Alaskan_Son

12 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Which makes me wonder why the 'feature' is even included for elevations as it will send all of the data that's on the page pretty much no matter whether or not the 'Clip Elevation' box is checked or not and no matter where the clipped lines are located. I don't think this is intended behavior.

I think its entirely intended.  It's sending everything that's being displayed in your view.  This gives us the ability to create a clipped view and then annotate or otherwise dress up the view with CAD/Text objects that extend outside the clipped area.  If you don't want the various CAD in your view I would argue that it probably shouldn't be there at all.  If you need to leave it there and would like only the clipped area to send to layout, maybe try turning the unwanted layers off before sending or group selecting and cutting the objects to your clipboard before sending.  Then when you're done sending the view, Paste Hold Position.

The issue with the extension lines disappearing is definitely a bug and something I've seen multiple times in my own plans.  Not sure what the trigger is either.  It seems super unpredictable.  Sometimes you can even get the extensions to come and go depending on where you position the dimension string and even on how quickly you move it (whether you move it all in one go or move it a little at a time).   The weird thing is that the extension is actually there.  You just can't see it.

If you simply Add to Library (instead of converting to symbol) you shouldn't have any of these problems.

Open your Camera Specification and study your Scene Clipping options for a minute.

36 minutes ago, TeaTime said:

If the bounding box only acted as a snap and did not block other objects from being placed, or even for the object itself to be placed - this would be a non-issue for everyone.

...but then I think it would largely defeat the purpose.  Anyway, here's my take:

I don't care that they changed it.  The bounding box caused me at least as many problems as it solved.  It didn't allow snapping to or measuring to the actual tank or bowl, it precluded easy placement of items that encroached into the bounding box area even f they weren't technically a code issue, they made it a pain to position toilets in as-built or other non-code compliant situations, they made it impossible to resize the toilet geometry to any degree of accuracy, AND they were barely even useful for their intended purpose since I pretty much never design to the minimum anyway (I still ended up needing to reposition the toilet regardless). 

Yes, they helped make sure I maintained the code minimum, but that's something I constantly need to keep track of and verify anyway, especially considering I'm commonly overriding the bounding box for the placement of various objects either way. 

Are you looking for something like the example I posted in this thread?

Its in the Help Files:

Custom Configuration Buttons

By default, new Toolbar Configurations display a default configuration ../../Resources/img/btn/defaultTBSet.png button; however, if you want you can make your own button icon for your custom Toolbar Configuration.

Create a .png file with the same name as the configuration and save it in the Toolbars folder. To see an example, look at the Default .png file in the Chief Architect Premier Toolbars folder, which corresponds to the Default Toolbar configuration. See Chief Architect Premier Data.

• Toolbar button images must be 20 x 20 pixels in size.
• The color (R:192, G:192, B:192) maps to the system 3D face color.
• The color (R:128, G:128, B:128) maps to the system 3D Shadow color.
• The color (R:223, G:223, B:223) maps to the system 3D light color.

On 5/9/2023 at 7:29 AM, johnbds said:

Why in the Deck room specifications with automatically regenerate deck framing selected, when I set the beam spacing and deck post spacing does CA not build the deck to the set beam and deck post spacing?  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

I think you'll need to provide a bit more detail.  Are the numbers slightly off, or do the settings seem like they're being ignored entirely?  If the latter, you may also want to provide a screen shot example of what you're talking about possibly along with a plan file if you really want an accurate answer.

10 minutes ago, CAmichael240114 said:

This is only true if the VSD and the roof pitch remains the same.

Greater truss spans may require the top and bottom chord to have a greater depth.

Steeper roof pitches increases the depth of the top chord.

Therefore the heal height would be different in each case as the VSD increases or decreases.

Standard trusses are not specified as having a heel height.

My statements had nothing to do with getting the correct value.  I was just spelling out how to get a default value other than the 30" value some of the guys said they seemed to be stuck with. 

32 minutes ago, Chrisb222 said:

Yes, I went over that briefly several posts ago. But thanks for spelling out the steps.

Do you mean this:

5 hours ago, Chrisb222 said:

And I can't get a new plan to "remember" a different setting from a previous plan. Within a session, yes, changing back and forth from trusses to rafters and back to trusses, it remembers whatever you typed in. But anytime I check "trusses" on a new plan it defaults to 30"

...because I've spelled out how you can get a NEW plan to use a new default. 

1 hour ago, Chrisb222 said:

Interesting that the template defaults to 30"!! 

Like I said, it just remembers that last value you typed in there...well at least the last value that was used.  To get a different value by default:

1. Open your Template Plan
2. Open your roof settings
3. Set the Framing Method to Trusses
4. Change the Heel Height to the desired value
5. Click Okay.  This alone should change the default value; however if you would like to leave Rafters as the default...
6. Open your roof setting back up and set the Framing Method to Rafters
7. Save the changes to your Template Plan.

Next time you start a New Plan, you should be able to open up your roof settings, check trusses, and the heel height should be your desired value.

10 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

But based on the screenshot above it shows the VSD, so one can just put that number in the heel hieght.

This would seem to be the logical solution on the surface, but there's a bit more to it than that.  Most notably, the VSD would change with any changes to the pitch of any given roof plane.  In particular, this would become a big problem wherever roof pitches were being controlled independently using Wall Directives. 

The current system is set up to handle either a static heel height OR a variable (Automatic) Birdsmouth.  What I think Steve would need to solve his probelm is an Automatic Heel Height checkbox. 

21 hours ago, SNestor said:

I understand that we can set the heel height to the vertical structure depth...but, why for sake do we have to? There is no one that would build a truss where the top chord intersects the outer surface of the main layer. I mean it's just dumb.

 

How does having to set this dimension help any of us get our work done quicker or more accurately?  And...how do new users know that if they don't want a raised heel that they need to minimally enter the vertical structure depth as the heel height? Crazy...

 

Chief engineers need to start over and fix this tool...my two cents.

It sounds to me like you want a setting to auto calculate for a variable heel based on the Vertical Structure Depth of the Top Chord to mimic the old behavior.  If so, I think you'll have to send in a request for that.  I think that's a capability we simply lost with the introduction of the new heel height control.  It's not something I personally need, but I get it. 

3 hours ago, Chrisb222 said:

Also cannot imagine why that would be the system default. Is it just me or do others see this also?

Auto populates with 12" for me.  My guess is that it has something to do with the template you're using and how it may have been modified in the past. I believe that setting just remembers the last value you typed in there.

Yup.  Easy to reproduce.  Looks like a bug to me too.

1 hour ago, DRyeHD said:

When I reference it, it's in a different location than my plan file.  How do I move the referenced file so that it lines up with my current plan file?

 

Not sure shy you're using a Referenced File.  Why not drop the DWG information directly into the existing plan file?  This way you can simply place onto its own layer and move it around freely. 

Next time post your question in the General Q&A section.  This forum is for sharing actual symbol and content resources.  To answer your question though, double click in the Formula field.  That field on the right is just the results of what gets entered on the left.

1. Open Object>Advanced Sizing
2. Uncheck Update when Object Dimensions Change under 3D Geometry Dimensions
3. Change the Object Dimensions>Width to 32" (or whatever you want your bounding box width to be)

A couple notes:

• You should see that the Bounding Box Spacing numbers are automatically populated with the required Left and Right offsets.  You could replace Steps 2 and 3 by just entering these offsets manually if you want. 
• With Update when Object Dimensions Change left unchecked (under 3D Geometry Dimensions), any changes to the toilet dimensions will only change the bounding box.  This is really a pretty handy feature but you may or may not want this behavior, so it may be a good idea to recheck that setting once your offsets are auto calculated.

Here’s a possible clue:  Where is your sub fascia?  

15 minutes ago, Steve_Matlaga said:

I want to know how to do it the right way though

This really depends on what you mean by "the right way". 

• If for example the cabinet will be ordered as 2 separate units, then I'd say 2 separate cabinets is the right way. 
• If you're drawing plans for the cabinet shop and you think simply adding a note that says "Build island as single unit" will do the trick, then I see nothing wrong with simply building with 2 cabinets. 
• If its just for a rough cabinet layout, I would use separate cabinets all day long.
• If however you're building a frameless unit and need to show and account for only a single 3/4" divider between those openings, then a single cabinet is probably the right way.

It just completely depends on what exactly you need to communicate and to who. 

19 hours ago, VisualDandD said:

WOW....how did I miss that one!    Now I have to sheepishly ask how long we have had that feature

I think it would serve us all well to remember to use the Help Files.  This tip (regarding stair selection modes) for example is right at the top of the page if you select a set of stairs and then either click Launch Help or hit the F1 key.  I still use the Help files all the time.

There are A LOT of different ways you can harness the power of both Schedules and the Materials List in Chief (which of course can be further supplemented using Excel).  The biggest challenge is deciding exactly how to get the information from the model to one of those 2 places.  Some pieces of information are easier to gather than others and its important to understand some of the limitations before you waste too much time setting up a system that's going to fall apart as soon as you introduce a new variable.  This soffit situation for example can be handled a number of ways and you could spend an enormous amount of time setting up, tweaking, and testing a macros system like what Chris generously provided; however, that macro system would likely report completely incorrect information as soon as you switched to a gable roof and it would get even worse as soon as that roof plane had variable overhang dimensions. 

If you want to set up a consultation session, let me know.  I think even a short conversation would be well worth the minimal investment. 

1 hour ago, richoffan said:

I typically draw them in with CAD. Copy / Paste    Transform / Replicate etc. makes short work of adding.

 

Quick Tip:  If you want to use information from the actual cabinet shelves in the model to create your CAD lines do the following to speed up the process...

1. Either use the Delete Surface tool to delete the door front material OR set up a temporary camera that cuts into your cabinets. 
2. Once you have the actual shelving in view, create a CAD Detail From View.
3. Group select all the shelf lines.
4. Paste Hold Position back into your main elevation view.
5. While the lines are still selected, change line style to dashed.

Easy to reproduce.  Definitely seems to be an issue with Chief's handling of arcs that are part of solids in newer versions.  In fact, you can create a similar object in X13 using the aforementioned boolean operations (finished object looks fine), save the plan, open in X15, and without making any changes, bullnose edge is wonky.   For now, I would suggest converting that arc to a multiple segment polyline.  Oh, and please report to tech support so it gets fixed.

8 minutes ago, DBCooper said:

Oh, if the goal is convolution, then I would have to start with drawing all of the walls just using cad tools and then use the cad to walls tool. 

Hahaha.  That was actually what I was originally thinking of suggesting. The CAD tools had already been introduced to the conversation though so it seemed like that would ONLY be adding extra steps.  Figured I'd throw something new out there : )