Alaskan_Son

I think the copy and paste problem MIGHT be a Windows thing. I started experiencing problems with that here within the past few months too. Doesn't happen very often at all and as far as I know there is no way to purposely reproduce it. It just happens sometimes. It's not just elevations either, it can happen when trying to paste between any types of views. I always forget exactly how to deal with it until it happens and then play around with it for a bit but I think what I usually do to fix it is copying and pasting an object back into its original view and then trying again. May need to also copy and paste an object from/to the second view as well. One way or another, I know the answer has something to do with refreshing the clipboard.

Im wondering if it's a new issue with X9 or maybe something having to do with a recent AutoCAD update because although I could be wrong, I don't recall seeing anything quite that extreme until recently either and I've seen almost the exact same situation twice in the about the last week or 2. Coincidence?

If you can reproduce the problem, please consider taking a moment to send that in to tech support. I too have experienced buggy behaviour when trying to change the default outlet type. I've only had to deal with it once in X9 though and I ended up realizing I didn't need to change the default after-all and so I quickly forgot about it. It should be reported though.

Tommy, The import works just fine as I suspected it probably would. You just have to do like I said...Select All, and then zoom in to find it...

I'm away from my computer but try hitting Control+A (select all) and then zoom way in on anything that gets selected. Sometimes the selection picks up some outside points and you actually have to find the drawing along one of the edges (usually at one of the corners).

Here is my take on Apple vs. PC... Apple products are notably integrated and stable. You don't have to do much of anything to link your Apple Watch, your iPhone, your iPad, and your Mac and the chances you'll ever get any major bugs, get hacked, or have your system crash seem to be notably lower than they are with a PC. On the flipside of the same token and for the same exact reasons, Apple products can be far less customizable (both physically and OS-wise, have less options when in comes to available software and hardware, are less up-gradable, and are more difficult to work on yourself. In order to gain stability and a very seamless and consistent experience across all products, Apple seems to have chosen a much more rigid, streamlined, and proprietary approach and if you don't mind the aforementioned limitations, I think Apple products are awesome. PC's on the other hand can be configured and modified in almost any way you can dream up. The possibilities are basically endless with regard to hardware and software, and you can work on them yourself pretty easily. Again, on the flipside of that same that same coin though, not all those hardware and software combinations work well together, you are more likely to have crashes and experience OS bugs, and due to the more "open" approach...are more likely to get viruses and such. You can't always link up different products or across different platforms very well either. For me personally I don't mind the limitations when it comes to my smart phone and so iPhone's are all we ever buy. They are highly stable, notoriously secure, and they communicate extremely well with each other. On the other hand, I'm not so okay with the limitations when it comes to my desktop and so for me...it's PC all the way.

3D>Camera View Options>Toggle Textures

Just got back to the office and downloaded you library. Thanks! Very nice! Do you draw all those?

Not if you use a BOX...

Justin, Sinks placed directly into cabinets have some peculiar behaviors that I think need to be looked into and addressed. They cannot be controlled at an Object level (Open Object) because they are considered part of the cabinet therefore you cannot uncheck Include In Schedule. They can only be controlled at the Symbol level (Open Symbol) which doesn't help you much. They are also considered part of the cabinet and cannot be disconnected from the cabinet no matter what you do. Even if you drag the sink away from the cabinet it will still remain connected to it's original owner cabinet. To address these issues you need to place your sink OUTSIDE the cabinet upon initial placement and then move into position. This will allow you to control the sink and cabinets independently of each other. So...at this point you will need to delete those existing sinks and place them again using the method I mentioned above.

I'm guessing there are literally thousands of possible clicks. If I had to hazard a guess I would say 3,000. That doesn't even start to cover all the possible COMBINATIONS of settings either, or radio buttons, or text fields, or trying to actually explore what happens with the various clicks, ticks, checks, and setting combinations.

I'm not sure if you're mixing up your terminology or if you're just doing something very different but you seem to be using the terms "precast wall", "frost wall", and "footer" interchangeably which seems questionable to me. A picture of what you're doing would really help.

Just a guess but I'd bet those are door symbols and not parametric doors. You'll probably just need to put those on a unique layer and turn that layer off as well. Annoying extra step but I think that's what you'll have to do.

As a person that uses chief pretty heavily for custom cabinetry I would recommend you use a different software for the manufacturing process. Chief is great for preliminary designs and can even be used for shop drawings but if you need cut lists, accurate material lists, and panel optimization you should really use a software more specifically designed for the task. You can certainly shoehorn Chief into doing the job but I would encourage you to buy a different tool. You'll just be fighting a constant battle. There are plenty of cabinet manufacturing softwares out there.

Steve, See if this post helps you at all...

Tons of ways to do this... 2D molding 3D molding 2D molding AND 3D molding (2D for the slats and 3D for the supports) Primitives and multiple copy Symbols and distribution path Deck framing (sneaky method) Louvered window converted to symbol and rotated Rotating existing louver symbols through symbol dbx. (not sure which louvers you were referring to that you found)... Also, you could use any combination of the methods above...and I'm sure there's a whole slew of other methods I'm not even thinking about. Those are just the ones that very quickly came to mind.

This is not entirely true. Not a super detailed explanation but here's basically how to do it. Pretty easy...

Thanks Jerry, I figured it was something like that. I just didn't dig too deep. Creative solution with the deck framing too. I'd say if a person wants to get into the business of skinning cats that they might start out by first learning to use Chief Architect : )

Its not about the money, its not about it being "nice", its not about "enshrining" anything, and its not about "glorifying" anything. It's about clear communication. Yes, the Vectorworks drawings look a lot nicer but I would argue that the reason they look a lot nicer is because we can very clearly see what it is they are trying to communicate and that makes them pleasant to look at. We use color, depth, lighting, shading, contrast, shape variations, etc. to understand what it is we're looking at. It only makes sense to utilize those same things when trying to communicate an idea. It only took me a few seconds to all but completely grasp exactly what it is I'm looking at in the OP's example. Give me the same drawing in black and white or with solid colors, without the shadows, without the gradient fills, etc. and it takes a lot longer and a lot more mental energy to figure out what it is I'm looking at. At the end of the day, I think there are very few things if any that are beautiful simply for beauty's sake but rather I think they're beautiful because we appreciate something else about them whether we realize it or not.

BTW, I would consider this to be a bug and I think it should be reported. The presence of a gap material shouldn't preclude pattern lines from drawing IMO.

Hey Johnny, This seems to be an unintended consequence of having that gap material on the upper wall. I've never noticed this particular anomoly before. Another one of those annoying little Chief quirks...this works but that doesn't work...it sometimes works but not always...it works here but not there...its 95% perfect but 5% totally and completely wrong...or its 50% perfect and 50% mediocre. I like Chief and I'm usually able to get it to do what I want but it still gets really frustrating sometimes.

To me, the lack of control over joist thickness, joist spacing, and joist direction makes the multi-layer assembly a non-starter. That's just me though. I know a lot of guys don't care quite as much about 3D accuracy as I do. I like my 3D model to be accurate though and so FOR ME, I'm still thinking the multiple floor solution is best. I DID just try the method out too and I'm not sure I see the problem with the stairs that you guys speak of. What's the problem? Can you elaborate a bit? I haven't messed around with it a whole lot, but the one problem I HAVEN'T been able to quickly sort out is how to get a single plate to automatically frame for my 1-1/2" tall floor. It's not too big a deal. It's easy enough to throw a few extra plates in there. Just a limitation I noticed.

I typically don't throw ideas out there that I haven't personally used or tested without immediately disclosing the same but in this case you are correct. I have NOT tried it. I do understand how chief works though and I understand the structural concepts as well. I was just thinking through it logically. That space between floor structures isn't any different than an extra floor that has no interior floor wall or ceiling finishes. I assume it would have some cleanup to be done but in my mind it still seems like the MOST correct automated method for a situation with stacked floor systems that have different joist layout and/or directions. I guess I'll have to test it out one of these days.

You CAN specify different directions for a DROPPED ceiling and the floor joists above. For the situation in this particular thread however I think an additional floor is probably the most correct way to go about it. P.S. In some situations you can also explore the possibility of specifying your room as a deck and then using the joists and planks to frame your floor system. Would probably require a little cleanup and would likely require using a material region for the floor surface...Actually, probably faster to just frame the floor manually, but it's a fun thought anyway. P.P.S. Another option might be to use a ceiling plane.