Alaskan_Son

This is only true if your wall heights, rafter depth, and seat cut are all identical. There are obviously a lot of variables.

Think of the baseline as the teetering point for your roof plane. If you start to drop the portion of roof above this teetering point (lower the pitch) then the portion below will raise up. If you raise the portion of roof above that teetering point (increase pitch) then the portion below will drop down...

This would depend entirely on WHERE your baseline is located. If your baseline is located out at your fascia then the answer is probably yes. If your baseline is located above your exterior wall than the answer is probably no.

Yep. There is A LOT more that can be done with the various paragraph options too. Also, for those who don't realize this, a person can also copy and paste tables from a spreadsheet or word processor into a Rich Text box. With regard to the columns. Glenn is correct. This is a bit harder but it is doable. There are at least 3 ways that come to mind but they do all require a little maintenance and proof checking from time to time if notes are added or changed. Option 1: Use multiple text boxes. This is probably the easiest. Option 2: Use a single row table in a Rich Text box. Fill up your first box (column) as far as you'd like and then just move to the next box to start your next column. Option 3: Use a single long text box and break it up in layout by using multiple layout boxes. Just resize the layout boxes so that they take a snapshot of different sections of the text box and then move them so that they are side by side. I use this method for schedules as well.

That's one of the reasons I created those "Custom Plot Lines". We have never been able to relocate those automatic line labels (Show Length and Show Angle). They are stuck exactly where they are and there is no way around it.

You are correct. It does seem to work just fine for you. I can easily reproduce anyway. Did you download the latest update?

Just got back to my computer after a bit of an absence and I wanted to throw my 2 cents in here. Chopsaw is 100% correct. ALDO has NOT been working quite right in X9. There are several little problems it seems to have that weren't an issue in previous versions. I've reported some of them and those ones were fixed, but there are a handful of issues that still remain that are either inconsistent, difficult to reproduce, and/or not enough of a problem for me to be willing to take the time and energy to report just yet (I can only fight on so many fronts at the same time). This issue Chop has brought up is a prime example. If we created a new layer using the ALDO in X8 and then switched layer sets using the ALDO, that layer was right where it should be in that other layer set. In X9 this doesn't work correctly and is very easy to reproduce. Hopefully you have reported this one to tech support?? I would have found this one to be worth reporting myself. Truth is that I don't believe I ever even noticed it before now because I typically create all my new layers through the various object dialog boxes.

Good question Joe, it was actually the first time I ever tried to block a distributed object. I'm away from my computer now, but now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure the block I made from the distributed object had to be an architectural block but the object I was using was definitely a CAD block.

I have repeatedly asked Chief to provide us with X and Y location attributes for markers and other CAD based objects so that we could do exactly this type of thing. Super frustrating that we still don't have this.

For whatever it's worth, it was a polyline distribution path that was using a cad block as it's distributed object.

Away from my computer and I obviously don't have a plan to look at so this is just a guess off the top but it sounds like you might have trusses checked.

Not sure if you ever pinned this problem down, but I just had this happen when trying to block a polyline distribution path and add it to the library. For what its worth in case anyone else runs into this problem again, I actually WAS able to use my suggestion from above to remedy the problem. I group selected my entire User Catalog except for that one single item, exported it, deleted my User_library.calib file and then re-imported the rest.

Hey guys, only have a few minutes here before I need to get back to work, but a Polyline Distribution Path is a good alternative for many if not all of the challenges listed above. Perfect? No, but check it out...coupled with the appropriate CAD block and perhaps assigned to a custom toolbar and/or hotkey and I think it just might do what you need.

I personally take a lot of things into consideration such as: Wall heights Ceiling heights Ceiling shape Room function Which direction the wall is facing (north vs. south) Whether or not there is a notable view from that particular window or wall Whether or not their are privacy concerns Heights of adjacent doors All that being said, my default bottom-of-header height is 81-1/8" from subfloor. This is based on an 8ft. wall (92-5/8" stud) with a 4x12 header and a 2x6 nailer underneath that header. It just works out well for the way we frame and matches up pretty dern well with a standard 80" interior door.

You just have to turn off the "Walls, Through Lines" layer

I have to say I'm with Johnny on this. I too use Chief to model some pretty complex geometry and while I can agree that it's about learning to use the various tools and features outside their named/intended purpose but quite honestly even then, the tools can be very limiting and certain geometry can be extremely time consuming to model. I would actually go so far as to say there is a lot of geometry I would consider totally impossible for all except the most advanced, mathematically minded, spacially thinking users. Even then...the results can be very rigid, lumpy, or otherwise flawed or simply unrealistic looking. At the the end of the day we have to pick and choose our battles. There is a lot of complex geometry I don't mind taking a little time to produce in Chief but if we're talking about any sort of organic shapes, free form modeling, upholstery, anything with waves, etc...then the results are totally not worth the effort IMO. You're better off either finding a symbol that's close enough, making it in another app, or paying someone to make it for you in another app.

You bet, and you are correct. There is no accessible default setting for the Hatch Wall tool. It's something that has been requested multiple times. For now, I think the best you can do is set one to the way you want it and then use the Object Eyedropper tool to change future wall hatches.

Don't have time to go over it all in detail and I'm away from my computer but here's where I would suggest you start.... -Use the ceiling FINISH and define one of your layers to be a framing material. -Place any required joist direction arrows in the correct locations and orientations. -Build CEILING framing -Place new joist direction arrows for your floor framing. -Build FLOOR framing. -Make manual modifications as necessary.

I've never tried doing what you're trying to do so I haven't explored the options a whole lot, but I think this looks like a job for the Hatch Wall tool. The Hatch Wall will add a hatch that is the width of your main layer. If you want to also display the outside lines of the wall then you'll probably want to check Draw Rails also.

This question is kinda strange to me...did you even try? All you have to do is drop an object into Chief and create a 3D view and you would know the answer. I feel like I must be missing something. To answer your last question though, I personally use Chief rather heavily for creating custom case goods and such and so do a number of other Chiefers.

It might help if you were to tell us how you are currently getting this done. Then we can tell you if we have an idea for a faster way. There are definitely ways to speed this kind of process up but I don;t feel like spending 20 minutes expounding on it just to find out you're already doing the same thing.

This sounds like something for the Jerry Springer Show.

I agree. It's very simple. Rename plan, rename layout, and relink. You don't even need to use the same name. I've heard this recommended many times and I've never understood why (I may have heard it explained before but if so I forgot why). Anyway, my layout names often times do not match my plan name.

Took my system twice that long. Good thing I don't typically deal with very large plans. EDIT: Tested a 2nd and 3rd time. The 2nd time it only took 26-27 seconds. For the 3rd test I went in and changed Hardware Edge Smoothing from Low to None and that made no difference at all...still took 26-27 seconds.

I think that layer should be renamed to "Doors, Through Lines" because that's all that it is. It really has nothing to do with the actual header (framing). Very misleading IMO.