Alaskan_Son

I can't answer for Glenn, but for me personally, when an issue comes up I usually research it and play around with it till I fully understand it. I personally played around with that setting quite a bit in the past trying to harness the power of reference sets for some unique purposes. Having said that, I can tell you this...XOR drawing in Chief doesn't seem to be particularly tied all that well to the traditional definition of the term and idea of "exclusive or". We've run into other situations in the past where using or not using XOR drawing was the solution to the problem. I think those cases in the past were roof labels and maybe some callout labels. Neither of which seemed to have any logical reason to be affected by XOR drawing. In short though, I think Chief's definition is vague because the way it behaves is a bit unpredictable. I don't think it actually works like it's supposed to and I don't think it ever has. I think that ideally it's supposed to only recognize overlapping lines (or polylines, boxes, fills, text, etc.) but for some reason layers also come into play even when there are no conflicting lines. It probably hasn't been reported much because most of us rarely if ever touch that checkbox until an otherwise unsolvable riddle arises.

We had the ability to turn off shadows on an item by item basis in another program I used for a while, and honestly I think it might be a feature worth considering in Chief.

To clarify/expand on what Perrry said… You can very easily control that via layer sets and layer settings... which many people control and operate using annotation sets. There are a plethora of different approaches and by no means does this cover all of the variations, but in brief you can either: A. Put different text and dimensions onto different layers. This way you have one group of dimensions and text for any given detail and/or scale and another group for the next detail and/or scale. B. Set your text and/or dimensions text style to be controlled by layer. This way you can change the text style in any given layer set (in Layer Display Options) to a different scale and therefore use the same text and/or dimensions for various details and/or scales. Switching to the appropriate layer set would change the text styles to the appropriate scale. C. Use a combination of the above.

I believe that unless you draw the roof baseline by snapping it to your walls all manually drawn roof planes will default to whatever plate height you have set in your Floor defaults. That's just the way it works.

I'm having a hard time finding the proper words to describe it. Just try to model the exact condition illustrated in the image Jimmy posted, or open the plan I attached and try to recreate the same situation I drew up using the same dimensions and I think you should see what I mean. Note that the small section of footing is offset (further outside the building) in both directions. The footing in your example is not offset...it is only made wider in both directions.

Thanks Mickey, I could already get the same results you show without any problem. I was just trying to help the OP model the condition illustrated in his second image. Now whether or not the footing SHOULD be that small is another subject.

The reference display is designed for use in PLAN VIEW and so it's not available in 3D.

That's a good method most of the time but Jimmy stated that he's already using break wall. Problem is that method doesn't really work when your trying to offset your footing in both directions from the corner like in the example though. And Shane, just FYI in case you didn't realize it, you don't even need to use that foundation offset number. You can simply select the wall and use the little edit handles on the edge of the footing to resize just the footing.

Not a video, but here's one way to extend the chain itself... 1. Drop the fixture into the plan, take a 3D overview, delete surfaces to remove the top piece, and convert to symbol. 2. Delete surfaces again, this time to remove everything except the top piece and some of the chain, and convert that to a 2nd symbol. 3. Drop the 2 new symbols into a plan, position them correctly, and then convert that to a symbol.

This is a tricky one. The challenge is creating a footing that's offset in both directions from the corner of the main foundation walls. You can make it work okay in plan view using an additional short section of wall and manipulating the footing, but it looks bad in 3D. Unfortunately, the best I can come up with for this situation is simply using a slab with a solid fill (background color) and invisible line style along with a polyline for the little footing perimeter. Example is attached. Footing.plan

Might be a better way, and its not a condition I've ever had to draw up, but what comes to mind is to set the foundation offset for your main walls to the width of your insulation then go down to the foundation level, select the Exterior Room, Make Room Molding Polyline, and then make the molding the height and width of your insulation.

Sorry, hopefully you hadn't gotten your hopes up too high.

Aww man! That's too bad. Maybe I should remove my "tip" from the Tips & Techniques section. And maybe you're right about the resolution thing, I don't know, and I also never realized that custom line types get added to the list. Thanks. I do know this...I almost never use custom line types and I definitely don't have them in my template plans so the trick works for me anyway. Sorry it doesn't work for you. Its an awesome little timesaver for me.

There are a number of methods and various ways these could be combined, but the steps I would recommend you consider... -Group selecting walls and possibly removing some walls from selection. You can easily group select by switching to a wall tool and shift selecting. -Checking or unchecking Retain Wall Framing (Structure tab). -Using the Build Framing tool for only selected walls.

Those toggles would be specific to your system and not the plan so they won't show when we open your plan. I'm just guessing here, but did you perhaps toggle your angle snaps off? Edit>Snap Settings>Angle Snaps...

...or to actually fix the problem, straighten out this roof edge...

Thank you Scott, that's kinda what I suspected. Just realized there's a simple solution to that problem though... Put those 2 walls on their own layer and set the line style to the blank line style in the necessary layer sets. That should probably solve that for a good handful of similar situations. EDIT: Just realized that this solution still doesn't totally solve the problem as it only works very well if all adjacent walls/ceilings have normal line settings or else the corners disappear. Also doesn't help the line drawn rendering style at all. So, it may work for a lot of situations but not all. P.S. Just a little tidbit I discovered recently...when you want to select the blank line style, just scroll all the way to the very bottom of the dropdown list. This will put the blank linestyle at the very top. Super quick way to get to it.

Good video Scott. Thank you. A couple quick questions and comments... 1. Could you possibly attach a sample of your plan? You only showed standard render views in your video and I'm curious about the specifics as well as what the vector views look like. I tried the roof cuts wall at bottom method before making my video but the problem I was having was all the extraneous lines (which is really what I was trying to address with the somewhat messy method I was using). 2. In my defense, I didn't actually use any p-solids, just modified wall definitions and I was only trying to help create cleaner interior renderings. I have to do a lot of interior detail renderings myself and those extraneous lines can really be a big deal. On a side note, the multiple walls method I utilized whether or not the best solution for this particular instance is really a useful technique for a lot of circumstances. I use it for custom windows, shadow boxes/niches, and other situations where wall connections otherwise cause those extra lines some of us really need to get rid of. And actually, P.S. it's more accurate in some situations where drywall and/or sheathing continues but the actual wall framing does not, which occurs in some of those roof cuts wall at bottom scenarios. Actually, for the most accurate model there's a good chance I might combine the 2 techniques. Anyway, I agree that the roof cuts wall method at bottom is probably the way to go...IF I can see evidence of some way it can be done without those extra lines.

Yes you can. Just use the triangle shaped edit handles located at either end of the stair section...

Good tips Joe. I would add that depending on the situation and desired accuracy a person can also just utilize a Wall Covering for item #2. As I'm sure you know, its a little less accurate but also a little quicker and easier, plus it doesn't have the potential issues at exterior corners.

Good points Jerry.

I prefer modelling things as close as possible to the way they will actually be constructed so I'd say 2 walls in most circumstances. Not sure I can give you a lot of reasons per se...just feels better to me and I think it also offers a little better control.

...if using the Material Painter you'll probably want to do so in either Room or Plan mode.

Post the plan for a quick answer, but my initial guesses would be... A. Your "Framing, Deck Framing" layer is turned off. B. You have "Automatically regenerate deck framing" unchecked in the deck room dbx. C. The structure settings for your deck are incorrect and there is no framing to display.

Just sent you a PM Johnny, feel free to give me a call.