Alaskan_Son

It seems to me like there's a big disconnect here between what you want and what Chief is actually doing; and that you want something completely different from what Chief ever intended to provide with type and sub-type. It sounds to me like you're really looking for information about what object type you're working with (window vs door vs lighting vs furniture, etc.). What Chief is providing however is what type the object is as it relates to its own category (right sliding vs left sliding, hinged vs. bifold, etc.). Sub-type on the other hand is completely for Plants which have checkboxes for various types and sub-types. I think where some of the confusion arises is that Chief for whatever reason reports the object type for certain objects (roof planes, polylines, etc.). Those are items that don't actually have a type as it pertains to their own category though so those would otherwise be blank. My 2 suggestions for you: Suggest tp Chief that they create an object_type attribute for all objects and make sure they know what you expect to see for some of the various objects. For example, there are all sorts of Interior Fixture objects. Would interior_fixture be sufficient, or should there be some additional information that you would need. Its imperative that you communicate exactly what you need the information for or Chief may well provide a solution that doesn't do what you need. For now, I would suggest that your best bet for speeding up the process would be using a Custom Object Information Field with a macro that parses from the object's description, layer, and/or any other object attribute(s) that can be used to help verify what type of object you're working with.

I actually do it both ways depending on the plan. It might help if you were to post an example plan showing the label issues you're seeing. The best solution may depend a bit on exactly which labels (and for which objects) you're referring to. I usually just uncheck Rotate with Plan though.

Why did you rotate in plan view instead of simply rotating in layout?

Not a bug. Its intended behavior and been that way as far back as I can remember. From the current Help Files: To delete a portion of a dimension line Select any Dimension Tool aside from Angular or Auto Exterior Dimensions. Manually draw a dimension line over the segment that you wish to remove, dragging from extension line to extension line.

Both now and in previous versions, would could also simple copy and paste.

You can also simply drop a Wall Schedule into the plan, select the row corresponding to the Wall Type in question, and then click Find in Plan.

Try using End to End Dimensions instead of Point to Point.

Please submit a bug report if you want to see this fixed.

There's 2 big things to think about here: Chief measure the baseline height from the top of the framing (NOT the top of fascia). This means you may need to take both sheathing thickness and fascia thickness into account. When dealing with multiple pitches and assuming the same size lumber if used for the corresponding components on each roof, you can only ever align ONE component horizontally. You can align top of rafter, you can align bottom of rafter, you can align top of sheathing, you can align bottom of sheathing, you can align fascia, or you can align subfascia. You can only pick one though. Something has to give. In the real world, in order to get pitches like this to line up we have to use different sized sub-fascia, shifted sub-fascia, clipped tails, etc.

Not automatic, but you can speed up the process using the following: Select the desired object(s) Convert Selected to Symbol>Show Advanced Options Use the Rotation settings to rotate the symbol so that its flat Drop the symbol into the plan Cross Section the symbol

3D views: Pattern tab, Horizontal and Vertical Offsets. Plan views: Fill Style tab, Horizontal and Vertical Offsets.

Can you expand on this?

I'm curious if Revit can actually do this either. This set of Revit drawings I have here on my desk for a current project has the callouts out of order and missing numbers in the sequence.

Attributes>Margins>Top and/or Bottom

If I understand correctly what you're saying, it isn't a Normal Map that you need. What you need is a proper Pattern. Patterns are used to create the lines on any vector based views (Vector, Technical Illustration, and Line Drawing). Textures are used for all other views.

Using triangular roof sections just like you've shown in this picture is how I've done complex roofs like this in the past. Its tedious. You have to map out the fascia shape and then use that information to set your baseline angles and roof pitches. Its doable but time consuming for certain. You can also cheat it with just a single roof plane (curved, pitched, and baseline tilted) but its not as accurate..

Who forced you to upgrade your video card?

Not sure if this answers your question or not, but Rooms will automatically report using the Schedule Category matching their Room Type. This means YOU could automate the process by defining and assigning the room types to each room as you draw them so that they are always reporting to the correct schedule(s). The key is to make sure that your schedules are set to report the correct room type(s) from the appropriate floor(s).

Can you expand on what you mean by this?

Unless Chief added some hidden functionality recently that I haven't found yet, this still has to be done manually. If you only have one room schedule that the object is reporting to though, it can be as simple as dropping a callout into the plan with %room.schedule_number% in the label and just copying and pasting that around.

I personally use custom macros and regularly teach that system to users as a for-hire consultant; however, we can also use custom schedules and custom schedule categories for this purpose as well. I recently spelled out the basics in another thread here... Here's an example more specific to this question though using Chief's Nashville plan as a basis... Nashville Areas.zip

If I was you, I think I would be putting both of upper level floor platforms on the same level and that I would simply create the opening with an Open to Below room type.

No, not necessarily. I think using the data file as a starting point is a great method that can save lots of time. As you've discovered, sometimes you just need to replace some of the data points with more appropriate objects. A couple of the more common things we run into are more elevation lines/points than are necessary (just delete some) and overly segmented terrain elevation polylines (replace with lines or simplified polylines). No matter what though, we can certainly use the imported data as a starting point...it just typically needs a bit of cleanup is all.

You should start another thread when you have new questions, but yes, there are multiple ways. Here are a few: Select Terrain, Open Object, check Hide Terrain Intersected by Building Select Terrain and click Make Terrain Hole(s) around Building(s) Use the Terrain Hole tool to manually draw your hole in the terrain

Not sure you quite followed. You can use separate schedules for each unit. Here's a quick example plan: Test.plan Also, just a side note, but I would suggest you abandon your "contained rooms" train of thought. The concept very quickly comes crashing down when: the overall footprint of the unit doesn't actually "contain" one of its rooms there is no overriding large room or when there are adjacent rooms of equal size when a the largest room is broken up into smaller rooms using room dividers when there are rooms inside of rooms inside of rooms when the largest room is surrounded by smaller rooms etc.