option>Bullets and change the Type to Numbers.

Send me a quick sample plan and a screenshot or 2 illustrating the problem in a bit more detail and I'll see if I can squeeze in a quick video. Not sure what object types and blocks you might be dealing with, whether you're exporting in 2D or 3D, whether you're using colors or not, what you expect your DWG to look like, what view types you might be exporting, etc. Site unseen I'm guessing you're exporting simple 2D linework and that the best solution is to simply turn off layers you don't need and group delete a few remaining fills using the Match Properties tool.

For this particular exercise I was only going off the example posted in THIS thread which does appear to be a simple oblate spheroid. I do agree though...the one in the other thread is a different animal entirely.

Made it back to the office and decided to make a somewhat quick video on the subject... I didn't go over all the methods I mentioned but I went over a couple that I could pretty easily illustrate using the sample plan provided. It's worth noting that using roof planes has a lot of benefits in that the individual planes can be modified as necessary to further customize the roof. Not something I went over in the video, but after giving it a little more consideration, I think solids would probably be my method of choice. You could use the Revolve tool or you could create a series of solids using any number of other methods (even using a similar method to what I used to create the roof planes in the video). This would give you even more flexibility for future modifications to the structure.