Alaskan_Son

Ya, it's definitely best to start with a metric plan if possible. I think the best approach is to just open an empty metric template and Import all your various settings as desired. Chief made this a lot easier in X17 but could still be done in X16. That being said, the problem you're seeing is actually due to a limitation Chief has with cabinets in Imperial plans. I've never been 100% sure why, but cabinets (and by extension shelves) are one of a very small handful of items that Chief limits to specific increments (in this case 1/16"). Most items can be set to a much more exact dimension without issue. Try this quick experiment in an Imperial plan to see what I mean: Draw a couple otherwise identical shelves using both the Shelf tool and a 3D Solid and enter "50mm" as the thickness for both. Dimension each of the 2 "shelves". You should see that the Solid will show 50mm and that the Shelf will show 49.21mm Now open the dialogs for your 2 objects one at a time. If your change your Number Style to Decimal Inches, you should see that although they both displayed 1 5/16", that they do in fact store more accurate values when Chief allows it (which they do for almost everything). In the case of Cabinets though, Chief just happens to limit them to 1/16" increments. Again, I'm not 100% sure why but I wish they didn't.

I've designed and otherwise helped set up a few different alternatives to the Project Information system that allow for the addition of as many project info. line items as you'd like. Some are macro based, and some are not. I'd be happy to help set you up with something as well if you'd like. Just email me at alaskansons@gmail.com if you'd like to discuss further. That being said, one of the easiest OOB solutions is to simply add your Assessor Parcel Number as a custom, non-evaluated, user-defined Text Macro via Text Macro Management. See example below where I have created an %APN% macro... P.S. This should be in the General Q&A section.

And the Match Properties tool is yet another good option.

Looks like a faulty font. Exactly which font is that and where did you get it? I know you said sans seriff, but that's just a generic term for fonts without fancy tails coming off the ends of the strokes There are a few that have leading issues like that, but that is one of the worst I've seen. I would definitely just fine a different font.

I agree with almost all of what you said. All except that last sentence. Believe me, Chief is fully aware of the need for collaboration between multiple machines. I'm about 99.99% certain that one of main reasons (if not the main reason) for implementing Project Management in the first place was so that they could address some of these collaboration issues, more specifically with the goal of a managed cloud store so you eventually wouldn't have to import/export anything at all.

Can you post a copy of the survey?

That all sounds reasonable. What seems odd to me though is that it sounds like you're essentially attempting to display the North Arrow angle in Quadrant Bearings, but that will only ever be N0°W (or N0°E). It would seem that the text alone would suffice and that placing any extra lines or macros would be totally unnecessary. Am I missing something?

There's not simple one line method to do this, but can definitely be done with a custom macro and I can help set that up for you if you'd like. That being said, I would definitely need more information about what you're trying to accomplish though because quadrant bearings are defined according to North and so that angle you're trying to display should always simply be N0°W no matter what angle the line is at.

3D>Camera View Options>Cross Section Slider

Ben is correct. It seems that you are trying to accomplish something that is a mathematical impossibility. The only way to have the same fascia height, the same overhang, and the same plate height (ALL 3) while at the same time have different pitches would be to use trusses and make the heel height taller on one section or the other. With rafters its simply impossible.

Next time, just draw the object right in elevation view where it goes.

I don't believe there is any way to set a default for this. I've actually meant to send in this request myself. I think about it almost every time I change that setting but naturally, I'm always in the middle of something and forget to write it down. I'm gonna send it in right now actually. You should as well.

I have macros that do this. Away from my computer but shoot me over an email if you want to discuss furtter and I’ll see what I can do for you when I get back to the office.

FWIW, you can also optionally set the callout size in your schedule to zero but this will keep all the schedule number text upright instead of rotating it along with your window.

It took me a while to understand your problem. I think I finally get it. What you want is for Chief to read your mind. Okay, kinda joking, but not really. There are essentially 2 things you could be doing with the Priority settings right now: Prioritizing pre-cut studs in which case Chief will cut your trimmers AND cripples from studs Prioritizing plate material in which case Chief will cut your trimmers AND cripples from plate I think what you probably want is a Structural Member Reporting Priority list for each and every framing member type. Cut cripples from this, cut trimmers from this, cut sills from this, and so on.

Ya, I guess we should have clarified whether we were talking about a camera or a manually placed callout because the 2 are definitely different. I had been assuming we were talking about a camera, particularly because the callout arrow solution is relatively self evident. My assumption could have been wrong though.

As Rene suggested, I do indeed have some custom systems I've set up to do exactly this. That being said, Chief also has some built in non-macro based tools to do what you want as well. For example, you can navigate to the Labels tab for your schedule, set to Use Both Callout and Label, and then simply toggle the callout layer off for most layer sets, but in your schedule layer set, toggle the callout layer on and toggle the normal label layer off.

It’s still not clear to me what you are trying to accomplish. Are you wanting those arrows pointing in the opposite direction from what the camera is facing, or do you simply want them pointing left. There is a big difference. Currently the arrows point in the direction that the camera is facing, which makes perfect sense. I’m not sure why you would want them pointing in the opposite direction but if you wanted to do that, I imagine you could just change all cameras to use a custom arrow block pointing in the wrong direction. If your goal though is to actually face the camera in the opposite direction, then you have to set up a new camera facing that way. if however, your goal is to have ALL arrows pointing to the left regardless of which direction the camera is facing then you will have to individually change the arrow for each and every right facing camera on a case by case basis.

Are you saying that you want the arrow pointed in the opposite direction to what the camera is facing?

The proper forum for your product can be found here... https://hometalk.chiefarchitect.com/ That being said, it sound like you probably have Auto regenerate deck framing toggled off (assuming your product has that or a similar setting)... Toggle it back on and your decking should move with the room.

Post the plan and someone will take a look, BUT I would start by trying to disconnect and then reconnect those driveways.

Your problem is that only have about 6" between your ceiling plane and your roof plane so Chief is having a difficult time knowing what to do with that. I don;t think anyone would build you trusses that shallow either. Drop your sloped ceiling planes down or raise your roof planes up and you should get more expected results.

By the way, why are most of your posts wrapped in quotes. Are you using AI to write those too?

I don't think your use is being misunderstood. Some of us just have a very different design philosophy. I for one think its profoundly problematic to start with a model that I purposely designed with certain elements and then have AI change them on me in ways that I may or may not realize and in ways that may or may not change the entire feel of the project later on down the road. Amongst other things I've seen in your posted example, I've seen that AI made the following changes: Changed room dimensions Changed ceiling heights Moved window and door locations Changed window and door sizes Changed window styles Changed ceilings from vaulted to flat Completely eliminated walls Inserted furniture where there isn't functional room for it Completely removed an exterior covered deck or patio I don't for a second believe that every one of those design elements is as fluid as your making them out to be. If they were, why start with a model at all? Why not look to Houzz or Pinterest for inspiration. How helpful is photo "realism" and lighting "quality" when the lighting is deceptive and the end result will look nothing like the photo? And how helpful is it going to be when the budget doesn't allow for the 10ft. ceiling or when you realize that the windows or walls can't actually move to where they're being shown. At the end of the day, the room looks crammed, the painting won't fit, 2 chairs need to be deleted, the bed doesn't fit or look right, and the covered patio roof cuts off all the light that your client thought they were going to get. No, I personally think the risks far outweigh the benefits. Your opening statement here was that you think you're done using Chief for renderings. I would argue that you're not actually rendering anything at all. You're changing it to something else entirely. The details matter, the types of changes we're talking about here aren't little things either. Early design decision get made, you head down a path, and all it takes is one of those early details to be wrong, and the whole plan can get blown out of the water. Maybe that works for you...or maybe it doesn't even. I think its entirely possible that you just haven't used your new approach enough to fully appreciate the potential for negative long term impacts on the project.

Haha. Yeah, this has been my general experience with AI to date. I don't trust it for much of anything.