Alaskan_Son

C’mom Glenn, you must know you’re taking things out of context, and in my opinion you’re just proving my points. The discussion up until you complicated matters was clearly about adjusting the model to account for real world elevation data. Period.

Yes. The CAD Block is generated according to the Plan view (as viewed from the top). For your example that would likely mean dropping the object into the plan straight out of the library, clicking Open Symbol, selecting X Axis, and clicking either Rotate+ or Rotate- (depending on which side you wanted to see).

You can also optionally just take an elevation view, click CAD Detail From View, and then group select and Block the resulting linework.

Rotate the symbol either through the Symbol Specification dialog or in an elevation view. You just need to make sure to either: Manually click Generate Block in the Symbol Specification dialog (2D Block tab) Check Auto Generate (same location as mentioned above) Click Yes when you get the "Do you want to regenerate the 2D plan view symbol..." popup after rotating in elevation You also may or may not want to adjust the Smoothing Angle (General tab) and/or Fill settings (2D Block tab) depending on the object.

There are a lot of valid reasons to do so. One of which is that a person may not have the time, inclination, or even the verbiage which which to start an argument. Another might be that a person wants to show that they found a post unhelpful but didn't want to drag it through the mud. In this particular instance though, I'll just put it all out there for you. It was a little of everything. Not only did I know what I wanted to say might come across a bit degrading and I didn't want or have time to get into an ensuing argument/back and forth, but I also didn't really have all the words to say what I felt needed to be said if I was going to post a response. Since you really want to know though, I'll acquiesce and take some time to give you my feedback: I down-voted it because I felt like it only further serves to confuse people and opens up doors to bad practices for no great reason. You said it in the post yourself when you said: ...and then that's exactly what you did. It already took us (mostly me) way longer than it should have to finally get Gene to see the correct and proper way of achieving the desired end results. It finally clicked though and I feel like all you did with the majority of your post was throw mud back into the water--if not for Gene then for other users who might be reading along. The absolute last things someone should be doing in my opinion is presenting faulty and incorrect "methods" as potential options when there's already clearly a fundamental misunderstanding. In particular, I think you're bringing validity to something almost no one should be doing in a thread where it was truly unhelpful to the discussion at hand. Others users have the same hangups Gene does and by presenting those options in a thread like this, I think all you're really doing is opening the doors to further confusion. To be specific: Anyway, that's why I found your post unhelpful and marked it as such. By the way, for what its worth, I believe that may actually be the only time I have ever down voted one of your posts Glenn. I usually respect and agree with most of what you say. That probably added to my hesitancy to say something that I knew might come across as demeaning.

According to your drawing, all you need is 82.036° . 96 in 12 is about 82.875°. Where is the problem? By the way, we only have that limit in the Wall Specification dialog. The limit is 89° in the Build Roof and Roof Plane dialogs.

I would not think of that as a dormer at all. Its really just a box with a relatively shallow pitch roof. The dormer effect is being created by a steeper pitch roof facade that just wraps around the building. At least that's what it looks like to me. This is how I would handle it...

Any angle input dialog should accept values entered as pitch. Simply enter exactly what you typed in your example:

Part of the problem is that back in X12 we actually had Polyline Solids. We no longer have Polyline Solids. What we have are simply Solids. You need to create a hole in a Solid. We have at least a few options: 1. Draw a plain Polyline where you want your hole, click Convert Polyline, and select 3D Solid Hole 2. Draw a plain Polyline where you want your hole, select your Solid, click Polyline Subtraction, and then select your Plain Polyline 3. Select the desired Face of your Solid, click the Solid Feature tool, and draw a polyline where you want your hole.

You don't change the house floor from zero. You leave it at absolute zero. You simply change where the house floor is with relation to the terrain by adjusting the setting I already mentioned.

I wasn't presuming to tell you the exact numbers to enter. I was showing and telling you where the setting is that you new to change. It was in the post. The setting you need to change is Subfloor Height Above Terrain. The behavior is right there in the name of the setting too. How high do you want your subfloor (absolute zero) above the terrain zero (sea level)? In your case you probably want it at 97'. You can read more about it by clicking on the Help button when you're in that dialog.

No no no. Leave everything alone. You shouldn’t have changed the floor height or moved the roof. The only single change you had to make is the one I showed above.

As Joey alluded to... Terrain Specification>General>Building Pad>Subfloor Height Above Terrain That's exactly what the setting is for. It controls how the first floor sub-floor (absolute zero) is set in reference to the terrain elevation data (sea level).

I’ve had the same issue for years with a number of systems that utilize macros in schedules. My workaround is to shift the schedule back and forth real quick with the arrow keys or to use a recorded macro to do the same with a hotkey.

Once generated, Materials Lists are static. They are NOT connected to the plan anymore. If you make changes to the plan and then want to see a Materials List that reflects those changes, then you have to generate a new Materials List. Now if you want to keep from entering things like pricing information all over again, then you need to add the information via the Components Panel of your various objects (preferably at the Default level) and/or by utilizing the Master List (which you’ll just have to read up on).

I suggest opening the Help Files (via Help>Launch Help or by pressing the F1 key) and searching "Displaying Walls" because there are a LOT of nuances with how walls display depending on: Whether you're in a plan view or in a 3D view Whether or not the wall is a Pony Wall Whether or not the wall is set to Invisible Whether or not the wall is a Railing wall Whether or not the wall is a Foundation Wall and whether or not that foundation wall has a footing Whether or not the wall is an Automatically generated Attic Wall Whether or not the wall is on the foundation level Etc. That being said, in general, there are 3 basic layers and layer behaviors you should be aware of for basic plan view display of normal walls: Walls, Normal (or whatever layer you may have manually placed your wall on): This layer decides whether or not the wall is disaplyed at all. Walls, Layers: If this layer is displayed, the wall and all of its relevant layers (more on this below) are displayed based on the line style and fill settings in the wall definition (which may or may not be controlled by Layer). If this layer is NOT displayed, then only the Interior and Exterior surfaces (or extents) of the wall are drawn, and those lines are controlled by the layer settings (not by the Wall Definition). Walls, Main Layer Only: If this layer is displayed then only the Main Layers of the wall are displayed. If Walls, Layers is also displayed, then the line style and fill settings from the wall definition are used, otherwise, the layer settings are used.

To expand on and consolidate the advice already given by the gentlemen above: The line color and weight for those Top Edge lines is controlled by the layer on which the opening is placed. The line style for the same Top Edge lines cannot be changed. Its hard coded as a dashed line. "Openings, Header Lines" can optionally be used and the line color, weight, and style can all be set as desired but those lines are drawn at the Main Layer extents, not at the finish layer extents, PLUS that layer ("Openings, Header Lines") controls the display of Header Lines for all openings which usually isn't what we want. Unfortunately, you'll likely either have to manually overlay CAD to get what you want, or change your drafting standard a bit. I would suggest you send in a suggestion to Tech Support requesting that we be given more refined control over the way Top Edge Lines are drawn.

Contrary to whatever you might think you know, the real reason is because old Francois Mansard wasn’t nearly as good a manager as he was a designer. He ordered way to much roofing and not nearly enough siding.

@IvanCyr, A few quick tips/critiques: I would start by asking myself some more specific questions such as: What if the word doesn't start with an uppercase letter? What if the word is all uppercase? Don't forget that when it comes to coding these things, it's important that you consider letter case. Do I only want to remove the word (substring) if it is at the end of the string or do I also want to remove the word if it exists in the middle of the string? Do I want to only remove that specific substring or do I want to remove everything after it as well? What do I do if my string starts with the substring? The #String delete() method doesn't look for specific words. It looks for the characters you have listed. What you're telling Ruby is that you want to remove every instance of the capital letter V, every instance of the capital letter I, every instance of the capital letter E, and every instance of the capital letter W. This would change "West Wing Electrical Plan View" to "est ing lectrical Plan iew". Not really what you want. This one on the other hand is using a regular expression to keep everything except for the capital letter V and everything that comes after it. This means something like "Vaulted Entry Reflected Ceiling Plan View" would return completely blank, something like "Kitchen Version 1" would simply return "Kitchen", something like "Electrical plan view" would return unchanged, and that "Framing Plan View 1st Floor" and Framing Plan View 2nd Floor" would both simply return "Framing Plan ". This approach might get you what you want most of the time, but I personally think the code is pretty vague and not nearly specific enough to avoid undesirable results (that will show up when you're least expecting them of course). The .delete_suffix method wasn't added to Ruby until Ruby version 2.5. Currently Chief uses Ruby version 2.4. You can however use the .chomp method to delete a suffix like so: %automatic_label.chomp(" View")%which will specifically remove the word "View" when preceded by a single space but only if the string ends with that exact word (substring). Anyway, like I said, I would start by asking myself how I might deal with at least the various scenarios I mentioned above (that is IF they could possibly ever arise) and then write my code a bit more explicitly. If you're not pretty deliberate and purposeful with your coding you'll almost certainly end up with an unpleasant surprise at some point.

Yup, not only are there entirely different ways to label layout boxes and additional/different information that we have access to using those new label capabilities, but there have also been changes to macro naming requirements as well as the addition of NumberFormatter and Measurement Classes. Oh, and the added ability to insert code directly into text fields…just to name a few notable changes off the top that could affect the conversation.

For anyone reading along, please note that this thread is from 5 years ago and several version back. A good handful of things have changed since then.

Ya. I think that was their intention at one point but they found out so many of us use the feature still so they've left it in place. What I don't like even more than the inability to set those defaults is the fact you can't change a layout box to use Edge or Pattern Line Defaults after the fact. I feel like it should be a toggle right there in the layout box. I personally don't use Edge Line Defaults, but use Pattern Line Default all the time.

I personally use Pattern Line Defaults for almost all 3D views sent to layout. I like my pattern lines to be a lighter gray color with a zero line weight for most all color off views but I don’t want to change my Material Definition because I still like to be able to produce colored vector views with darker pattern lines.

Away from my computer but as I recall, those settings obey the last setting they were given during the Send to Layout operation. In other words, I think the “Default” (or at least the closest thing to it) is in the Send to Layout dialog. Again, that’s just from memory. It might be wrong, but it’s worth a look.

I'm not even sire what I'm looking at there. Those look like inverted dormers where the "dormer" is actually just an inset lower pitch roof with lap siding instead of shingles. Very strange. Can't advise without knowing what's actually happening there.