Alaskan_Son

If you're talking about "Use Active Layer Set" then the answer is no. All that does is tells your anno set not to change TO any specific layer set. For example, if you're using your Electrical Anno Set (which you've set to activate your Electrical Layer Set) and then you switch to an Anno Set that's set to Use Active Layer Set, you will still be in your Electrical Layer Set. If you make any changes to your Electrical Layer Set and then click on your Electrical Anno Set again, the changes will not revert or anything like that. They will remain changed. Remember that were talking about layer sets and layer control here, not anno sets. Anno sets don't control your layers or layer sets. All they do is OPTIONALLY activate the desired layer set. They also decide various active notation defaults but that's another matter entirely and is unrelated to the subject at hand. If on the other hand you were indeed talking about using "Active Defaults", that is nothing more than an anno set buffet of sorts where you can select various notation defaults that you would like activated. You can also select your active layer set here if you like, but again, this tool is really set up to control the notation side of things. When its comes to layer sets and layer control "Active Defaults" is essentially the same as anno sets but in a pick and choose sort of smorgasbord style.

Hmm...very strange. I'm going to test again when I get back to the office but for some reason I couldn't get it to work. Can you do me a favor in the meantime and try testing with less than a whole number? Use the example in the OP maybe (.8). I wonder if perhaps my problem is that you need to start with a zero (0.8)?

Try doing the same thing to modify an object attribute and see what you get.

To expand upon Mark's suggestion there are three things that come into play that I believe you can utilize to get a little closer to what you are looking for… 1. The offset 2. Extrude inside vs. extrude outside 3. The direction of your actual molding profile ( right facing, left facing, facing up, or facing down)

While we are on the subject… This particular macro would require using multiplication. I can't seem to get the "*" operator to work in a custom macro so I've ended up using "/" and the inverse of the desired number. What am I missing? I thought "*" was Ruby's multiplication operator but apparently not.

Unfortunately Chief doesn't currently allow us to access/manipulate the values of their predefined macros so your only solution will probably be to create a custom macro using TMM (Text Macro Management) which is a little easier said than done if you're not familiar with it. This particular macro shouldn't be too complex and if I wasn't so busy I might just donate the time but I'm pretty swamped right now so if you'd like me to write one for you I could probably do so for a small fee. Just send me a PM if you are interested. Maybe someone else will be willing to donate their time though… I guess we'll see. You might also check with Joe Carrick, he might already have a macro that works for you as part of his macro a month club or as a standalone macro package that he has for sale.

Where did you get that idea from? If I actually ever did such a thing I might truly apologize. I don't believe I ever once did such a thing though and if I did I think you should back up your claim and show me.

I can't argue with you there. If you need me to clarify or explain anything please don't hesitate to ask. And BTW, you really don't need to be so discourteous and insulting. The truth is that you simply USE annosets differently than myself and many others do. I understand how and why you, Scott, and Joe do what you do and you don't see me hurling insults even though I think guys such as yourself are actually limiting yourselves with your very rigid approach. I simply choose not to use the same approach and I have many very good reasons. I've tried explaining to you in the past but I honestly think you just don't listen and choose not to try and comprehend anyone's else's side. I can assure you that I understand anno sets as well as perhaps any of you and nothing you have suggested is anything new to me. Using your approach would not be an improvement for me personally. It would require WAY too many anno sets and would slow down and disrupt my groove substantially. I know that you've made anno sets work really well for YOU and that's great, but you could really be more considerate and realize that many of those of us who do things differently do so for good reason and not because our understanding is inferior to yours. The fact is that the way we design with and utilize Chief is just totally different than the way you do and I wish you could just accept that and leave the belittling comments at the door.

No it most certainly will not. As far as the relationship between anno sets and layer sets go...You can OPTIONALLY have the anno set automatically change your active layer set. That's all. Nothing more. Annosets obviously do a lot more than that when it comes to notations (which is their real strength) but as far as layer sets go, anno sets don't bring any new functionality to the table. You can obviously do as Perry is suggesting and set up a crapload of layer sets (which he controls via anno sets for whatever reason) for every conceivable circumstance if you can easily remember which is which and remember to change back and forth between them. I personally find a number of other methods far easier and more fluid and being able to both "save" and "reset" layer sets would make the process that much easier. Thanks for bringing this issue back up again Rashid. Here's hoping Chief will bring some improvements to this area.

While I can agree with the general spirit of this suggestion, I would take this advice with a grain of salt and proceed with caution. The last thing you want to do is get emotionally attached to and deeply invested in a design that is structurally, financially, or otherwise unrealistic or unfeasible. Its really super easy to overlook some minor detail that can require completely altering the design. However you decide to proceed, I hope it all goes well for you : )

I agree 120%. I've used all sorts of various temporary/drawing/trash layer sets, copied layer sets, and the all on and all off layer sets to allow layer control "on-the-fly" but it's really a bit of a pain, especially when you forget to switch layer sets. The fact I use typically use "Make Copy" when sending to layout make the whole thing a little easier for me but I'm all for some improvements in this area. It could be a lot easier.

3 part answer... 1. I don't know of any way a person can get arrows to automatically change. If you want different size arrows then I think you have to place multiple instances of those objects for the desired views or layer sets. 2. Just to clarify, technically speaking nothing can be set to automatically resize by just switching between anno sets. In all cases, its the change in layer sets that initiates the resize. Some people might associate this change with the anno set, but that's only because they've set their anno set to change their layer set. 3. It wasn't part of the OP's question, but what you CAN do is utilize the full potential of anno sets and set up your desired arrow definitions in there. Once you switch anno sets, any new dimensions or text you place will have the desired arrow size. Using this approach though you would most likely be placing different text boxes and dimensions for the various scales or views instead of re-using existing and controlling the sizes with layer settings.

This is how cameras have always worked. They won't display in color as long as the camera view is open. Save that view and close it and the color will display in plan.

I've never noticed whether or not cross section lines can be displayed in layout or not and I'm away from my computer so I couldn't test but I'll take your guys' word for it for now...I'll try to remember and test it later. Anyway, it's a bit of a workaround, but if you need cross section lines displayed, I'm betting you can unlock the layer in plan, group select and cut them, and paste hold position. I'm pretty sure this will turn them to standard CAD. Of course they would no longer be live.

Yes. That particular issue has been fixed.

Close but no, there are actually 2 groups of boolean tools. Just a very quick explanation but they are...-POLYLINE Union, Intersection, and Subtraction which only work on polylines based objects created in the same view and -SOLID Union, Intersection, and Subtraction which work for solids drawn in any view.

I think you found a new bug Chopsaw and I believe you should report it to tech support right away. They recently fixed some problems with p-solids that didn't behave properly once rotated. It looks like there's a problem with rotated solids now. Until its fixed... Instead of rotating your solid, either rotate the polyline solid before converting or build your solid at an angle. Once the solid is rotated it won't work. This is NOT normal behavior though. PLEASE submit it.

This thread might be worth a quick look... https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/8921-what-is-a-solid/?fromsearch=1 I'll take a look at your plan when I get back to the office. Re: sun in Wasilla, it's still bright enough to get around all night but sun is dropping below horizon at about 11:20.

Video sound was just fine and although the screen I'm currently using is too small to see a few things, it seemed pretty easy to follow what you're doing. Good job. Can you post that sample plan?

I do basically the same thing Alan does except that I would typically measure the exterior as well for use as a control/proof/double checking mechanism. In other words, I like to go back-and-forth making sure all numbers agree with each other. Sometimes they don't and I either… A. Discover I made a mistake with one of the numbers or presumed assembly thicknesses. B. Find a hidden chase or other construction abnormality. And like Joe, I would typically start with the exterior walls (or basic permiter shape if it's only one area of the house) and go from there.

Please re-read my post above. It's actually very simple and it does exactly what you are looking for in about three seconds time. Yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat sometimes but I believe the method that I mentioned is the correct way and that it would do you a lot of good to understand it. It is the key to controlling pitches with auto roofs.

That's a very good idea Mr. 86. A pony wall is another very good potential method for creating wainscoting. It would solve the corner transition issue caused by material regions and would invite a number of other potential benefits as well. Good tip.

The Export Picture dbx in Premier has the same option under Image Properties.

I don't understand what the problem here is. Simply select the 2 side walls of the garage (those walls are the ones that control the pitch), click on the roof tab, and delete the "(D)" from the pitch field. That D is essentially the same thing as checking "Use Default". In fact, if you ever want to change a number back to the default all you have to do is enter a D in the field and it will automatically display the default number. Anyway, once you remove the D or add a number different than the default, the pitch for the roof plane starting on that wall will then be controlled by the new setting.

In my experience this is a nice sounding idea that a lot of well intentioned people think will save time/money or make things easier but it never works and isn't even remotely worth the effort. No doubt people the world over will keep trying it but it's really an excersize in futility IMO.