Alaskan_Son

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.

There are several ways, many of which have already been mentioned directly or alluded to. One that hasn't been mentioned though is to simply use a Custom Schedule. Just make sure all rooms in any given unit are set to report to a Schedule using a Custom Schedule Category and then set your schedule to report only that one Category. Make sure your schedules for each unit are set to report a Totals Row and there you have it. In fact, if you set your Schedule to Swap Rows/Columns and then Right justify the schedule text then your total will always remain in the exact same location so that you can simply use a cropped layout box or you could even mask it. This approach can be used to tabulate all sorts of things. The 2 key elements though are: Having your objects report to the appropriate Category/Categories Having your schedule only report the appropriate Category/Categories The tip regarding swapping rows/columns and right justifying isn't necessary, but it will help you not have to reposition your schedule after any changes to the plan have been made.

Ironic, because that's how we've been showing topography on just about every map and drawing produced for the last 100 years. I think the general method you decided to try out was a really good one (the idea of simply copying automatically produced elevation data that you're happy with). I would however suggest that you can simply trace over the elevation data before deleting your points instead of using a picture. You could also optionally create a CAD Detail From View and then use that for reference.

That just tells me that you're probably: A. Working with too many data points and/or... B. Giving Chief conflicting information You're only going to get little humps or depressions like that if you've defined the terrain in the adjacent areas incorrectly. Like I said, less is more. Start simple and then add data as necessary to refine.

Curious where you got that number from.

I could be misunderstanding having not seen the lot, but I disagree. Typically less is more with terrain elevation data. It could take as little as 2 pieces of elevation data; 2 points, or a flat region and a single point maybe...

Hahahaha! I thought the EXACT same thing regarding the Pringle shape. At first, I actually fooled around with modeling it completely different by simply bending a flat circle twice (once along one axis and then again in the opposite direction along the perpendicular axis)... ...but it occurred to me that not only was this likely inaccurate, it would be ridiculously more complicated to model the frame. Using your terrain approach though, a person could pretty easily just use some symbols or even a railing wall set to follow the terrain in order to create the frame. Many ways to skin that cat for sure.

All completely doable using a number of methods and tools. For the sail itself though, I would recommend either roof planes or 3D faces. Either way, you're likely going to need to do so using a sort of manual wireframe modeling approach. The main things that you need to do though: Make sure you head wrapped around the geometry of what you're about to model. This will make planning out your approach much easier. Decide the basic pieces of information necessary to carry out your plan Model the skeleton shape one way or another Fill in with roof planes or faces. Let's walk though a pretty basic example using 3D molding polylines and 3D faces (and please note that there are other completely different but still logical approaches to modeling the skeleton shape aside from the method I'm showing): Let's assume that the perimeter frame is nothing more than a perfect ring that has been cut in half and one half tilted up. That means modeling the exterior perimeter should be pretty easy. Model it flat and then copy, reflect, and tilt the opposite side up... ...the frame part is done NOTE: I left the 2 sections of the ring as 3D molding polylines so that snapping was easy and so that I could add any desired perimeter framework details later Next, maybe you connect with 3D molding polylines... And then fill in with faces... Expand upon the system and dress it all up to your hearts content...

For this particular situation—heck, for MOST situation—I think your solution is much better than the one I posted.

Depending on what you're doing, you can put a very tiny partition down on the floor. Just make it 1/16" x 1/16" x 1/16" and place it up against the back corner of your bookshelf. This tells Chief there's an adjacent cabinet on that side and so toe kick will continue on just the one side. You can optionally place the Partition on a unique layer and turn the layer off, but even with the layer on, you shouldn't actually see it in any views.

You'll have some additional cleanup to do, but start by adjusting the Baseline angle to match the pitch of the roof plane that your roof-plane-in-question is intersecting...

I suggest you take a step back and learn to make it work with Polar because using your newly adopted approach will only work for objects perfectly parallel/perpendicular to the X/y axis. The other methods work for situations outside those parameters.

Just FYI, fr anyone else struggling with this, based on Mark's picture here, this operation shouldn't have worked since he's showing 45 degrees in the Enter Coordinates dialog. I suspect he has his Jump setting set to 12". Otherwise, he would be having the same results as Gene was seeing. We can't have both a Concentric Jump setting and use the Tab entry method on the fly. With Concentric, its one or the other. If you have anything other than 0 set in the Jump field, then you will be limited to jumping by that specific increment.

This step is an unnecessary redundancy that serves no purpose for this particular use case.

Don't drag diagonally, drag perpendicular to the desired reference line before you hit tab. Also read my note re: using the circular edit handle.

By the way, you can also simply click Copy/Paste and use the little circle shaped edit handle to drag out a concentric copy using the tab key. Again though, angle snaps need to be toggled on.

Edit>Preferences>Behaviors>Concentric>Jump is one easy way to ensure you get the desired offset, but you should also simply be able to use the tab entry method so long as you have angle snaps toggled on.

It's because the Leader Line tool always obeys the settings for the text object that it is created for. In the case of Rich Text though, the Border settings are the only place to set line style parameters.