Alaskan_Son

I absolutely agree with this is well. I don't think the layout method is slow, but it's much less flexible and versatile than what we would have with plan view cameras or at least ref sets being tied to layer sets.

Absolutely agree with Joe. If you've named your pages in such a way that you know what they are, you can essentially do the whole thing right in the plan as long as the layout is actually open by using your project browser. Double click on the layout page in the project browser and then double click on the view in layout. You're only in layout for a split second. Honestly don't see how it could get much quicker than that. You can also even add a bunch of temporary/throwaway pages at the end of your layout for the sole purpose of creating an index of sorts during the rough design phase. Actually, you could even put a whole bunch on one single page by just downsizing the layout box and using the label as your guide. Definitely quite a few possibilities though.

The following is a quote from some IRC commentaries I recently read... "The code now specifies that the required net clear opening dimensions & the method for measuring when the door is opened to the 90 degree position. The minimum net opening dimensions are now consistent with the door requirements for means of egress & accessibility for persons with disabilities in the IBC." If the intent of the code is indeed to fall more in line with accessibility requirements, which I believe it probably is just based off the following 2 lines... "The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling..." and "Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort" ...than I can very easily see how a double door with an astrigal would not meet that requirement. Does the device require special knowledge? Maybe and maybe not, but is it a bit of an obstruction and does it require a least a little special knowledge and definitely some effort (especially if you're elderly or in a wheelchair)? I think the answer is YES. I can see that its a bit of a gray area but if I'm an inspector, I imagine I might not let a 5ft. double door fly.

Ya. This should really be reported to tech support. I don't think it should behave this way. And just in case you were wondering... I'm quite sober. I was just being silly : )

Might anudda way, but me thinks you hafsta tricking Chief... 1. Checks this box... 2. Change your layer color. 3. Go back in and unchecking that box 4. Change your layer color back. Last 2 steps are really optional. Might take a bit longer in some circumstances but could be a lot faster in others.

Glenn pretty much hit on the most important points, and good advice about spacing the top and bottom evenly. I'm usually pretty good about figuring out stuff like this. That one definitely never occurred to me though. Kudos Glenn! The one thing I would add to Glenn's list of truss editing tips though would be this... You can get pretty much ANY truss configuration you want manually by using these tools... -Trim Object(s) -Extend Object(s) ...Both of which work for truss framing members just like they do with CAD objects -Join and Lap Ends -Join and Mitre Ends Anyway, just wanted to throw those additional ideas out there before I check out for the night.

Jacquilla, I won't get into the rest of the plan, just want to help you deal with the dilemma at hand. Your main problem is right here... All your layers are main layers which means you can only dimension to the one side of your dimension layer, the center of the wall, and the outside edges of the wall. What your wall definition should probably look like is this... Now you can dimension to both sides of the main layer as well as the center and outside edges.

I know you do Scott, and I appreciate you as well good sir. The points are a fairly minor detail although they do give a certain sense of satisfaction for an oftentimes thankless and underpaying job. My real point was that AT LEAST 3 people (judging by how rarely people distribute points I'd venture to guess the real number was much higher) either didn't take the time to read or comprehend my post (which wasn't all that complicated by the way) or they just chose to ignore it (pretty inconsiderate in a forum situation if you ask me). The points are just evidence to suggest the time I took writing it up may have been a waste of time is all. It's really no wonder so many people have such a problem attaining any sort of mastery of this program. If a person can't read and comprehend the forum, the manual, or the help files then they're stuck learning from videos. It would take countless hours, days, and weeks of watching videos to gain what you could learn in a few hours reading and taking time to comprehend what it is you're reading. I've noticed over the years that people seem to "understand" better when watching videos but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they never really grasp the concept though unless they've trudged through and figured it out through hard earned first hand experience getting it done or by reading to comprehend. When a person reads something and puts forth the effort to really comprehend what the writer is saying, they're making a conscious decision to invest in learning something. They are very purposefully learning and it's more likely to stick. A video is very passive...you can much more easily fade in and out of consciousness watching and you don't have to put any real effort into learning. I've noticed that many people who require videos are some of the first to forget how to do it. They can't explain how it's done without pointing somebody else to another video and they're constantly re-watching videos because they don't remember how. I'm starting to ramble so I'll be done. It's just kind of frustrating to go out of your way to help and then realize people aren't even reading it.

Yep. That's exactly why I spelled it out in the post just before yours. It's funny, you got 2 points for making a video that just repeated exactly what I had just finished saying but I got nuthin'. I'm very seriously starting to question people's ability to read and comprehend anymore. If there's no video people just can't seem to understand. Not too encouraging...I probably shouldn't have wasted my time. But yes...great idea Perry, thanks for bringing it up.

If I understand correctly what you're trying to do... 1. Open an old plan that still has those wall types and draw one short section of each. 2. Open a new plan (this should open your template plan) and copy/paste those 2 wall types into your plan. 3. Delete the walls. 4. Click on File>Templates>Save As Template. You should be good to go. You can also... 1. Open an old plan that still has those wall definitions and File>Export>Export Wall Definitions. 2. Open a new plan (this should open your template plan). 3. File>Import>Import Wall Definitions. 4. Click on File>Templates>Save As Template. This option may give you some unwanted wall types though as well. I would personally just recommend the first option. Or... 1. Open an old plan that still has those wall definitions. 2. Draw a short section of each wall type (if they aren't already in use), select them, and click Add To Library (in the edit tool bar) 3. Open a new plan (this should open your template plan). 4. Select the walls from your library one at a time and draw a short section of each in your plan. 5. Delete the walls. 6. Click on File>Templates>Save As Template. The last 4 steps are optional and only necessary if you want the walls available in your drop down list. If do as Perry suggested and add them to your library, any such walls will be available to easily select and drop into ANY plan in the future. In other words, using the first 2 methods I spelled out above, the wall types would only be available in your template plan whereas placing directly into the library, they would be available to use in other plans as well. And BTW, these are all options already mentioned by the guys above. I was just trying to clarify and elaborate a bit.

In addition to using Transform/Replicate, here are 3 more solutions... 1. Edit>Edit Behaviors>Rotate/Resize About Current Point. Now drop a temporary point at one end of your arc and rotate it as you wish. 2. Use the arc's dbx. You'll need to lock the appropriate end of your arc and then use the Chord Angle to rotate your arc... 3. Just rotate using the normal rotate handle. You can then re-position the arc by grabbing it by the appropriate end edit handle using your center mouse button (essentially tuns any edit handle into a move handle).

Looks to me like you accidentally added or edited that one entry manually. Look at the start and end times. It says you've been working on that for 6 straight months.

Michael, Is there a reason you don't just use the landscape orientation and rotate the layout box? This is what I think I would do. Also, something else that may or may not come in handy...try unchecking "Rotate With Plan" in the appropriate dimension defaults. I think the first idea I mentioned above is the best solution though.

Try either... A. Using Custom Countertops (which is what I normally do myself) and control the display via layer settings or... B. Set the line style for your cabinets in one of your layer sets (maybe create a new "Countertop Layout" layer set) to the "invisible" or "blank" line style... This way only your countertops will actually show.

Larry, I took a quick look at your plan but it appears the version you attached had already been changed so I couldn't test with your original settings. What I think was going on though was a result of your using one of Chief's tools incorrectly...specifically, the Slab Footing tool. That tool isn't a normal wall type and was designed to build monolithic slab foundations with (which your foundation really isn't). I think you should be using an entirely different wall type, probably a normal foundation wall. I think the program is just getting confused when you try to paint the wall and was doing a rebuild of sorts to those walls which were reverting to their original purpose (the footings for a monolithic slab foundation) and therefore the attempted change resulted in a mono slab. Hard to say what exactly was happening without the original plan though. That being said, Perry was right that you should still be using an exterior layer. What you were trying to do was essentially paint the footing which as far as I know isn't even possible except right here... and regardless wouldn't have resulted in an accurate model...you weren't going to build that foundation with stucco were you ?

Dan, Make sure your Foundation layer is turned on. It controls the display of anything and everything on floor zero. Hope that helps.

There are a lot of things to consider when using walls in creative ways (like you have for the shower glass) and I don't want to get into all of it, but for starters... Try getting yourself familiar with the Edit Wall Layer Intersections Tool. Specifically, for the plan in question, select the 2x6 wall, click on EWLI and then drag the MAIN LAYER back so that its flush with the inside face of your glass wall. Hope that helps.

2 additional tips: 1) You can use a WMR or you can also use a Custom Backsplash. The WMR works well for most situations but a CB has some benefits of its own. For one thing it automatically cuts out for cabinetry and appliances but it also (and perhaps more importantly) only covers a single story of any given wall (whereas a WMR will cover the entire plane top to bottom including sections of the wall on other floors). You'll find that both techniques will require a little modification to the polyline from time to time depending on what exactly it is that you are using it for but it's definitely a handy trick. 2) Slightly off subject, but in addition to what Joe has suggested using it for, you can also use the same technique to produce polyline solids in order to create additional finish layers that; A. Display properly at outside corners (WMRs DO NOT). B. Can extend beyond the wall area onto adjacent structural components. C. Don't display the extra vector lines that often times take so much effort to deal with when creating rooms that span multiple levels, split levels, and multiple wall types/heights. D. Allow for various wall covering options...all in the same plan...that can be toggled on and off via layer settings. E. Allow for other customizations and more stability than WMR's often do. ...I'm sure there are others. Note: You can also use additional single (or multiple) layered walls to achieve much of the above and they will automatically cut out for windows, doors etc., but they come with a host of their own challenges and limitations. Anyway, just wanted to throw all that out there because those particular methods have really come in handy for me.

Thanks for the kind words Joe. Here are the direct youtube links for those videos (part 1 and part 2)... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7-aYs2jmoo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1EerA1D_gIs clfry, I would also recommend you take a look at this thread if you're going to be changing a bunch of CAD blocks. There are a few things in that thread and in the related video that I think might come in handy for you. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60C5mFXNUu4

Like the guys above said, I don't know of any way to get what you're looking for automatically. For that we would need Chief to give us access to some additional attributes. Having said that, there may still be a better way for you than creating the labels manually...What you'll need is an object that has a width and depth attribute. There are a handful of such objects you could use such as cabinets or shelves, but you could basically use any symbol. You could also use a CAD Box (or similar) which has a width and height attribute but the one problem with those is that they don't have labels so you would have to use a "referenced" macro instead of an "owner" macro. The owner context macros are just a little more stable. One major benefit of referenced macros though is the ability to control the label display on an item by item basis (a capability I keep hoping Chief will add to any and all labels ). Anyway, once you decide which object you want to use, you can create a custom macro (either referenced or owner context) using the width and depth (or height) attributes and place that into the label or text box with arrow. You can then simply place that object along with its label into any room, resize as necessary and your dimensions will update accordingly. At least that way you don't have to enter the dimensions manually and if you decide to modify the room size all you have to do is resize your object. You'll obviously have to play around with the various options to see what works best for you, but a few more quick notes before I sign out for the day... -I'm not at my computer to test but you should be able to place other global room macros into the label for that object so you can have all you labels in one box if you want them that way. I'm not sure whether or not a global macro placed into a text box with arrow will work the same way or not but I suspect it does. -I would probably place that object on a unique layer. If you're going to use your custom macro in the label, the object will need to be displayed so I would probably use the blank line style for that layer and give the object a transparent fill. You could always use a visible line style for another layer set so that you could switch to that layer set when resizing your objects. -If you use a referenced macro and a text box with an arrow, I believe you can actually turn the object's layer off so you could avoid the transparent fill and blank line style step. -You'll probably need to work on a fairly custom macro to get the dimensions to display in your desired format which is a different discussion entirely that I don't want to get into but hopefully the above ideas can at least get you started.

Here's a quick video I made for Johnny a while back. You might find a useful tidbit in there. Also, in addition to the tools mentioned above and the tools in the video, bear in mind that Make Parallel/Perpendicular and Point To Point Move are your friend when it comes to rotating things. Have a good day everyone. P.S. Nice illustration Chop! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3dxj-Ec-pgY

Get yourself familiar with custom muntins. Start here... 1. Take an elevation view of your window. 2. Draw some lines where you want your muntins. 3. Group select those lines and block them. 4. Select the window and click the little Load Muntins tool... 5. If it doesn't look quite right, click Unload Muntins and make changes as necessary.

Ya, I think I agree. I would probably use the blocked schedule technique myself or the schedule converted to text before anything else. Just thought I'd throw another option out there though.

If you're not already using this technique for something else you can also keep both schedules live by treating one group of cabinets completely normally and then individually shift selecting and blocking the second group of cabinets one by one. . For the second group of cabinets you would need to open the Architectural Block Specification dbx (again for each individual cabinet block either one by one or by group selecting), check Treat As One Object and then under Include In Schedule, select cabinet. When you drop the second schedule into the plan, under Objects To Include, only check "Other". You'll probably also want to change the label prefix for that second schedule if you're using callouts and depending on what you're doing you may need to mess with the label for your Architectural Block either manually or using macros. Oh ya...also, if you're displaying the labels as callouts you'll probably want to suppress the labels for those cabinets (as opposed to the architectural block) in the second group (either before blocking or by selecting the block and then hitting tab) and then making sure your Architectural Blocks, Labels layer is turned on. You would need to suppress the labels because BOTH the Cabinets, Labels layer and Architectural Blocks, Labels layers would need to be turned on if you want callouts displayed for both schedules.

Not at my computer to test but as long as it hasn't been fixed, there's a somewhat useful "bug" that may help you... 1. Check Include In Schedule for only one group of your cabinets and drop a schedule into you plan that is set to only include objects from that one room. 2. Once that schedule is generated, shift select and block it. This should "freeze" that schedule in time...this is the "bug" I mentioned. 3. Uncheck Include In Schedule for the first group of cabinets and then check Include In Schedule for the second group. 4. Drop another schedule into the plan set to include only objects from that one room. You'll need to manually update that first schedule if you make any changes by blocking that second schedule and repeating the necessary steps but I think it's a better solution that the only alternatives I know of...creating a CAD Detail From View or converting the schedule to text, neither of which can be updated and would need to be recreated after any changes. I know it's not perfect but hopefully it helps. We could definitely use a lot more flexibility when it comes to schedules.