Alaskan_Son

Joe, you can get the number of downloads for at least your own items by clicking on My Attachments. It would be nice to get both of those capabilities back though. One other capability we seem to have lost was the ability to check "reputation" content. Beyond vain reasons, this was actually a valuable tool to help judge whether not certain things were being well received and found helpful or not. We can still obviously see whether certain posts have been voted up or down but there's no way of easily finding or searching that content.

I have the chair selected instead of the table, but its right here...

BTW, since we're on the subject of rotating polylines...For those of you who don't realize this, you can not only use 3D molding polylines or convert your polylines to symbols to get this functionality but you can also convert your polylines to solids to rotate them. These methods all have their limitations but they also come with certain benefits.

Here's another trick you might like that opens up a few more possibilities. Instead of using a molding, try using a Face and the Revolve tool. This will give you a solid that can be further modified using boolean operations.

Select the table and "Move To Front Of Group". If that doesn't work, make sure the table has a fill applied. In some situations I've resorted to simply creating a new CAD block for the chairs (usually only when they're being placed under a countertop though). Good news is that this should be a whole lot easier in X9 based on some things Chief has hinted at in some other threads.

I prefer building things like that from scratch. This thread is worth checking out. There are others as well though...

That's pretty impressive. Nice work Renerabbit! I'm agreement that Chief isn't the easiest thing to model with, but as you've just demonstrated, almost anything is doable. I would also argue that for a person who becomes comfortable with Chief's way of doing things, it doesn't necessarily even take longer than using some of the other apps. I think that same model would have taken a proficient Sketchup user a good 4 hours or more to model as well. I know I personally actually prefer Chief or Sketchup. Now if only Chief would allow us to convert moldings to solids...

Hey Mike, There are many many ways to do this type of things and it all depends on what exactly you're after. These are just a few ideas but... If you're after simple CAD work for reflected ceiling plans, try multiple copying simple CAD work. I made a quick video on this a while back... You can further modify this technique by multiple copying a double line if you want to display the full width of your t-bars. Similarly you can also use polylines for a bit more 2D accuracy... If you want the grid-work for simple 3D views there are some materials in Chief's library for this. If you want more accurate 3 dimensional textures you can use the polyline method above and then convert the polylines to polyline solids. If you want accuracy for section views and 3D views but the plan view accuracy doesn't have to be perfect you can use the line method from the first video and then convert the lines to molding polylines and then asign a T shaped molding profile to the polylines and set them at grid height. You can also add an L shaped molding profile to the room for around the perimeter and then either multiple copy polyline solids for the ceiling grid or just use one large ceiling plane, solid, slab, or whatever. You can also build the required components out of solids, multiple copy them to fill the room and then use a larger solid to trim them all (kinda like I did with the polylines in the video). This would be more time consuming but would result in a very accurate 3D model. If you want a method that provides a good balance of speed and accuracy for plan views, elevation views, and 3D views, you could create a very large solid with a criss-crossed T bar grid-work, add it to your user library and then whenever you need it, drop it into the model, position it where you want it and then trim it down using boolena operations. YOu would then have to either use a similar method to place a large solid to represent all your ceiling tiles or simply use the multiple copy method to place a bunch of them using polyline solids. You could also use the method in my first video to create moldings and combine it with the method in the second video to create the grids. Then simply display the grids in plan view and only use the moldings for 3D and section views. This list could easily go on. Depending on your desired method, your desired level of accuracy, what style of ceiling grids you're using, etc. you could combine any of the above methods to get what you're after. It really just depends. I guess you would just need to prioritize and then choose the best solution but the main things I think you'll need to consider drawing.. -T bars (2D and/or 3D + plan views, perspective views, and/or cross sections) -L around the perimeter (2D and/or 3D + plan views, perspective and/or cross sections) -Ceiling tiles (2D and/or 3D + plan views, perspective and/or cross sections) -Whether or not ceiling tiles have a dropped profile or sit above the grid. And the main methods... -Lines (2D) -Molding lines (2D and 3D but 2D would be a little less accurate) -Polylines (2D) -Polyline Solids (2D and 3D) -Solids (2D and 3D) -Ceiling planes -And don't forget you can utilize room polylines in the drawing process and can actually use a room molding for the perimeter L profile. Hopefully that gets you started with a few options anyway. Here are a couple molding profiles I made a while back for this very purpose. Once downloaded the should be in your user catalog and titled "Grid L" and Grid "T". Ceiling grid profiles.calibz

Ya, it would be really nice to get this feature back. If you guys could please look into this issue, that would be great. Also, unless I'm missing something, there seems to be no way to create indentations aside from bullets or numbering??

Go here to submit things to tech support... Also, more often than not I agree with Joe but unless I'm misunderstanding him I'm going to have to disagree on this particular subject. I don't find anything wrong with using CAD based 3D objects in the plan sometimes. Symbols are great and carry some benefits, but so do primitives...namely that they can be further modified if necessary. You just have to be careful with what you're doing and keep it clean. The thing I WOULD recommend you consider though is turning layers on/off as necessary to minimize errors caused by interaction with the wrong objects when doing that modelling and/or copying and pasting to/from a blank plan for portions of that modelling as necessary.

I would strongly recommend a good PDF editor to anyone doing this type of stuff for a living...any documentation at all for that matter. Most good PDF editors will provide a watermarking option. I personally use Nitro Pro and would highly recommend it. Its well worth the money.

That item was actually a hole in your polyline solid that got moved. When that happened, I think it stayed connected to the original polyline solid it was originally created for. I found it a little differently than Kevin did though. I just took a cross section, made sure all layers were turned on and unlocked, and deleted anything that looked strange...Before deleting though, I opened the object to see what it was... I would strongly recommend you report this to tech support as there seems to be something rather buggy about the whole thing. The hole is displaying horizontally in plan view but when you select it in elevation view, the "activated" item appears to be standing vertically, and as you say it looks to be the exact same size and shape as that polyline hole you drew in elevation. Actually, when selected in a 3D view it appears as if it might actually be activating an object over in that same area. Super weird.

Here's another idea... It might take a bit of practice to get efficient at this method, but you can: 1. Convert the whole building (or at least the roof) to a symbol. 2. Drop the new symbol into a blank plan and rotate the symbol onto its side so you are working parallel with the roof plane. 3. Draw your your polyline solids using CAD Details From View to get your snap points from. If you aren't familiar with doing this, I posted a handful of videos on the subject here... 4. Convert those p-lines to solids and explode into faces so you can apply different materials to each face (if you even care enough about this). 5. Convert your new rafters to a symbol. 6. Place that new symbol into your plan, rotate it so that its the same angle as your roof, and reposition in plan and elevation views...again using CAD Detail From View to get your snap points. You can really get a pretty accurate model doing this. It really just depends on how much accuracy you want. I went through these steps for a similar situation here... Again, there are simpler ways that might cut it for you, but if you're really after accuracy this is one good way. ROOF (modified).plan

This seemed like deja vu so I double checked and sho nuff... : )

If you ever saved the camera you may be able to find it in your Project Browser under Cross Sections.

Ya, I haven't used Joe's package so I can't attest to that but I can say this... It was really my goal to try and develop something that was universally usable and modifiable. The more I've delved into Ruby and text macros, the more its become apparent that everyone needs everything to be a little different. Plus, people all think differently. This is why I set out to develop an alternative, and more specifically...take a DIY approach that teaches people how to create their own unique set up from scratch. Plus, as an added benefit, I'm hoping to help others delve into creating and modifying their own macros...in baby steps of course. I'm planning on continuing that video series here soon.

You are most certainly welcome Scott. Thanks for championing the cause.

If you want to give Chief a "fresh look at it" you'll need to take a 3D view and Convert To Symbol. Now all the old sizing info is gone and you can start again with your new version. You may just need to assign a new CAD Block.

Andrew, when you are in Program Settings are you making sure that Chief Architect is the program that is selected when you make the change? You may actually need to add Chief Architect to the program list if its not in there.

I suspect that when you drew that original polyline that you hadn't yet changed your CAD Default settings.

Curt, 2 things... 1. It works just fine for me. 2. The Number Style Setting is really only for how numbers display inside actual DBX's. It doesn't really affect the way numbers are displayed IN PLAN (although if I remember correctly there is one exception having to do with schedules maybe?? That's another subject though). What you need to change is shown in my attached image (which it looks like you are already doing. Without a plan its hard to tell whats going on.

I use open poylines for a number of reasons, but in this particular case I was trying to develop a custom solution for another user and I needed to use the length (perimeter) of the open polyline. I ended up finding a couple other ways to achieve the same end, but I still think this should work better and so I sent it in to tech support. Here's the quick video I made for them...

Okay, so I spoke too soon. There is definitely a bug and I am going to submit it to tech support. The problem actually has nothing to do with macros at all. Arrows will not properly connect to open polylines...not in elevation, and not in plan either. I thought I had used referenced macros with open polylines in the past, but I guess I was wrong. I had only used owner context macros with those open polylines. Anyway, I can get them to work temporarily but they are extremely unstable. Off to tech support I go.

To be fair, the OP was actually only using the length and so I certainly wasn't saying the angle would be "very easy". Having said that, I think I could make it happen. It would just require a global($) value in another object to set the "North" angle.

I think the problem is that you aren't actually connected to the wall or room. I actually can't get a text line with arrow to connect to a wall or room in elevation view. IOW, it's not that the macro isn't working in elevation, its that the text line with arrow isn't working.